Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Health communications beat a significant character in shaping folk's decisions to employ in specific health behaviours. Most
health messages can be framed in terms of either the benefits of engaging in the recommended conduct (gain-framed
content) or the costs of not engaging in the conduct (loss-framed content. Message framing - presenting equal data in terms
of either gains or losses - has proven to be an efficient, theoretically based health communication scheme substantiated by
observational investigation (Rothman, Bartels, Wlaschin, & Salovey, 2006; Rothman, Kelly, Hertel, & Salovey, 2003.
Unanswered questions stay, however, regarding the consumption of content framing for encouraging a progressively
popular kind of prevention conduct: vaccination. In the existing survey, we examined the comparative potency of gain -
versus loss-framed messages in promoting approval of a vaccine to forbid transmission by human papillomavirus (HPV) - a
virus that is accountable for nearly all cases of cervical cancer (Bosch, Lorincz, Muñoz, Meijer, & Shah, 2002. In addition,
past studies have suggested that framed messages are more efficient among some individuals than among others. We thus
sought to describe factors within the content recipient that might do to conservative framing effects.
Fewer than 20 years ago, scientists identified HPV transmission as the underlying reason of cervical cancer. (Abood
2002)Well over 100 subtypes of HPV have been identified, many of which taint the genital parcel via intimate infection
(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Aiken 1991)Indeed, HPV is the almost popular sexually transmitted
An estimated women will get acquired HPV by age 50. Infection with “low-risk” HPV subtypes (6 and 11) can head to genital
warts, whereas transmission with “risky” types (almost usually 16 and 18) can ensue in cervical cancer. HPV Subtypes 16
and 18 are believed to be accountable for over 701261f all cervical cancers. (American Cancer Society 2006)
Although most HPV infections clear-cut upward on their own, when left undiscovered and raw, relentless HPV infections can
finally advance to cervical cancer. (Baseman 2005)Early sensing of irregular cellular changes with Pap examination has
significantly reduced the incidence of cervical cancer in the United States. (Bosch & Lorincz 2002)
Nevertheless, in 2006 an estimated 9,710 U. S. women will be diagnosed with intrusive cervical cancer and 3,700 women
will perish from the disease. Prophylactic HPV vaccines have been developed and will be accessible to the world within the
Clinical trials have establish the vaccines to be secure, well-tolerated, and extremely efficient at preventing HPV
transmission and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Given that the HPV vaccines will be accessible in the nearby future, it is
both significant and timely to probe the potency of health communications aimed at promoting their approval. (Carver 1994)
What can past investigation and hypothesis say us about whether a gain- or loss-framed content should head to high
approval of the HPV vaccine? Only two past studies have investigated consumption of content framing in promoting
vaccination conduct. (Chaiken 1980)One survey examined the effects of framed messages on influenza vaccination rates in
The new survey used gain - versus loss-framed messages to promote immunization for a fictional disease among college
students. (Higgins 1997) Neither survey demonstrated a reward of one chassis over the new, although methodological
limitations (e. g., reduced empirical command, consumption of a fictional disease) could partly account for the deficiency of
There are, however, hypothetical reasons for expecting differential effects of gain- and loss-framed messages aimed at
motivating vaccination conduct. Prospect hypothesis suggests that folk are mostly more ready to go risks when exposed to
the unfavorable consequences that could ensue from a resolution but lean to be much danger averse when exposed to the
constructive consequences.
Drawing on outlook hypothesis, Rothman and Salovey (1997) proposed that matching the chassis of a content to the
character of health conduct being promoted can increase the persuasiveness of the content. This framework rests upon the
assumption that the success of a framed content depends upon the extent to which the recommended conduct is perceived
to affect danger. (Idson 2004)Because folk are comparatively available to taking risks when faced with prospective losses,
loss-framed appeals should be more efficient than gain-framed appeals in promoting disease sensing behaviours (e. g. ,
mammography, HIV examination) - behaviours that can be viewed as dangerous because the examination could disclose a
In contrast, because folk lean to avert risks in the cheek of prospective gains, gain-framed appeals should be more efficient
than loss-framed appeals in promoting preventative health behaviours (e. g. , exercising, using sunscreen)-behaviours
typically viewed as involving negligible danger because their finish is to forbid disease. (Kahneman 1979)
An amount of observational studies back this abstract framework. Thus, because vaccination is a preventative health
conduct that involves negligible danger, predictions derived from outlook hypothesis would indicate that a gain-framed
content should head to greater approval of the HPV vaccine than should a loss-framed content. (Lee 2004)
Yet, there are too reasons for thinking that a loss-framed charm may be more productive than a gain-framed charm in
fostering vaccine approval. (Maheswaran 1990)First, although vaccination is a preventative health conduct, it may be viewed
as dangerous for concern that injecting an international content into the system could present original harms quite than offer
security. (Maner in press) For instance, despite evidence to the different, some parents are unsure to vaccinate their
children against measles - mumps - rubella (MMR) because they think that the MMR vaccine causes autism. (Mann &
Sherman 2004)
Even the very act of receiving an injection could be seen as dangerous in the sense that it mostly involves some degree of
pain and soreness. (McCaul 2002)Furthermore, beliefs that the vaccine might not be efficient in preventing HPV
For these reasons, a loss-framed content may evoke greater stake in vaccination than a gain-framed content. Researchers
have hypothesized that the comparative effectiveness of gain- as well as loss-framed messages may differ with the level of
effort required to carry out the preventive health behaviour. (Millar 2000)Purposely, it has been recommended that loss-
framed messages might surpass gain-framed messages in inspiring disease prevention behaviours-for instance vaccination-
Earlier studies supporting the benefit of gain- over loss-framed messages have alerted approximately solely on preventive
health behaviours that necessitate regular, repeated act to be effective. Whether these results be relevant to vaccination-a
behavior that normally requires fewer effort than a lot of other precautionary health behaviours-is unknown. (Rothman 1999)
Earlier research decides that message framing effects frequently depend on uniqueness of the message recipient. One
characteristic that serves as a significant mediator of message framing effects is individual involvement with the subject
addressed in the message. (Rothman 2006) Steady with evidence that personal participation motivates individuals to
develop a message more deeply; framing effects are time after time originated when a message is supposed to be highly
For instance, few researchers found that a gain-framed message arguing sun protection led to superior interest in sunscreen
use rather than a loss-framed message except only amongst participants who were anxious about skin cancer (i.e., women).
On the other hand, under conditions of small relevance, framing be likely to have modest effect. Therefore, in the current
study we will predict that framing effects, should they be observed at all, would be found mainly among those who perceive
Theory as well as research also proposes that framing effects may be restrained by individual dissimilarities in approach-
avoidance motivation. (Villa 2005)While a number of people are particularly sensitive to reward cues as well as look for
move toward positive results, others are further responsive to threat cues as well as are motivated to avoid negative
Some proofs propose that individuals may be further receptive to messages which agree with their motivational point of
reference. (Winer 2006) Purposely, gain-framed messages likely to be mainly effective for approach-oriented individuals,
while loss-framed messages likely to be most efficient for avoidance-oriented individuals. (Zimet 2005)
Therefore, we predicted that framing effects would be observed most obviously when the frame of the health message was
African American feminine undergraduate students (n = 127) recruited from Florida State University participated for class
Participants will be running in groups of 2 to 10 individuals. After a short creation, participants will be required to finish a pre-
manipulation study that will be assessed demographic data, intimate conduct, and STI story. Next they will be given 5 min to
learn a 2-page pamphlet that provided data about HPV transmission (its prevalence, infection, diagnosis, handling, danger
factors, association with cervical cancer) and the upcoming HPV vaccines.
Measures
Participants will be arbitrarily assigned to learn either a gain- or loss-framed content about the HPV vaccine Number of life
intimate partners and frequency of using STI security will be assessed on the pre-manipulation study. All new variables
included in the analyses will be assessed on the post-manipulation study, after participants will be exposed to the health
information.
Top of Form
1. * Email
2. * Phone
1. * Submit your essay question:
References/Bibliography
Abood, D. A., Coster, D. C., Mullis, A. K., & Black, D. R. (2002). Evaluation of a “loss-framed” minimal intervention to
increase mammography utilization among medically un- and under-insured women. Cancer Detection and Prevention, 26,
394–400.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
American Cancer Society (2006). Detailed guide: Cervical cancer. Retrieved August 12, 2005, from
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/CRI_2_3x.asp?dt=8
Apanovitch, A. M., McCarthy, D., & Salovey, P. (2003). Using message framing to motivate HIV testing among low-income,
Baseman, J. G., & Koutsky, L. A. (2005). The epidemiology of human papillomavirus infections.Journal of Clinical
Bosch, F. X., Lorincz, A., Muñoz, N., Meijer, C. J., & Shah, K. V. (2002). The causal relation between human papillomavirus
Capolongo, M. J., DiBonaventura, M., & Chapman, G. B. (2006). Physician vaccinate thyself: Why influenza vaccination
rates are higher among clinicians than nonclinicians. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 31, 288–296.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending
reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2004). Genital HPV infection: CDC fact sheet. Retrieved February 20, 2005,
from http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in
Gerend, M. A., Lee, S. C., & Shepherd, J. E. (in press). Predictors of human papillomavirus vaccination acceptability among
Harper, D. M., Franco, E. L., Wheeler, C., Ferris, D. G., Jenkins, D., Schuind, A., et al. (2004). Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-
like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: A randomised
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Imagining how you'd feel: The role of motivational experiences from
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
Kiene, S. M., Barta, W. D., Zelenski, J. M., & Cothran, D. L. (2005). Why are you bringing up condoms now? The effect of
message content on framing effects of condom use messages.Health Psychology, 24, 321–326.
Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and
Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing
Maner, J. K., & Gerend, M. A. (in press). Motivationally selective risk judgments: Do fear and curiosity boost the boons or the
Mann, T., Sherman, D., & Updegraff, J. (2004). Dispositional motivations and message framing: A test of the congruency
McCaul, K. D., Johnson, R. J., & Rothman, A. J. (2002). The effects of framing and action instructions on whether older
Meyers-Levy, J., & Maheswaran, D. (2004). Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types
Millar, M. G., & Millar, K. U. (2000). Promoting safe driving behaviours: The influences of message framing and issue
Moscicki, A. B. (2005). Impact of HPV infection in adolescent populations. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, S3–9.
Muñoz, N., Bosch, F. X., de Sanjosé, S., Herrero, R., Castellsagué, X., Shah, K. V., et al. (2003). Epidemiologic
classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 518–
527.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central
and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69–81.
Robberson, M. R., & Rogers, R. W. (1988). Beyond fear appeals: Negative and positive persuasive appeals to health and
Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., & Salovey, P. (2006). The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to
promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56, S202–220.
Rothman, A. J., Kelly, K. M., Hertel, A., & Salovey, P. (2003). Message frames and illness representations: Implications for
interventions to promote and sustain healthy behavior. In L. D.Cameron & H.Leventhal (Eds.), The self-regulation of health
Rothman, A. J., Martino, S. C., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Salovey, P. (1999). The systematic influence of gain- and
loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior. Personality and Social Psychology
Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message
Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K., & Martin, C. D. (1993). The influence of message framing on intentions
Schneider, T. R., Salovey, P., Apanovitch, A. M., Pizarro, J., McCarthy, D., Zullo, J., et al. (2001). The effects of message
framing and ethnic targeting on mammography use among low-income women. Health Psychology, 20, 256–266.
Taylor, B., Miller, E., Farrington, C. P., Petropoulos, M. C., Favot-Mayaud, I., Li, J., et al. (1999). Autism and measles,
mumps, and rubella vaccine: No epidemiological evidence for a causal relation. Lancet, 353, 2026–2029.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science, 211, 453–458.
Villa, L. L., Costa, R. L., Petta, C. A., Andrade, R. P., Ault, K. A., Giuliano, A. R., et al. (2005). Prophylactic quadrivalent
human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine in young women: A randomised double-blind
Winer, R. L., Hughes, J. P., Feng, Q., O'Reilly, S., Kiviat, N. B., Holmes, K. K., et al. (2006). Condom use and risk of genital
human papillomavirus infection in young women. New England Journal of Medicine, 354, 2645–2654.
Yacobi, E., Tennant, C., Ferrante, J., Pal, N., & Roetzheim, R. (1999). University students' knowledge and awareness of
Zimet, G. D. (2005). Improving adolescent health: Focus on HPV vaccine acceptance. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37,
S17–23.
All of the essays in the free essays section were written by students and then submitted to us to display and help others.
Thanks to all the students who have submitted their essays to us. You should not hand in our essays as your own. We do
not condone plagiarism! If you needcustom essay help, then have a look at our essay writing services.
ORDER NOW
Like this
Are your
deadlines
looming?
Bibliography & References
Upgrade to a 1st from only £50!
Instant essay
quote
Meet
the
writers