Does Elaboration Increase or Decrease the Effectiveness of Negatively versus Positively Framed Messages

A robust finding in research on message framing is that negatively framed messages are more (less) effective than positively framed ones when the level of cognitive elaboration is high (low). However, recent research presents evidence that is contrary to previous findings: negative framing being less (more) effective than positive framing when the level of elaboration is high (low). In this article, we attempt to resolve the conflicting findings by highlighting the moderating roles of motivation and opportunity-related variables on the effectiveness of negative versus positive message frames. Results from two experiments suggest that under conditions of low processing motivation, negative framing is more (less) effective than positive framing when the level of processing opportunity is low (high). Under conditions of high processing motivation, negative framing is more effective than positive framing, irrespective of the level of processing opportunity.

[1]  Schneider,et al.  All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[2]  B. Sternthal,et al.  Detecting and Explaining Vividness Effects in Attitudinal Judgments , 1984 .

[3]  R. E. Burnkrant,et al.  Consumer Response to Negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment , 2000 .

[4]  John W. Payne,et al.  Factors Affecting the Impact of Negatively and Positively Framed Ad Messages , 1997 .

[5]  Lauren G. Block,et al.  When to Accentuate the Negative: The Effects of Perceived Efficacy and Message Framing on Intentions to Perform a Health-Related Behavior , 1995 .

[6]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Principles of persuasion. , 1996 .

[7]  Jaideep Sengupta,et al.  All Cues Are Not Created Equal: Obtaining Attitude Persistence under Low-Involvement Conditions , 1997 .

[8]  Margaret C. Campbell.  When Attention-Getting Advertising Tactics Elicit Consumer Inferences of Manipulative Intent: The Importance of Balancing Benefits and Investments , 1995 .

[9]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. , 1989 .

[10]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. , 1999 .

[11]  Peter Salovey,et al.  The Influence of Message Framing on Intentions to Perform Health Behaviors , 1993 .

[12]  Amna Kirmani,et al.  Consumers' Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent , 2000 .

[13]  S. Chaiken.  The heuristic model of persuasion. , 1987 .

[14]  Alexander J. Rothman,et al.  Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. , 1997, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  P. Herr,et al.  Effects of Word-of-Mouth and Product-Attribute Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility-Diagnosticity Perspective , 1991 .

[16]  David R. Roskos-Ewoldsen,et al.  The Accessibility of Source Likability as a Determinant of Persuasion , 1992 .

[17]  Joan Meyers-Levy,et al.  The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement , 1990 .

[18]  Kent B. Monroe,et al.  The Effects of Time Constraints on Consumers' Judgments of Prices and Products , 2003 .

[19]  Peter L. Wright,et al.  Analyzing Media Effects on Advertising Responses , 1974 .

[20]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  On Leaping to Conclusions When Feeling Tired: Mental Fatigue Effects on Impressional Primacy , 1996 .

[21]  D. Maheswaran,et al.  Motivated Reasoning: A Depth-of-Processing Perspective , 2000 .