Message framing and interpersonal orientation at cultural and individual levels

On the basis of self-regulatory goals literature, this study predicts that persons with independent and interdependent self-concepts may respond differently to messages with promotion and prevention frames, though the effect may apply only to highly involved persons. The findings confirm these hypotheses at the cultural level (Experiment 1) and the individual level (Experiment 2), showing that greater product involvement increases the effectiveness of self-concept congruent but not incongruent message framing. In addition to the consequence valence explored in Experiment 1, prior research identifies compliance as another important dimension of message framing. Because people with a prevention-/promotion-oriented self-regulatory focus are sensitive to the presence and absence of negative/positive consequences, the superior effects of congruent message framing for highly involved persons should exist regardless of whether the messages emphasise compliance or noncompliance. Experiment 2 confirms these expectations in a collectivistic culture.

[1]  H. Markus,et al.  THE DYNAMIC SELF-CONCEPT: A Social Psychological Perspective , 1987 .

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[3]  E. Tory Higgins,et al.  Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer? , 1989 .

[4]  Joan Meyers-Levy,et al.  Message Framing Effects on Product Judgments , 1990 .

[5]  H. Markus,et al.  Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. , 1991 .

[6]  E. Tory Higgins,et al.  Emotional experiences: The pains and pleasures of distinct regulatory systems. , 1996 .

[7]  S. Yamaguchi,et al.  Collectivism among the Japanese: A perspective from the self. , 1994 .

[8]  E. Higgins,et al.  Self-Concept Discrepancy Theory: A Psychological Model for Distinguishing among Different Aspects of Depression and Anxiety , 1985 .

[9]  T. Singelis,et al.  The Measurement of Independent and Interdependent Self-Construals , 1994 .

[10]  E. Higgins,et al.  Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect. , 1987, Psychological review.

[11]  Chingching Chang.  Ad framing effects for consumption products: An affect priming process , 2008 .

[12]  Ç. Kâğıtçıbaşı.  A critical appraisal of individualism and collectivism: Toward a new formulation. , 1994 .

[13]  E. Higgins.  Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. , 1996 .

[14]  CHINGCHING CHANG,et al.  Self-Congruency as a Cue in Different Advertising-Processing Contexts , 2002, Commun. Res..

[15]  O. Tykocinski,et al.  Seff-Discrepancies and Biographical Memory: Personality and Cognition at the Level of Psychological Situation , 1992 .

[16]  Peter H. Bloch.  An Exploration Into the Scaling of Consumers' Involvement With a Product Class , 1981 .

[17]  Chingching Chang,et al.  Country of Origin as a Heuristic Cue: The Effects of Message Ambiguity and Product Involvement , 2004 .

[18]  Angela Y. Lee,et al.  “I” Value Freedom, but “We” Value Relationships: Self-Construal Priming Mirrors Cultural Differences in Judgment , 1999 .

[19]  Jakob D. Jensen,et al.  The Advantages of Compliance or the Disadvantages of Noncompliance? A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relative Persuasive Effectiveness of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Messages , 2006 .