Message Framing, Self-Discrepancies, and Yielding to Persuasive Messages: The Motivational Significance of Psychological Situations

Subjects possessing two distinct types of self-discrepancies, actual: ideal (Al) and actual: ought (AO), read a persuasive message about the importance of eating breakfast, framed in terms of either positive or negative outcomes. On the basis of an analysis of each discrepancy type as a chronic, individual motivational force and each frame as a momentary, situational motivational force, the positive outcome frame was predicted to be more effective than the negative outcome frame in motivating AO subjects to change their eating patterns; the opposite was predicted for Al subjects. The results supported this prediction. AO subjects' thoughts, feelings, and intentions showed a stronger persuasive effect of positive outcome framing than of negative outcome framing; the opposite was true for AIsubjects. The predicted interaction was also found on an immediate behavioral commitment measure. On a delayed action measure, only the effect predicted for AO subjects was found.

[1]  I. Janis,et al.  Personality differences associated with responsiveness to fear-arousing communications. , 1954, Journal of personality.

[2]  L. Berkowitz,et al.  The interest value and relevance of fear-arousing communications. , 1960, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[3]  H. Leventhal,et al.  Effects of varying the recommendations in a fear-arousing communication. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[4]  G. Miller,et al.  Social approval and disapproval cues in anxiety‐arousing communications , 1967 .

[5]  S. Lehmann,et al.  Personality and compliance: a study of anxiety and self-esteem in opinion and behavior change. , 1970, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  H. Leventhal,et al.  Findings and Theory in the Study of Fear Communications , 1970 .

[7]  A Comparison of the Effects of Punishment‐Oriented and Reward‐Oriented Messages in Persuasive Communication , 1971 .

[8]  E. Higgins,et al.  Self-discrepancies and emotional vulnerability: how magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[10]  R. W. Rogers,et al.  Beyond Fear Appeals: Negative and Positive Persuasive Appeals to Health and Self‐Esteem , 1988 .

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

[12]  E. Higgins,et al.  Continuities and discontinuities in self-regulatory and self-evaluative processes: a developmental theory relating self and affect. , 1989, Journal of personality.

[13]  E. Tory Higgins,et al.  Relating self-discrepancy to self-esteem: The contribution of discrepancy beyond actual-self ratings , 1990 .

[14]  N. Schwarz,et al.  Mood and Persuasion: Affective States Influence the Processing of Persuasive Communications , 1991 .

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