Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]On: 27 September 2012, At: 01:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Services Marketing QuarterlyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wsmq20
The Impact of Message Framingand CredibilityRaj Arora a & Alisha Arora ba University of Missouri-Kansas City, 9307 W 113thStreet, Overland Park, KS, 66210, USAb University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill,NC, 27514, USA
Version of record first published: 12 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Raj Arora & Alisha Arora (2004): The Impact of Message Framingand Credibility, Services Marketing Quarterly, 26:1, 35-53
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J396v26n01_03
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
The Impact of Message Framingand Credibility:
Findings for Nutritional Guidelines
Raj AroraAlisha Arora
ABSTRACT. This study uses an experimental approach to test the in-fluence of message framing and credibility on the attitude and intentiontoward following the guidelines for healthy eating and preventing can-cer. The findings indicate a strong effect of credibility on attitude as wellas intention. Implications for marketers in terms of message strategy arediscussed. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document DeliveryService: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@ haworthpress.com>Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. Allrights reserved.]
KEYWORDS. Source credibility, message framing, healthcare, nutri-tional guidelines, attitude change
INTRODUCTION
An important and somewhat less researched area in marketing is pre-ventive health care. Preventive health care embraces issues related toprolonging life in quality as well as years, reducing the likelihood and/or
Raj Arora is affiliated with the University of Missouri-Kansas City, 9307 W 113thStreet, Overland Park, KS 66210, USA (E-mail: [email protected]).
Alisha Arora is affiliated with the University of North Carolina Hospitals, ChapelHill, NC 27514.
Services Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 26(1) 2004http://www.haworthpress.com/web/SMQ
© 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J090v26n01_03 35
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
severity of chronic or debilitating ailments. It is also a challengingarea–the challenge is in changing (often) long established behavioralpatterns; the process of changing these behaviors is also long term. Thisis in sharp contrast to the customary transaction oriented marketing pur-chases. These changes may or may not involve substantial financial out-lays initially such as adopting a “healthy” eating pattern. Some behavioralchanges may involve substantial short term as well as long-term costs.Examples may be joining a health or fitness club, purchasing spe-cial health foods available only at specialty stores, or taking vitamins.
Nevertheless, the long-term costs of not following proper health careare enormous (Jayanti and Burns 1998). An understanding of the prob-lem and design of appropriate communication programs is essential toalter the behavior patterns. Despite the importance of the area, little ef-fort has been devoted to appropriate communication strategy. This pa-per focuses on two variables, the communicator (source) credibility andmessage framing (positive vs. negative).
An emerging area of inquiry in consumer behavior focuses on the ef-fect of message framing on resulting attitude and intentions. The issueof framing and its implications are important in marketing communica-tions and persuasion. The understanding of framing effects has a directapplication in the creative execution of advertising copy and layout.Positively framed messages are defined as communications that empha-size a brand’s advantages or gains to consumers. For example, a posi-tively framed message might indicate that a company’s product issuperior to its competitor’s (Tide washes clothes cleaner than Wisk). Itis not uncommon to find examples in marketing where this messagestyle is used. Tire dealers advertise their tires as longer lasting and pro-viding a more comfortable ride. The negatively framed messages arethose messages that portray negative consequences of not performingthe advocated behavior.
Prior research focuses on positively and negatively framed messages.The positively framed messages focus on the benefits gained from theuse of the product (service). The negatively framed messages focus onthe benefits foregone or the adverse consequences of not using the prod-uct. The research stream regarding the persuasive effects from the useof positive or negative framing of ads in not conclusive (Homer andYoon 1992).
Message credibility is another variable that continues to receive con-siderable attention. Various factors are known to influence credibilityjudgments. Amongst these are education, occupation and experience. It isquite common to describe high credibility sources based on education.
36 SERVICES MARKETING QUARTERLY
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
For example a high credibility spokesperson may be described as a “pro-fessor of nuclear research” and a low credibility spokesperson may be de-scribed as a “college sophomore”. Another way to reflect credibility isthrough citation of evidence (for example, “studies show that . . .”), com-pared to no documentation of any evidence.
Credibility has been shown to influence information processing and thusits impact on attitudes and intentions (Petty, Cacioppo and Schuman 1983).The use of credibility enhancing icons is also very common in marketingstrategy. Book publishers, movie producers (distributors), marketers ofbranded products, all try to obtain endorsements from experts to enhancecredibility.
This study focuses on the influence of message framing and credibil-ity on attitudes toward healthy eating to prevent cancer and intentions tofollow the suggested guidelines related to healthy eating. The next sec-tion provides a review of literature and develops the necessary hypothe-sis for the tests.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Framing
Kahneman and Tversky (1979) explain the effects of framing in pros-pect theory in the context of decision under choice amongst alternatives.According to the prospect theory, the decision making process is atwo-step process. In the first step, the individual examines all the alter-natives and simplifies the choice set into a subjective format. This firststep referred to as the editing (of alternatives) is done automaticallywithout much effort. The subjective format may be in the form of a ref-erence anchor for evaluating alternatives. Depending on the anchor, thealternative may be evaluated as a gain or a loss (second step). Further-more, the prospect theory postulates that the value function of variousalternatives for each individual is sigmoid or “S” shaped. The S shapefunction is concave for gains and convex for losses. Thus, the evalua-tion of the alternatives is asymmetrical. For example, a person mayvalue the gains more than the losses. This asymmetry depends on the in-dividual’s value function. In some situations, this value function may besteeper for losses than for gains. Thus individuals may react differentlyto information that is presented as a gain or as a loss. Prospect theorypostulates decisions as choice amongst alternatives. Furthermore, thesechoices include certain outcomes that have a degree of risk associated
Raj Arora and Alisha Arora 37
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
with them. For example, in the case of breast self-examination (BSE),there is a risk in performing (not performing) the BSE–the risk of find-ing (not finding) a lump that may be malignant.
There is evidence in the literature that supports the steeper utilityfunction for gains. There is also evidence that supports a steeper utilityfunction for losses. For example, a Levin and Gaeth (1988) study withfood products supports the steeper gain function by showing the signifi-cant impact of positive framing. They presented beef as 75% lean or ascontaining 25% fat. Their findings reveal that beef was positively eval-uated when presented as 75% lean. The implications of this study arethat positively framed messages were more persuasive than negativelyframed messages.
Meyerowitz and Chaiken (1987) found that negatively framed mes-sages are more effective than positively framed messages. They investi-gated the persuasive effects of framing in the area of health care,specifically BSE. The positively framed message stated, “Women whodo BSE have an increased chance of finding a tumor early, more treat-able stage of the disease”. The negatively framed message stated,“Women who do not do BSE have a decreased chance of finding a tu-mor early, more treatable stage of the disease”. The findings revealedthat negatively framed messages were more effective than positivelyframed messages.
Homer and Yoon (1992) formulate a causal model showing the ef-fect of framing (in addition to feelings and cognitive components ofads) on intentions. Their study finds the significant impact of feel-ings’ effect on ads regardless of framing; however, the effect of cog-nitive components is stronger for negatively framed messages. Onelimitation of this study becomes apparent when one examines theirprint ad copy. According to prospect theory, except for the effect offraming, the information presented must be identical; however, theads reveal that the information in their ads was not identical. As an il-lustration, the first line of the positive framed appeal was, “You canenjoy fresh breath if you practice good oral hygiene”. The first fewlines of the negative framed appeal were, “Your mouth may be full oforal germs that cause foul smelling breath, plaque and gingivitis.And you don’t want gingivitis. Gingivitis is a gum disease character-ized by red swollen gums.” It is quite apparent that the negativeframed ad places considerable stress on gingivitis, and the two arenot identical in content. Thus, the significance of results cannot beattributed to framing.
38 SERVICES MARKETING QUARTERLY
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
Diamond and Lerch (1992) show that effects of framing disappearwhen more information is presented in a tabular form. This loss of fram-ing effects was not found when more information was presented in agraphical form. Furthermore, the effects of framing also disappearedwhen uneven amounts of information were presented.
Yoav and Karsahi (1995) describe the findings of a field experimentinvolving message framing and method of payment for purchases (cashvs. checks). The message advocated use of credit card to the lattergroups. The salient attributes that differed in framing were: the cost ofchecks, the fee for each check cleared by the bank, and protectionagainst theft or loss. The findings indicated that there were a signifi-cantly higher percentage of customers in the loss framing conditioncomplying with the advocated behavior.
Rothman et al. (1993) distinguish between the two aspects of pros-pect theory-the framing effects and reflection effects. Although both ofthese effects refer to consequences of positively and negatively pre-sented information, the reflection effects involve actual gains or losses.An example may be an investment that has the potential to result in ac-tual monetary loss; whereas a negatively framed message may presentthe information so as to appear that the consequence of the decision maybe a loss (undergoing a procedure that has a 50% chance of failure orloss). This paper deals with the effect of framing. Based on above litera-ture, the following hypothesis is proposed for nutritional guidelines.
Hypothesis 1: It is expected that the impact of message framing willbe significant. Specifically, it is expected that negative framing willhave a greater favorable impact on attitudes and intentions to follow thenutritional guidelines.
Credibility
Ratzan (1999) recalls the writings of the ancient Greeks, emphasiz-ing that the most important factors in building trust are ethos, integrity,and credibility of the source. Lirtzman and Shuv-Ami (1986) report thatsafety hazard information from the company is perceived as less believ-able than that provided by independent testing groups or by the govern-ment. These findings are supported by Kamins and Marks (1991) whofound third party certification was indeed effective in generating posi-tive product affect and purchase intention.
Credibility has been associated with trustworthiness. Lawyers recruitindividuals with high credibility and conversely attack the credibility ofthe opponent’s witness. Politicians and businesspersons use buzzwords
Raj Arora and Alisha Arora 39
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
to appear to be experts in their field. In marketing, credibility has beenstudied under source credibility, source referring to a specific ad or thespokesperson.
Despite intuitive appeal of credibility, the influence of credibilitymay be effective only under certain settings. Sternthal, Dholakia andLeavitt (1978) show that a highly credible source was more effectivethan a moderately credible source; however, this effectiveness is medi-ated by the subject’s initial disposition towards the advocated position.For example, a highly credible source was more effective for those op-posed to the advocated position, whereas a moderately credible sourcewas more effective for those favoring the advocated position. Other re-searchers (Dean et al 1971) have showed similar findings.
Several aspects of credibility have been studied in the marketing lit-erature. One common aspect of credibility relates to source or spokes-person credibility. The components of spokesperson credibility areexpertise and trustworthiness of the individual communicating a per-suasive message. A number of studies based on factor analytic approachhave identified these dimensions (see O’Keefe 1990 for an extensive re-view). The competence is also referred to as the expertise. The underly-ing aspect of competence is the ability to discern truth; or right fromwrong. The trustworthiness dimension reflects the character or personalintegrity. The intent of this dimension is to determine whether the indi-vidual will tell the truth as he or she sees it. The findings generally re-veal that high-credibility spokespersons induce greater attitude change(Sternthal, Dholakia, and Leavitt 1978).
Another aspect of source credibility is the perceived reputation of thefirm or company that makes or produces a product. This is typicallytaken as the corporate image, or the image of the retailer selling theproduct (for a store brand). Companies spend large amounts in advertis-ing in the hope that the positive image will lead to higher credibility andpersuasive impact of their communication. When source credibility islow, attribution theory suggests that consumers will discount the argu-ments in a message (Eagly and Chaiken 1975). Thus, the product claimsmade by a low-credibility source in an advertisement are perceived asless believable. Goldsmith, Lafferty and Newall (2000) show that cor-porate credibility had a direct effect on attitude toward the ad, attitudetoward the brand, and purchase intentions. Grewal et al (1994) researchsupports credibility. They found that effect of price on perceived risk islower with high credibility.
Tripp (1997) presents a systematic review of evidence related to ef-fectiveness of advertising in services industry from 1980 through 1995.
40 SERVICES MARKETING QUARTERLY
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
The research included 26 individual studies related to professional ser-vices. Most studies focused on health care-physicians, dentists, pharma-cists, physical therapists, psychiatrists, or other health care professionals.Amongst the conclusions of the study–advertisements with greater infor-mation content were perceived to be more credible. Specifically, con-sumers prefer information about the professional’s qualifications andspecial competencies. Such information resulted in a higher perceivedcredibility. Credibility, in turn, had a higher intention to purchase (gettinga will prepared by a legal firm, Lang and Marks 1980), or greater inten-tion to visit the professional (Cobb-Walgren and Dabholkar 1983; Marks1984; Sanchez and Bonner 1989).
Hypothesis 2: It is expected that the impact of credibility will be sig-nificant. Specifically, it is expected that higher credibility will have agreater favorable impact on attitudes and intentions to follow the nutri-tional guidelines.
FRAMING AND CREDIBILITY
Although framing and credibility are important aspects of communi-cation strategy, there has been limited investigation as to the interactioneffects of source credibility and message framing (Grewal et al 1994).The current article extends and integrates previous research by propos-ing that the interaction effects as well as the main effects of messageframing and credibility moderate the effect of persuasive communica-tion.
Petty, Cacioppo, and Schuman (1983) in their Elaboration Likeli-hood Model argue that source-credibility inferences are based on a pe-ripheral processing rather than central processing of arguments. This isin contrast to Traversky’s conceptualization where the risk is greater fornegatively framed messages. This greater risk perception is based onactive processing of arguments. The literature has not addressed thequestion of whether the positively or negatively framed messages fol-low a central or peripheral route.
Prospect theory suggests that consumers engage in a more thoroughinformation search and analysis prior to decision making when they areexposed to a positively framed message as compared to consumers whoare exposed to a negatively framed message. Petty et al (1983) similarlyformulate that extensive processing takes place (central route) and lessextensive processing takes place under peripheral route. Moreover,credibility is a heuristic that is used under peripheral processing. So un-
Raj Arora and Alisha Arora 41
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
der high credibility, processing may be limited. Considering both ofthese factors, the persuasive impact will be greater under high credibil-ity and negative framing.
Hypothesis 3: The interaction effect between framing and credibilityis expected to be significant. Negatively framed messages will be moreeffective when the messages are perceived to be credible.
METHOD
Design and Procedure
A 2�2 factorial design was used to study the influence of messagesidedness and credibility. A total of four different newsletters were de-signed to show various combinations of positive and negative framingwith low and high credibility. The newsletter was designed to resemblea professionally designed newsletter.
Using an expert physician with a professional looking portrait fol-lowed by his credentials depicted high credibility. The high credibilitynewsletters had a logo depicting the name of the organization such as“G. F. T. Cancer Center, and Research Institute.” Source credibility wasmanipulated by using two different personalities. The low credibilitywas depicted by stating the message as “Nutrition Advice from ProduceManager at Price Chopper.” Price Chopper is a major grocery chain inthe Midwest. Credibility was also embedded in the body of the newslet-ter (An example is shown later).
Framing was manipulated through the ad copy. The major point offraming was its effect on “increasing (reducing) the risk of cancer.”The positive framing arguments showed the favorable outcomes orgains by following the advocated position. These statements stressedthat by following the guidelines you reduce the risk of cancer. Thestatements for negative framing were designed to stress the unfa-vorable outcomes. These statements noted that by not following thesuggested guidelines you would increase the risk of cancer.
The copy of the high credibility, positive framing newsletter stated–
A number of popular books such as “The Breast Cancer Preven-tion Diet,” “Eat to Beat Cancer” and “Dr. Gaynor’s Cancer Pre-vention Program” make the case that good-eating habits reducethe risk of cancer.
42 SERVICES MARKETING QUARTERLY
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
According to Henry Ginsberg, the Chief Oncologist at AmericanCancer Society, “It has been conclusively shown that includingfruits and vegetables in your diet gives you the benefit of can-cer-protective mechanism found in these foods.” Tom Shike, aleading cancer researcher at Memorial Sloan-Kettering says,“We can say that proper diet significantly reduces the risk of can-cer.”
Fruits and vegetables are loaded with antioxidants. Grapes andred wine are rich in an antioxidant called resveratrol, which re-duces the incidence of skin tumors by as much as 88 percent. Har-vard researchers found that those who ate 10 servings oftomato-rich foods every week cut their risk of cancer by nearlyhalf. Studies show that lycopene reduces the incidence of cancersof the breast, lung, and digestive tract.
Conclusion: Dr. Gabriel Feldman, the American Cancer Society’sdirector of cancer research after examining scientific evidenceconcludes, “By implementing a healthy diet, you reduce yourrisk of cancer.” Based on these findings, the American Cancer So-ciety concludes:
If you follow the lifestyle shown below you reduce the risk of can-cer.
The conclusion section ended with suggested guidelines. Overall, theframing of the message and the credibility was similar to that in previ-ous studies (Maheswaran, Durairaj; Meyers-Levy, Joan 1990, Meyer-owitz and Chaiken 1987).
Two booklets were prepared. One contained the instructions and thenewsletter stimuli. Subjects were instructed to look at the followingnewsletters as they would at any newsletter or ad in a magazine. Theywere further instructed that after they have looked at the newsletter,they should put the booklet away and not refer to it further during theexperiment. The second booklet contained the questionnaire.
SUBJECTS
The subjects for the experiment were primarily graduate students at-tending an urban midwestern university. The respondents were primar-
Raj Arora and Alisha Arora 43
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
ily in the age groups ranging from 25 to 60 years, with 40% in the 35 to45 year range. The sample contained a relatively larger proportion of fe-males (57%). A large proportion of the sample was college graduateswith 14% who had a high school education. A total of 267 subjectsagreed to participate in this study and were administered the question-naire in groups of less than 5.
QUESTIONNAIRE
The questionnaire included standard attitude and intention questions.The attitude toward implementing good eating habits was assessed us-ing an 8-point semantic differential scale with end points as: good (bad)idea, wise (foolish) decision and excellent (poor) habits. The intentionwas measured with the question, “Next time you choose a meal orsnack, how likely is it that you will follow the good eating habits sug-gested in the newsletter?” The end points of the 8-point scale were verylikely and not likely. They were also asked to select the appropriatestatements designed to test the manipulation of framing. Finally, to as-sess their current eating habits, they were asked to indicate the extent towhich they engaged in each of the good eating practice advocated in thenewsletter.
RESULTS
Manipulation Check
To test the manipulation of credibility subjects were asked to rate thetwo versions of the newsletter on three 8-point items with end points asbelievable, unbelievable; honest, dishonest and trustworthy, untrust-worthy. The mean scores for the believable, unbelievable item were7.06 and 5.76 respectively. The difference in scores is significant at p <001. The mean scores for the honest, dishonest item were 7.10 and 6.05respectively (p < 001). The means scores for the trustworthy, untrust-worthy item were 6.90 and 5.62 respectively (p < 001). The differencein overall summated scores for the three-item scale was tested usingone-way ANOVA and was significant (mean scores = 7.02 and 5.8, F =23.66, p < 001).
The manipulation of framing was tested using two separate ques-tions. The first question tested the framing embedded in the copy of the
44 SERVICES MARKETING QUARTERLY
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
newsletter, while the second question tested the framing in the conclu-sion section of the newsletter. The first framing question contained twostatements. The statements were designed to measure the salience ofpositive framing as leading to reduced risk of cancer and negative fram-ing as increasing risk of cancer. Subjects were asked to check one state-ment that reflected their newsletter. Chi-square test of independenceresulted in a large chi-square value of 150.32, p < 001. Overall, 97%correctly recalled the positive framing and 76% correctly recalled thenegative framing.
The second framing question contained three items from the conclu-sion of the newsletter. Each of these three items was also tested usingchi-square. The chi-squares were significant for all three items rangingfrom 117.97 to 123.12. The correct predictions ranged from 65 to 98%.These tests reveal that both credibility and framing were successfullymanipulated.
MAIN EFFECTS
Attitude
The attitude towards implementing good eating habits was assessedusing an 8-point semantic differential scale with end points as: good(bad) idea, wise (foolish) decision and excellent (poor) habit. A reliabil-ity coefficient was calculated before arriving at the composite attitudescore. The standardized reliability coefficient alpha was 0.92 indicatingthat the three statements are internally consistent.
The influence of credibility and framing was tested using two wayANOVA. The results are shown in Figure 1. The main effect of credibil-ity was significant at P < .001, while the effects of framing and interac-tion were not significant.
Intentions
The intention to follow the healthy eating guidelines was mea-sured using an 8-point scale with end points as not likely and verylikely. The influence of credibility and framing on intention wastested using two way ANOVA. The main effect of credibilitywas significant at P < .001, while the effects of framing and inter-action were not significant. The results are shown in Figure 2.
Raj Arora and Alisha Arora 45
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
The intention to recommend these food and nutrition guide-lines to friends was measured using an 8-point scale with endpoints as not likely and very likely. The influence of credibility andframing on intention was tested using two way ANOVA. The maineffect of credibility was significant at p < .001, while the effects offraming and interaction were not significant. The results are shownin Figure 3.
DISCUSSION
There is a saying attributed to Hippocrates, “Let food be thy medi-cine and medicine be thy food.” American Cancer Society predicts thata third of the 563,000 deaths will be nutrition related (1999). An articlein IntelliHealth, (http://www.intelihealth.com/ IH/ihtIH?t=8766&c= 188076&p=~br,IHC|~st,8096|~r,EMIHC000|~b,*|&d=dmtContent) entitled, “Pre-venting Cancer with Food,” provides detailed guidelines in everyday
46 SERVICES MARKETING QUARTERLY
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
7
6.8
6.6
6.4
Negative
Framing
Positive
High Cred.
Low Cred.
Attitude
FIGURE 1. Mean Values for Attitude Toward Good Eating Habits
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
food choices to prevent cancer. Newsweek magazine (November 30,1998) asks the question, “Cancer and Diet: Can you eat to beatmalignancy?” The article makes strong assertions about the link be-tween cancer and diet. Scientists are more hopeful than ever beforein sparing people from malignancy through their knowledge ofchemistry of plants and edibles.
In the last three decades, USA has spent billions on fighting malig-nant tumors. Numerous books advice the readers on “eating righttype and quantities of various foods”. For example, the ColumbiaUniversity College of Physician and Surgeon Complete Home andMedical Guide (1995) stresses the need for fiber, vitamins, minerals,etc. for preventing cancer. This guide also offers advice on shoppingfor food and cooking.
While such advice is available from several sources, to be effective,such information must recognize factors that influence consumers’compliance with advocated behavioral changes. Thus, an understand-ing of the variables that influence consumers’ acceptance of messageand resulting attitude and intention is vital.
Raj Arora and Alisha Arora 47
6.4
6.2
6
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5
4.8
Negative PositiveFraming
High Cred.
Low Cred.
Intention
FIGURE 2. Mean Values for Intention to Implement Good Eating Habits
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
This paper focused on the influence of message framing and credibil-ity on attitudes and intentions. Based on prior research findings, it washypothesized that the main effect of message framing and credibilitywill be significant. Source credibility is a widely used and studied topicin advertising and marketing.
It is generally accepted that all else equal, messages are more likely tobe accepted when presented by experts, those that have more knowledgeon the subject. Research findings support the expectation that a high cred-ibility source is more persuasive than a low credibility source. In thisstudy, the physician is expected to be more knowledgeable in health care
48 SERVICES MARKETING QUARTERLY
7.3
6.8
6.3
5.8
5.3
4.8
Negative Positive
Framing
High Cred.
Low Cred.
Intention
FIGURE 3. Mean Values for Intention to Recommend Good Habits toFriends
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
issues than the produce manager. The findings support the significance ofthe main effect of credibility on attitude as well as intention.
CHANGES IN BELIEFS
In order to obtain further insight into the findings, subjects wereasked to indicate the extent to which they believe that following theadvocated recommendations in the newsletter, they will significantlyreduce the risk of cancer. The responses are shown in Exhibit 1. Thedifference in the mean scores for each item is statistically significant(p < .01). These findings support the earlier results showing strong in-fluence of credibility.
Next we comment on the effects of framing. The findings of thisstudy however, fail to support the assertion related to framing and in-teraction effects. The lack of significance of framing effects raisessome interesting questions. To understand more about the effects offraming we explore the univariate effect of framing only using aT-Test. The influence of framing on attitude is significant at p < .001(two tail t-test). The mean values are 7.52, 7.19 for positive and nega-tive framing respectively. A similar analysis reveals that the influenceof framing on intention to follow the healthy eating guidelines is notsignificant at p = .17. However, the influence of framing on intentionto recommend good eating guidelines to friends is significant at p =.02. Thus, we have a partial support for framing as a univariate test.Furthermore, these tests suggest that positively framed messages aremore effective than negatively framed messages. These unexpectedresults are discussed next.
Involvement and framing: This study also included a question, “Howconcerned are you about getting cancer?” Since personal relevance orpersonal concern is used as measures of involvement, the question maybe used as a surrogate measure of involvement (Petty, Cacioppo andSchumann 1983). Testing the effects of involvement (above question)and framing on attitude revealed significant main effects for involve-ment (higher mean value for high involvement group) and framing(higher mean value for positive frame), p = .01 in each case. The inter-action effect was not significant.
The findings for intention to recommend the guidelines to friendsalso revealed significant main effects for involvement (p = .01) andframing (p = .03). The mean values for involvement were 6.49 (high)and 5.94 (low). The mean values for framing were 6.45 (positive) and
Raj Arora and Alisha Arora 49
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
5.98 (negative). These findings suggest using positive framing for nutri-tional guidelines (especially for high involvement group).
PROSPECT THEORY ANALYSIS
Next, let’s critically evaluate the implications of prospect theory inthe context of dietary recommendations and cancer. The basic tenet ofthe prospect theory lies in the subjects’ weighing gains and losses dif-ferentially in their decision. This issue of perceived gains and lossesneeds critical evaluation. The tenet of prospect theory is that people pre-fer to take risks when considering losses, and prefer to choose optionswith certainty when considering gains. However, the findings of fram-ing have not yielded consistent findings. Even in health related investi-gations, research findings have failed to show consistent framingeffects. For example, in the case of BSE, the findings revealed that neg-ative messages were more effective (Meyerowitz and Chaiken 1987).However, in the case of infant car restraint, the findings revealed thatnegative messages were less effective (Trieber 1986). What is the ex-planation for these apparently conflicting findings?
Prevention vs. detection: Consider the BSE study by Meyerowitz andChaiken (1987). In this study, the explanation may lie in the distinctionbetween cancer detection and cancer prevention. The study emphasized(page 501) that BSE was to be performed to detect cancer, not to preventcancer. Thus, in the context of prospect theory it may be beneficial todistinguish whether the advocated behavior was designed to prevent arisky consequence or to detect a risky consequence. The use of infant
50 SERVICES MARKETING QUARTERLY
EXHIBIT 1
Item Mean ScoreLow Credibility
Mean ScoreHigh Credibility
a. Snacking on raw vegetables insteadof potato chips
5.74 6.53
b. Adding fruit to your cereal atbreakfast
5.39 6.23
c. Using salad bar when you go out tolunch or grocery store
5.71 6.52
d. When possible, switch to juiceinstead of coffee, tea or soda
5.60 6.58
e. Choose oils low in saturated fatssuch as safflower, soybean, andcanola.
5.95 6.57
f. Choose skim or low fat (1- 2%)milk instead of whole milk.
5.98 6.61
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
car restraint advocates prevention of a risky consequence, where as theBSE advocates detection of a risky consequence. Thus, a possible con-clusion may be that positive appeals may be more effective in prevent-ing risky consequence, and negatively framed appeals more effective indetecting risky consequence. Therefore, it may be argued that in thecase of dietary guidelines, with the emphasis being on prevention, apositive appeal may be more effective than a negative appeal.
Another distinction in the health care area may relate to decisions re-lating to surgery. Rothman et al (1993) cite a number of studies wherepositively framed messages were more effective in decisions regardingsurgery options. Surgical decisions were clearly not for prevention. Thesurgery decision is a risk-averse option to alleviate a health problem.Thus, a positively framed message for surgery (likelihood of surviving)would be more effective than a negatively framed message (likelihoodof dying from surgery or other serious complications arising from sur-gery). Thus, it may be concluded that positively framed messageswould be preferable in decisions related to prevention of a risky conse-quence and negatively framed messages would be more effective in de-tection of a risky consequence. The findings from the study of Cox andCox (2001) also suggest that negatively framed messages are more ef-fective than positively framed messages.
Considering the effects of credibility and framing, the framework byMaheswaran and Meyers-Levy (1990) suggests that negatively framedinformation is more effective under high credibility and positivelyframed information is more effective under low credibility. This studyfailed to find significant interaction effects (see figures 1, 2 and 3).
Based on above some important findings for services marketing fol-low. First, consider the case of communicating with existing customers.Based on prospect theory, existing satisfied customers are expected tohave steeper loss curves for loss situation. Thus, messages should beframed negatively indicating the loss by not using the services or loss byswitching to other untried services.
Next, tax preparation services might be advised to use negativelyframed messages showing the likelihood of receiving a significantlylower tax refund or paying a significantly higher tax by not followingthe advocated recommendations. On the other hand, for institutions thatadvocate complying with legal behavior such as IRS–complying withtax laws, use of safety helmets, wearing seat belts, a positively framedmessage would be appropriate. Complying with these messages is akinto “prevention behavior”, and thus the use of positively framed mes-sage.
Raj Arora and Alisha Arora 51
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
Third, considering the joint effects of credibility and framing, for ser-vice marketers who are trying to gain new customers and would like tooffer a trial membership (such as health clubs, dance studios, etc.) anadvisable strategy is to use high credibility source with positivelyframed message. Fourth, consider the case for service businesses thatoffer free diagnostic check-ups such as screening for high blood pres-sure, automotive diagnostics. Based on the findings that negativelyframed messages are more effective for detection, a negatively framedmessage strategy appears warranted.
REFERENCES
Cobb-Walgren, Cathy J. and Pratibha A. Dabholkar (1992), “The Value of PhysicianAdvertising in the Yellow Pages: Does the Doctor Know Best?” Journal of HealthCare Marketing, 12 (1), 55-64.
Cox, Dena and Anthony D. Cox (2001), “Communicating the Consequences of EarlyDetection: The Role of Evidence and Framing,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (3),91-103.
Diamond, Lester and F. J. Lerch (1992), “Fading Frames: Data Presentation and Fram-ing Effects,” Decision Sciences, 23, (5), 1050-1071
Eagly, Alice H. and Shelly Chaiken (1975), “An Attributional Analysis of the Effect ofCommunicator Characteristics on Opinion Change: The Case of Communicator At-tractiveness,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32 (July), 136-144.
Goldberg, Marvin E. and Jon Hartwick. (1990), “The Effects of Advertiser Reputationand Extremity of Advertising Claim on Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal ofConsumer Research, 17 (2), 172-180.
Grewal Dhruv; Jerry Gotlieb; and Howard Marmorstein (1994), “The moderating ef-fects of message framing and source credibility on the price-perceived risk relation-ship,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1) 145-154.
Harmon, Robert R. and Kenneth A. Coney (1982), “The Persuasive Effects of SourceCredibility in Buy and Least Situations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (May),255-260.
Homer, Pamela and Sun-gil Yoon (1992), “Message Framing and the Interrelation-ships Among Ad-Based feelings, Affect, and Cognition,” Journal of Advertising,21 (1), 19-33.
Kahneman D., and Tversky (1979), “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of decision underRisk,” Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
Kamins, Michael A. and Lawrence J, Marks (1991), “The Perception of Kosher as aThird-Party Certification Claim in Advertising for Familiar and UnfamiliarBrands,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 19 (3), 177-185.
Keller, Kevin Lane (1991), “Cue Compatibility and Framing in Advertising,” Journalof Marketing Research, 28 (1), 42-58.
52 SERVICES MARKETING QUARTERLY
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
Lang, Larry R. and Ronald B. Marks (1980), “Consumer Response to Advertisementsfor Legal Services: An Empirical Analysis,” Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 8 (4), 357-373.
Levin Irwin, P. And Gary J. Gaeth (1988), “How Consumers Are Affected by theFraming of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product,” Jour-nal of Consumer Research, 15 (December), 374-378.
Lirtzman, Sidney I. and Avichai Shuv-Ami (1986), “Credibility of Sources of Commu-nication on Products’ Safety Hazards,” Psychological Reports, 58 (3), 707-718.
Maheswaran, Durairaj and Meyers-Levy, Joan (1990), “The Influence of MessageFraming and Issue Involvement,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (3), 361-368.
Marks, Ronald B. (1984), “Consumer Responses to Physicians’ Advertisements,”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 12 (Summer), 35-52.
Meyerowitz, Beth E. and Shelly Chaiken (1987), “The Effect of Message Framing onBreast Self-Examination Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior,” Journal of Personal-ity and Social Psychology, 52 (March), 500-10.
O’Keefe, Daniel J. (1990), Persuasion: Theory and Research, Sage Publications,Newbery Park, California.
Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo and David Schumann (1983), “Central and Periph-eral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,”Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135-146.
Puto, Christopher P. (1987), “The Framing of Buying Decisions,” Journal of Con-sumer Research, 14 (December), 301-15.
Qualls, William J. and Christopher P. Puto (1989), “Organizational Climate and Deci-sion Framing. An Integrated Approach to Analyzing Industrial Buying Decisions,”Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (May), 179-92.
Ratzan, Scott C. (1999), “Cancer Risk Communications,” Vital Speeches of the Day,(02/15/99), 65 (9), 267-271.
Rothman, A. J., P. Salovey, C. Antone, K. Keough, and C. D. Martin (1993), “The In-fluence of Message Framing on Intentions to Perform Health Behaviors,” Journalof Experimental Social Psychology, 29 (September), 408-433.
Sanchez, Peter M. and P. Greg Bonner (1989), “Dental Services Advertising: Does ItAffect Consumers?” Journal of Health Care Marketing, 9 (4), 27-33.
Sternthal, Brian, Ruby Dholakia, and Clark Leavitt (1978), “The Persuasive Effect ofSource Credibility: A Test of Cognitive Response Analysis,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 4 (March), 252-260
Trieber F. A. (1986), “A Comparison of Positive and Negative consequences ap-proaches upon car restraint usage,” Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 11 (1), 15-24.
Tripp, Carolyn (1997), “Services Advertising: An overview and Summary of Re-search, 1980-1995,” Journal of Advertising, 26 (4), 21-39.
Yoav, Ganzach and Nili Karsahi (1995), “Message Framing and Buying Behavior: AField Experiment, Journal of Business Research, 32 (1),11-17.
Raj Arora and Alisha Arora 53
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sa
skat
chew
an L
ibra
ry]
at 0
1:07
27
Sept
embe
r 20
12
