Framing Health Messages

Even though we didn't get to the lecture about framing messages yet, I still found the articles assigned on the topic this week to be very informative. The first article I read by Tversky and Kahneman (1981) discusses the foundational concepts of framing messages to influence decisions. Apparently these authors are the big whigs who helped to develop the framing model, and while I appreciate the historical context, this was another one of those articles I found to be well outside of my domain of understanding, given the heavy emphasis on psychological concepts and terminology. I was a tad lost; however, what I basically got out of the article was this: the way a behavioral message is conveyed may determine whether or not an individual puts that behavior into action. All the other stuff, including the examples, went somewhere over my head (...conforming to the axioms of utility model...in prospect theory...which attributes to the properties of π...and pseudocertainty induced by sequential formulation...or by the introduction of causal contingencies...what???). Yes, I'm sure Tversky and Kahneman are brilliant, but thank goodness for the second article!

Slightly more up-to-date, the Rothman et al. (1999) article put the former reading into more comprehensible terms. After reading the first few paragraphs I had an "aha" moment where all the theory gibberish finally came together. Basically, gain-framed messages emphasize the benefits of performing a behavior, loss-framed messages emphasize the costs of not performing a behavior, and the type of message given depends on two main things: (1) the individual's perceived risk of and susceptibility to the health issue and (2) whether the behavior being promoted is a detection behavior or a prevention behavior. Simple, right? Well, not totally, but certainly more understandable.

I found this article to be very beneficial as our group begins the second stage of our project. The take-home message for health promoters is that behaviors that are perceived as risky to the individual are usually detection behaviors (e.g. getting a mammogram) and should be accompanied by a loss-framed message (i.e. the negative repercussions of not getting screened for breast cancer). Conversely, behaviors that are perceived as less risky are are usually prevention behaviors (e.g. wearing sunscreen) and should be followed by a gain-framed message (i.e. the benefits of having younger-looking, cancer-free skin). In regards to our group project on over-consumption of energy drinks, first we would need to determine from a sample of our target audience whether or not ED consumption is perceived as a risky behavior (it probably is not). If it is considered risky, we may want to try out messages that emphasize the costs of not reducing or eliminating consumption of EDs. On the other hand, if ED consumption is not considered very risky, we may want to try out messages that emphasize the benefits of reducing ED consumption (or perhaps the benefits of alternatives to EDs).

Well, we will need to brainstorm this more. It kind of feels like a cognitive maze, but it may help to guide us in project #2. We may also gain some clarity after the lecture next week. Thoughts on this??