.png){kind=logo}
ISSN : 1229-8778
This study examines the effects of message framing, framing types and regulatory focus on attitudes towards and purchase intention for a digital camera. Specifically, there were moderating roles of framing types and regulatory focus on the relationships between message framing and such outcome measures as attitudes and purchase intention. While a large number of studies examined the effects of message framing on persuasion without regard to framing types such as attribute framing and goal framing this study suggests that the effects of message framing differ between attribute framing and goal framing. In the context of attribute framing, positively framed messages were more effective than negatively framed messages regardless of participants’ regulatory focus. However, in goal framing context, it was found that the effect of message framing on attitudes and purchase intention was moderated by participants’ regulatory focus. Past studies suggested that promotion focused consumers were influenced more by positively framed messages while prevention focused consumers were affected more by negatively framed messages. This study, however, found that the moderating role of regulatory focus was reversed under high involvement context. In specific, promotion focused participants were more influenced by negatively framed messages while prevention focused participants were affected more by positively framed messages, indicating regulatory unfit effect rather than regulatory fit effect under high involvement context.
Cesario, J,、Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from feeling right. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388-404.
Cesario, J., Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2008). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic principles and remaining questions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 444-463
Chaiken, S. (1980), Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752-66.
Chaiken, Shelly and Durairaj Maheswaran (1994), Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460-473.
Evans, L. M., & Petty, R. E. (2003). Self-guide framing and persuasion: Responsibly increasing message processing to ideal levels. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 313–24.
Fiske, S. X, & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond Pleasure and Pain, American Psychologist, 52 (12), 1280-1300.
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental social psychology, 30, 1-46.
Higgins, E. T. (2002). How Self-Regulation Creates Distinct Values: The Case of Promotion and Prevention Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3), 177–91.
Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(3), 252–74.
Janiszewski, C., Silk, T., & Cooke, A. D. (2003). Different scales for different frames: The role of subjective scales and experience in explaining attribute-framing effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(December), 311-325.
Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The nfluence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (2), 205–218.
Lee, A. Y., & Higgins, E. T. (2009). The Persuasive Power of regulatory fit. in The Social Psychology of Consumer Behavior. ed. Michaela Wänke, New York: Psychology Press, 319-333.
Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 374–378.
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76 (November), 149-188.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (4), 854–64.
Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 361–367.
Mellers, B. A., & Cooke, A. D. (1994). Trade-offs depend on attribute range. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20 (October), 1055-1067
Meyerowitz, B. E., and Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (March), 500-510
O'Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2008). Do loss-framed persuasive messages engender greater message processing than do gain-framed messages? A meta-analytic review. Communication Research, 59 (1), 51-67.
Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3–19.
Wang, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in preference construction. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 28-38.
Zhao, G., & Pechmann, C. (2007). The impact of regulatory focus on adolescents' response to antismoking advertising campaigns. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 671-687.