본 연구는 위험성이 낮게 지각되어 상대적으로 안전한 행위라고 고려되는 예방행위(prevention behavior)의 경우, 손실 프레이밍에 비해 이익 프레이밍이 보다 효과적이라는 헬스커뮤니케이션 분야의 연구를 바탕으로 이와 유사한 프레이밍 효과가 기후변화방지 노력과 관련한 친환경 공공캠페인에 적용가능한지를 검증하였다. 더불어, 메시지 프레이밍 효과의 경계조건(boundary condition)을 탐색하기 위해 이슈관여도를 조절변인으로 제안하고 프레이밍과 이슈 관여도의 상호작용 효과를 2(프레이밍: 이익 vs. 손실) X 2(이슈관여도: High vs. Low) 피험자간 요인 설계를 실시하여 분석하였다. 분석결과, 프레이밍의 주효과는 나타나지 않았으며, 프레이밍과 이슈관여도의 상호작용효과의 경우, 이슈 심각성 지각과 캠페인 태도 부분에서 관여도가 높은 실험 참가자들의 경우에만 이익 프레이밍이 더 효과적인 것으로 나타났다. 이는 기후변화방지 캠페인과 같은 친환경 캠페인의 경우에 프레이밍 효과가 제한적일 수 있음을 시사한다.
limate change mitigation actions are undertaken to minimize the potential negative consequences of future climate change. In this regard, climate change mitigation efforts can be compared to prevention behavior in health behavior research, which is taken to mainly prevent the onset of disease. Based on the similarity, this study seeks to examine how transferable extant research findings on message framing from heath behavior research are to the climate change case. In addition, this study attempts to specify some boundary conditions for the influence of message framing in climate change mitigation-related campaigns, by proposing and testing issue involvement as a moderator. A 2(message framing: gain vs. loss) x 2(issue involvement: high vs. low) between-subject factorial design was conducted to test the hypotheses of this study. The results revealed that gain framing led to higher levels of perceived issue seriousness and more favorable attitudes toward climate change mitigation campaigns only for the participants in the high involvement condition. For the participants in the low involvement condition, no framing effect was observed.
김재휘, 김태훈 (2002). 가치지향에 따른 환경광고 메시지의 설득효과. 광고연구, 56, 81-99.
김재휘, 김태훈, 박인희 (2010). 예방행동의 결과를 얻는 시점에 따른 효과적인 설득 메시지 유형: 해석수준이론을 중심으로. 한국심리학회지: 소비자․광고, 11(3), 451- 474.
남인용 (2001). 광고주 유형, 메시지 유형, 자기 검색도, 관여도가 공익광고의 효과에 미치는 영향. 한국언론학보, 46(1), 116- 146.
조용석, 황장선 (2007). 공익 광고의 주제 유형별 효과. 한국광고홍보학보, 9(4), 71-104.
기후환경네트워크 (2014). 2014/8/01 검색, [http://www.kcen.kr/USR_main2013.jsp??=MAIN/index].
환경부 (2010). 기후변화, 이제는 적응입니다. 2014/9/01 검색, [http://me.go.kr/home/web/ main.do].
Banks, S. M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A. J., Moyer, A., Beauvais, J., & Epel, E. (1995). The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14(2), 178-184.
Bessarabova, E., Fink, E. L., & Turner, M. (2013). Reactance, restoration, and cognitive structure: comparative statics. Human Communication Research, 39(3), 339-364.
Detweiler, J. B., Bedell, B. T., Salovey, P., Pronin, E., & Rothman, A. J. (1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology, 18(2), 189-196.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Orland, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Edwards, A., Elwyn, G., Covey, J., Matthews, E., & Pill, R. (2001). Presenting risk information: A review of the effects of framing and other manipulations on patient outcomes. Journal of Health Communication, 6(1), 61-82.
Hulme, M. (2008). The conquering of climate: Discourses of fear and their dissolution. The Geographical Journal, 174(1), 5-16.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(March), 263-291.
Kates, R. W., & Wilbanks, T. J. (2003). Making the global local responding to climate change concerns from the ground. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 45(3), 12-23.
Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1433-1442.
Lim, Y. S. (2014). Exploring persuasive message strategy for international aid campaigns: Potential donors’ inter-attitudinal structure using Galileo model. Quality & Quantity, 1-19.
Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 361-367.
Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 500-510.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Maheswaran, D. (2004). Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types of processing occur. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1), 159-167.
Millar, M. G., & Millar, K. U. (2000). Promoting safe driving behaviors: The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(4), 853-866.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(September), 135-145.
Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., & Salovey, P. (2006). The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56(s1), 202-220.
Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K., & Martin, C. D. (1993). The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(5), 408-433.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Klein, D. J. (1994). Effects of mood on high elaboration attitude change: The mediating role of likelihood judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(1), 25-43.
White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2011). It's the mind-set that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 472-485.
Woelfel, J., & Fink, E. L. (1980). The Measurement of Communication Processes: Galileo Theory and Method. Academic Press, New York.
.png){kind=logo}
