IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/soceco/v104y2023ics2214804323000241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nudging smokers away from lighting up: A meta-analysis of framing effect in current smokers

Author

Listed:
  • Waheed, Hassam

Abstract

Should smoking cessation messages be framed in terms of gains or losses? While the risk-framing hypothesis suggests a persuasive advantage for gain-framed messages, empirical evidence so far has been mixed. In defense of the risk-framing hypothesis, researchers have suggested that the diversity of results in this literature stream can be attributed to differences in issue involvement. The present study examined these predictions by employing a meta-analysis (14 studies) comprising of a Correlated and Hierarchical Effects model with Robust Variance Estimation. There was a small persuasive advantage in favour of gain-framed messages (g = 0.104, SE = 0.049), but this contrast was not statistically significant (p = 0.070, CI95 = -0.011, 0.218). This finding is robust to the values of correlation between sampling errors of the effect sizes, influential outliers, and publication bias. Moreover, issue involvement proxied through nicotine dependence did not moderate the relative persuasiveness of gain and loss-framed messages in encouraging smoking cessation. The conclusion remains unchanged regardless of how nicotine dependence is measured and before and after controlling for study and participant characteristics. These results strongly cast doubt on the applicability of the risk-framing hypothesis that continues to guide research and public-health campaigns.

Suggested Citation

  • Waheed, Hassam, 2023. "Nudging smokers away from lighting up: A meta-analysis of framing effect in current smokers," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:104:y:2023:i:c:s2214804323000241
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2023.101998
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804323000241
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2023.101998?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Alan Beggs & Kathryn Graddy, 2009. "Anchoring Effects: Evidence from Art Auctions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 1027-1039, June.
    3. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    4. Elizabeth Tipton & James E. Pustejovsky, 2015. "Small-Sample Adjustments for Tests of Moderators and Model Fit Using Robust Variance Estimation in Meta-Regression," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 40(6), pages 604-634, December.
    5. N. Vaillant & V. Harrant, 2008. "Are women less risk averse than men ? The effect of impending death on risk-taking behavior," Post-Print hal-00324461, HAL.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:3:p:248-255 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Druckman, James N., 2004. "Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(4), pages 671-686, November.
    9. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    10. Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, 2010. "Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 36(i03).
    11. Jonathan J. Rolison & Yaniv Hanoch & Stacey Wood & Pi-Ju Liu, 2014. "Risk-Taking Differences Across the Adult Life Span: A Question of Age and Domain," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 69(6), pages 870-880.
    12. Romain Cadario & Pierre Chandon, 2020. "Which Healthy Eating Nudges Work Best? A Meta-Analysis of Field Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 465-486, May.
    13. Chapman, S. & Wai Leng Wong & Smith, W., 1993. "Self-exempting beliefs about smoking and health: Differences between smokers and ex-smokers," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 83(2), pages 215-219.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qian Wu & Monique Vanerum & Anouk Agten & Andrés Christiansen & Frank Vandenabeele & Jean-Michel Rigo & Rianne Janssen, 2021. "Certainty-Based Marking on Multiple-Choice Items: Psychometrics Meets Decision Theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 518-543, June.
    2. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "The “bomb” risk elicitation task," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 31-65, August.
    3. Erich Renz & Marvin M. Müller & Kim Leonardo Böhm, 2023. "When nudges promote neutral behavior: an experimental study of managerial decisions under risk and uncertainty," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(8), pages 1309-1354, October.
    4. Thomas Dohmen & Simone Quercia & Jana Willrodt, 2023. "On the psychology of the relation between optimism and risk taking," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 193-214, October.
    5. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin, 2013. "A Theoretical and Experimental Appraisal of Five Risk Elicitation Methods," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 547, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    6. Ferdinand M. Vieider & Peter Martinsson & Pham Khanh Nam & Nghi Truong, 2019. "Risk preferences and development revisited," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(1), pages 1-21, February.
    7. Botzen, W.J.W. & van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2012. "Risk attitudes to low-probability climate change risks: WTP for flood insurance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 151-166.
    8. Lasha Lanchava & Kyle Carlson & Blanka Šebánková & Jaroslav Flegr & Gideon Nave, 2015. "No Evidence of Association between Toxoplasma gondii Infection and Financial Risk Taking in Females," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    9. David Blake & Edmund Cannon & Douglas Wright, 2021. "Quantifying loss aversion: Evidence from a UK population survey," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 27-57, August.
    10. Marc Oliver Rieger & Mei Wang & Thorsten Hens, 2015. "Risk Preferences Around the World," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(3), pages 637-648, March.
    11. Colasante, Annarita & Riccetti, Luca, 2020. "Risk aversion, prudence and temperance: It is a matter of gap between moments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 25(C).
    12. Martin Fochmann & Martin Jacob, 2011. "Behavioral Explanation of Tax Asymmetries," FEMM Working Papers 110021, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    13. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    14. Schmidt, Ulrich & Friedl, Andreas & Lima de Miranda, Katharina, 2015. "Social comparison and gender differences in risk taking," Kiel Working Papers 2011, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    15. Iñigo Iturbe-Ormaetxe & Giovanni Ponti & Josefa Tomás, 2016. "Myopic Loss Aversion under Ambiguity and Gender Effects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, December.
    16. Hajdu, Tamás & Hajdu, Gábor, 2011. "A hasznosság és a relatív jövedelem kapcsolatának vizsgálata magyar adatok segítségével [Examining the relation of utility and relative income using Hungarian data]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 56-73.
    17. Joseph Teal & Petko Kusev & Renata Heilman & Rose Martin & Alessia Passanisi & Ugo Pace, 2021. "Problem Gambling ‘Fuelled on the Fly’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    18. Julius Pahlke & Sebastian Strasser & Ferdinand Vieider, 2015. "Responsibility effects in decision making under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 125-146, October.
    19. Johannes G. Jaspersen & Marc A. Ragin & Justin R. Sydnor, 2020. "Linking subjective and incentivized risk attitudes: The importance of losses," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 187-206, April.
    20. Brandts, Jordi & El Baroudi, Sabrine & Huber, Stefanie J. & Rott, Christina, 2021. "Gender differences in private and public goal setting," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 192(C), pages 222-247.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:soceco:v:104:y:2023:i:c:s2214804323000241. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/620175 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.