IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i12p1507-d121512.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Does Health-Related Advertising with a Regulatory Focus and Goal Framing Affect Attitudes toward Ads and Healthy Behavior Intentions?

Author

Listed:
  • Chia-Yen Lin

    (Department of Public Administration and Management, National University of Tainan, 33, Section 2, Shu-Lin St., Tainan 700, Taiwan)

  • Wei-Ju Yeh

    (Department of Public Administration and Management, National University of Tainan, 33, Section 2, Shu-Lin St., Tainan 700, Taiwan)

Abstract

The health costs of colorectal cancer have increased over the years in Taiwan. The National Health Insurance Administration (NHI) and the Health Promotion Administration of the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW) in Taiwan advocate that people have to change their unhealthy behaviors; however, the number of patients of colorectal cancer is increasing annually. This research discussed the effects of healthy diet advocacy advertisements (ads) on healthy diet behavior intentions as influenced by the interactions between regulatory focus theory (RFT) and message framing effects. Both regulatory focus theory and message framing effect were discussed for the relationship between advertisement and behavior change in many fields, such as health-related behavior, pro-environmental behavior, consumer choice, etc. We executed an experiment with four different types of public health advocacy ads. A 2 (regulatory focus: promotion vs. prevention) × 2 (message framing: gain framing vs. loss framing) two-factor experiment was adopted, and 201 valid participants responded to the questionnaire. Results indicated that if the ad’s regulatory focus is promotion focus, viewers’ attitudes toward the ad and their behavior intentions are more positive when the slogan of the ad is gain framing rather than loss framing via the multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA), and vice versa. Respondents found the communication easier to comprehend when the ads evoked the respondents’ regulatory focus and applied the appropriate message framing, thus improving the efficacy of health-related advertising. We offer suggestions regarding the future use of health-related advertising for the MOHW.

Suggested Citation

  • Chia-Yen Lin & Wei-Ju Yeh, 2017. "How Does Health-Related Advertising with a Regulatory Focus and Goal Framing Affect Attitudes toward Ads and Healthy Behavior Intentions?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:12:p:1507-:d:121512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/12/1507/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/12/1507/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mario Pandelaere & Barbara Briers & Christophe Lembregts, 2011. "How to Make a 29% Increase Look Bigger: The Unit Effect in Option Comparisons," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(2), pages 308-322.
    2. Pechmann, C. & Reibling, E.T., 2006. "Antismoking advertisements for youths: An independent evaluation of health, counter-industry, and industry approaches," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(5), pages 906-913.
    3. Westaby, James D., 2005. "Behavioral reasoning theory: Identifying new linkages underlying intentions and behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 97-120, November.
    4. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    5. Bettman, James R & Sujan, Mita, 1987. "Effects of Framing on Evaluation of Comparable and Noncomparable Alternatives by Expert and Novice Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(2), pages 141-154, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yanfei Zhu & Yuli Wang & Ying Li & Xiaoxi Du & Qi Guo & Mo Chen & Yun Lin, 2022. "The Construction of Image Reference Points and Text Appeals Information Tailoring in Promoting Diners’ Public Environment Maintenance Behavior Intention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-18, November.

    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. Pleshcheva, Vlada, 2019. "Metric and Scale Effects in Consumer Preferences for Environmental Benefits," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 147, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    2. Chia-Yen Lin, 2015. "Promote Health or Prevent Disease? The Effects of Health-Related Advertising on Eating Behavior Intention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Dharshing, Samdruk & Hille, Stefanie Lena & Wüstenhagen, Rolf, 2017. "The Influence of Political Orientation on the Strength and Temporal Persistence of Policy Framing Effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 295-305.
    4. Ohlwein, Martin, 2022. "Same but different - The effect of the unit of measure on the valuation of a unit price," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    5. Anna Dreber & Tore Ellingsen & Magnus Johannesson & David Rand, 2013. "Do people care about social context? Framing effects in dictator games," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 349-371, September.
    6. Marie-Laure Cabon-Dhersin & Nathalie Etchart-Vincent, 2013. "Cooperation: The Power Of A Single Word? Some Experimental Evidence On Wording And Gender Effects In A Game Of Chicken," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 43-64, January.
    7. Shang, Xuesong & Duan, Hebing & Lu, Jingyi, 2021. "Gambling versus investment: Lay theory and loss aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    8. Petru Lucian Curşeu & Sandra Schruijer, 2008. "The Effects of Framing on Inter-group Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 347-362, July.
    9. Matthew Fisher & Milica Mormann, 2022. "The Off by 100% Bias: The Effects of Percentage Changes Greater than 100% on Magnitude Judgments and Consumer Choice [Numerosity and Consumer Behavior]," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 49(4), pages 561-573.
    10. Joy, Annamma & Wang, Jeff Jianfeng & Orazi, Davide C. & Yoon, Seyee & LaTour, Kathryn & Peña, Camilo, 2023. "Co-creating affective atmospheres in retail experience," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 297-317.
    11. Huang, Youlin & Qian, Lixian, 2021. "Consumer adoption of electric vehicles in alternative business models," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    12. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley & Philippe Le Coent & Mathieu Désolé, 2016. "Nudges, Social Norms, and Permanence in Agri-environmental Schemes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(4), pages 641-655.
    13. Bo Xiao & Izak Benbasat, 2015. "Designing Warning Messages for Detecting Biased Online Product Recommendations: An Empirical Investigation," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 793-811, December.
    14. Yannick Vandenplas & Steven Simoens & Florian Turk & Arnold G. Vulto & Isabelle Huys, 2022. "Applications of Behavioral Economics to Pharmaceutical Policymaking: A Scoping Review with Implications for Best-Value Biological Medicines," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 803-817, November.
    15. Shoham Choshen‐Hillel & Ehud Guttel & Alon Harel, 2022. "Framing negligence," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 296-339, June.
    16. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:972-988 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Ellen Peters & Irwin P. Levin, 2008. "Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 3(6), pages 435-448, August.
    18. Simon Blanchard & Wayne DeSarbo & A. Atalay & Nukhet Harmancioglu, 2012. "Identifying consumer heterogeneity in unobserved categories," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 177-194, March.
    19. repec:osf:osfxxx:aqgf8_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Yadav, Rambalak & Giri, Arunangshu & Chatterjee, Satakshi, 2022. "Understanding the users' motivation and barriers in adopting healthcare apps: A mixed-method approach using behavioral reasoning theory," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    21. Cubitt, Robin P. & Drouvelis, Michalis & Gächter, Simon & Kabalin, Ruslan, 2011. "Moral judgments in social dilemmas: How bad is free riding?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 253-264.
    22. Duong, Cong Doanh & Vu, Trong Nghia & Ngo, Thi Viet Nga & Chu, Tuan Vu & Pham, Lam Hanh Trang, 2024. "Who can you trust? The curvilinear effects of producer-retailer trust (im)balance in organic food consumption – The moderation role of trust in blockchain technology," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:12:p:1507-:d:121512. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.