IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v39y2019i12p2640-2652.html

Loss/Gain Framing, Dose, and Reactance: A Message Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Chelsea L. Ratcliff
  • Jakob D. Jensen
  • Courtney L. Scherr
  • Melinda Krakow
  • Kaylee Crossley

Abstract

Whether a loss or gain frame has a persuasive advantage in communicating health risks is a matter of ongoing debate. Findings reported in the literature are mixed, suggesting that framing effects are likely complex and may be influenced by a combination of factors. This study examined reactance as a mediator and dose as a moderator of loss/gain framing effects. Adults (N = 1,039) read framed messages about the health consequences of physical (in)activity in varying message doses (i.e., number of framed statements). Compared to loss frames, gain frames generated more threat to freedom and reactance. Dosage exerted significant influence at the extremes; the one‐dose messages invoked less intentions to exercise compared to the four‐dose messages. Planned contrasts revealed significant frame × dose interactions. Notably, the one‐dose gain‐framed messages triggered significantly more freedom threat and less intentions to engage in physical activity—a situation that changed when the information was loss‐framed or when the dosage was increased.

Suggested Citation

  • Chelsea L. Ratcliff & Jakob D. Jensen & Courtney L. Scherr & Melinda Krakow & Kaylee Crossley, 2019. "Loss/Gain Framing, Dose, and Reactance: A Message Experiment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(12), pages 2640-2652, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:12:p:2640-2652
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13379
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13379?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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..
    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. Maria Corina Barbaros, 2022. "For Better or for Worse? An Integrative Perspective of Message Framing Moderators’ Effects on Vaccination Sustainable Health Behavior Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-14, November.
    2. E. Susanne Blazek & Sarah Deedat & Olivia Kinney & Allison M. Londerée & Stacey Frede & Amy Bucher, 2025. "What do people really think about the RSV vaccine? Study of unsolicited text replies from adults over 60," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.

    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. Seow Eng Ong & Davin Wang & Calvin Chua, 2023. "Disruptive Innovation and Real Estate Agency: The Disruptee Strikes Back," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 67(2), pages 287-317, August.
    2. Christiane Goodfellow & Dirk Schiereck & Steffen Wippler, 2013. "Are behavioural finance equity funds a superior investment? A note on fund performance and market efficiency," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 14(2), pages 111-119, April.
    3. Philippe Fevrier & Sebastien Gay, 2005. "Informed Consent Versus Presumed Consent The Role of the Family in Organ Donations," HEW 0509007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Shuang Yao & Donghua Yu & Yan Song & Hao Yao & Yuzhen Hu & Benhai Guo, 2018. "Dry Bulk Carrier Investment Selection through a Dual Group Decision Fusing Mechanism in the Green Supply Chain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-19, November.
    5. Shoji, Isao & Kanehiro, Sumei, 2016. "Disposition effect as a behavioral trading activity elicited by investors' different risk preferences," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 104-112.
    6. Pieter Nel & Renee van Eyden, 2026. "From News to Noise: Does Media Sentiment Drive Stock Market Volatility?," Working Papers 202605, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    7. Christoph Engel & Michael Kurschilgen, 2011. "Fairness Ex Ante and Ex Post: Experimentally Testing Ex Post Judicial Intervention into Blockbuster Deals," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 682-708, December.
    8. Christina Leuker & Thorsten Pachur & Ralph Hertwig & Timothy J. Pleskac, 2019. "Do people exploit risk–reward structures to simplify information processing in risky choice?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 76-94, August.
    9. Singal, Vijay & Xu, Zhaojin, 2011. "Selling winners, holding losers: Effect on fund flows and survival of disposition-prone mutual funds," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 2704-2718, October.
    10. Jos'e Cl'audio do Nascimento, 2019. "Behavioral Biases and Nonadditive Dynamics in Risk Taking: An Experimental Investigation," Papers 1908.01709, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2023.
    11. Alex Cukierman & Anton Muscatelli, 2001. "Do Central Banks have Precautionary Demands for Expansions and for Price Stability?," Working Papers 2002_4, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow, revised Mar 2002.
    12. Dash, Saumya Ranjan & Maitra, Debasish, 2018. "Does sentiment matter for stock returns? Evidence from Indian stock market using wavelet approach," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 32-39.
    13. José F. Tudón M., 2019. "Perception, utility, and evolution," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 7(2), pages 191-208, December.
    14. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    15. Lepone, Grace & Tian, Gary, 2020. "Usage of conditional orders and the disposition effect in the stock market," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    16. Shunda, Nicholas, 2009. "Auctions with a buy price: The case of reference-dependent preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 645-664, November.
    17. Castilla, Carolina & Haab, Timothy C., 2010. "Asymmetric Search and Loss Aversion: Choice Experiment on Consumer Willingness to Search in the Gasoline Retail Market," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61672, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Javed, Arslan & Onculer, Ayse, 2026. "Self-other discrepancy: the role of decision transparency in risky choices," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    19. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2007-059 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    21. Botond Kőszegi & Matthew Rabin, 2006. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(4), pages 1133-1165.

    More about this item

    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:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:12:p:2640-2652. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.