Framing Antismoking Message –
4
A recent study found support for the assertion that gain-framed messages may be
more effective for smoking cessation or prevention programs, but another argued the
opposite. Schneider, Salovey, Pallonen, Mundorf, and Smith (2001) framed tobacco
smoking messages into either as a gain or a loss in either video or audio form. They
reported that gain-framed messages in both message formats shifted smoking-related
beliefs, attitudes or behaviors in the direction of avoidance and cessation (Schneider et al.,
2001, p.667). They concluded that gain-framed messages should be considered for
smoking prevention and cessation programs, rather than loss-framed or fear appeal
messages.
Conversely, Wilson, Wallston and King (1990) found that loss-framed information
was more effective than gain-framed for changing behaviors in a smoking cessation
program. The study suggests that loss information is more effective for framing smoking
reduction contracts with cardiovascular patients who were smokers. Subjects who
received the contracts with loss-framed information smoked fewer cigarettes. Thus, this
study suggested the effectiveness of loss-framed messages in influencing people to
reduce their use of cigarettes.
The inconsistency in the studies raised the question whether or not antismoking
messages should be gain-framed or loss-framed.
Cognitive Responses in Message Framing
Smith and Petty (1996) tested message framing on the degree to which people
elaborate, or systematically process a message. They used gain- and loss-framed
messages that promoted recycling and found that participants exposed to loss-framed
messages engaged in more careful message processing (i.e., more cognitive thoughts)
Convention