All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Loss Aversion and Regulatory Focus Effects in the Absence of Numbers: Qualitatively Framing Equivalent Messages on Food Labels
Unformatted Document Text:  QUALITATIVELY FRAMING EQUIVALENT MESSAGES ON FOOD LABELS Planned contrasts revealed that subjects exposed to gain-framed claims had less positive attitudes toward the product without the claims than those exposed to general product claims t(424) = 2.12, p = .035, and those exposed to nonloss-framed claims had less positive attitudes in comparison to the control group as well t(452) = 3.56, p < .001. The difference between gain and nonloss claim frames, however, was not significant t(444) = -.1.37, p = .17 (2-tailed) (Table 4). Table 4Planned Comparisons t-test for Differences between Treatment Groups on Attitude toward Product without Claims n M SD t df p Gain-Framed Production Claims 208 3.51 0.81 2.12 657 .035 General Product Claims (Control) 216 3.68 0.81 Nonloss-Framed Production Claims 236 3.41 0.87 3.56 657 < .001 General Product Claims (Control) 216 3.68 0.81 Gain-Framed Production Claims 208 3.51 0.81 -1.37 657 .170 Nonloss-Framed Production Claims 236 3.41 0.87 Note. Means ranged from 1 (most negative) to 5 (most positive). Conclusions Based on the theories of framing effects, loss aversion, and regulatory focus, the first hypothesis predicted that when controlling for regulatory focus, subjects exposed to nonloss- framed claims would have more positive attitudes toward the product with production claims than those exposed to gain-framed labeling claims or control group claims. This hypothesis was partially supported. Regulatory focus (prevention, promotion) did not influence attitudes toward the product with the claims so it was not included as a covariate in the analysis. The gain- and nonloss-framed production labeling claims did not lead to significantly different attitudes toward the product with the claims. Subjects in both treatment conditions had positive attitudes toward the product with the claims that were, in fact, nearly the same whether they were exposed to

Authors: Abrams, Katie.
first   previous   Page 16 of 26   next   last



background image
QUALITATIVELY  FRAMING  EQUIVALENT  MESSAGES  ON  FOOD  LABELS
Planned contrasts revealed that subjects exposed to gain-framed claims had less positive attitudes 
toward the product without the claims than those exposed to general product claims t(424) = 
2.12, p = .035, and those exposed to nonloss-framed claims had less positive attitudes in 
comparison to the control group as well t(452) = 3.56, p < .001. The difference between gain and 
nonloss claim frames, however, was not significant t(444) = -.1.37, p = .17 (2-tailed) (Table 4).
Table 4
Planned Comparisons t-test for Differences between Treatment Groups on Attitude toward  
Product without Claims
n
M
SD
t
df
p
Gain-Framed Production Claims
208
3.51
0.81
2.12
657
.035
General Product Claims (Control)
216
3.68
0.81
Nonloss-Framed Production Claims
236
3.41
0.87
3.56
657
< .001
General Product Claims (Control)
216
3.68
0.81
Gain-Framed Production Claims
208
3.51
0.81
-1.37
657
.170
Nonloss-Framed Production Claims
236
3.41
0.87
Note. Means ranged from 1 (most negative) to 5 (most positive). 
Conclusions
Based on the theories of framing effects, loss aversion, and regulatory focus, the first 
hypothesis predicted that when controlling for regulatory focus, subjects exposed to nonloss-
framed claims would have more positive attitudes toward the product with production claims 
than those exposed to gain-framed labeling claims or control group claims. This hypothesis was 
partially supported. Regulatory focus (prevention, promotion) did not influence attitudes toward 
the product with the claims so it was not included as a covariate in the analysis. The gain- and 
nonloss-framed production labeling claims did not lead to significantly different attitudes toward 
the product with the claims. Subjects in both treatment conditions had positive attitudes toward 
the product with the claims that were, in fact, nearly the same whether they were exposed to 


Convention
All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 16 of 26   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.