The SAGE Handbook of Persuasion

by James Price Dillard

  O’Keefe and Jensen have conducted a series of meta-analyses examining the relative effectiveness of gain versus loss frame and potential moderators (2006, 2007, 2009) and the impact of message framing on message processing (2008). These meta-analyses showed that the two message frames do not differ in their overall persuasive impact (r = .02, k = 164, N = 50,780); the effect size was not statistically different from zero (95% confidence interval: −.01–.04; O’Keefe & Jensen, 2006). Surprisingly, the gain frame leads to slightly but significantly greater message elaboration than the loss frame (r = .06, k = 42, N = 6,378; O’Keefe & Jensen, 2008). Scholars have suggested that main effects conclusions regarding depth of message processing tend to be overly simple, and that moderators should be considered. There has been evidence that behavioral inhibition/activation systems (BIS/BAS) might be moderators. Specifically, BIS-oriented individuals process the loss frame in more depth, while BAS-oriented individuals process the gain frame in a more effortful manner (e.g., Shen & Dillard, 2009).

  Rothman and colleagues (Rothman, Bartels, Wlaschin, & Salovey, 2006; Rothman & Salovey, 1997; Salovey, Schneider, & Apanovitch, 2002) argue that when the targeted behavior is perceived as risky and uncertain (i.e., detection behavior), the loss frame is more effective; while the gain frame will be more effective when the targeted behavior is viewed as safe and certain (i.e., prevention behavior). O’Keefe and Jensen also tested these potential moderators in their meta-analysis series. Type of behavior did not emerge as a significant moderator for the persuasive effect (O’Keefe & Jensen, 2006), nor for the impact on message elaboration (O’Keefe & Jensen, 2008). When examined within each type of behavior, the gain frame was found to be more persuasive than the loss frame for encouraging disease prevention behaviors (r = .03, k = .93, N = 21,656); however, this effect can be attributed to the studies included that examined the topic of dental hygiene behaviors. Brushing and flossing are behaviors generally thought of positively; most individuals believe these are useful preventative behaviors and are widely socially acceptable. There was no significant difference between the effectiveness of the two frames for any other prevention behaviors (O’Keefe & Jensen, 2007). In addition, the gain frame leads to greater message elaboration than the loss frame within the topic of disease prevention behavior (r = .08; O’Keefe & Jensen, 2008).

  Similarly, the loss frame was found to be more persuasive than the gain frame when advocating disease detection behaviors (r = −.04, k = 53, N = 9,145). Again, this effect can be attributed to the included studies on the topic of breast cancer self-exams, another widely accepted health behavior. There was no message framing effect for any other type of disease detection behaviors (O’Keefe & Jensen, 2009). Within disease detection behavior, there was also no difference between the two frames regarding their impact on message elaboration (O’Keefe & Jensen, 2008).

  Despite the presence of attractive explanatory mechanisms (e.g., the negativity bias), together these results suggest that there is no overall difference in persuasiveness between gain-framed and loss-framed messages. Rothman and Updegraff (2010) suggest that we need to turn to both mediating and moderating variables to better our understanding of message framing effects. One possible explanation for the null effect is that the mechanism in favor of the loss frame and the one in favor of the gain frame (e.g., psychological reactance) could be at work at the same time and end up canceling each other out. To better understand and investigate message framing, both mediating mechanisms need to be operationalized and accounted for in empirical studies simultaneously, rather than just assumed, or only one of them should be included.

  In their responses to O’Keefe and Jensen (2007), Latimer, Salovey, and Rothman (2007) called for more research on potential moderators, particularly motivational variables. That call was echoed in Rothman and Updegraff (2010). Rothman and Updegraff proposed that there are two general perspectives regarding moderators of message framing effects: (1) individuals’ construal of targeted health behavior (e.g., detection vs. prevention, Rothman et al., 2006; Salovey et al., 2002), and (2) individuals’ dispositional sensitivity to outcomes presented in gain/loss (e.g., Mann, Sherman, & Updegraff, 2004; Shen & Dillard, 2007; Yan, Dillard, & Shen, 2010). So far, these studies have offered some evidence for these mediating and moderating variables, but there has yet to be systematic/meta-analytic reviews regarding the role and impact of these factors.

  Textual Messages and Style

  Although no meta-analyses are currently available, recent and interesting research has been conducted on the persuasive impact of coherence markers in written messages. Coherence markers like connectives (because, therefore, so) and lexical cue phrases (as a result, for that reason) are grammatical tools that allow the author to make an explicit connection between the cause and result or evidence and conclusion. It has been argued this more complex sentence structure actually makes reading easier for the audience because they do not need to make an implicit connection (Sanders & Spooren, 2007).

  Not all coherence markers have the same effect on persuasive communication; however, and recent work has explored some of these differences. Coherence markers of subjective relationships may cause a forewarning effect (signaling the audience that the message is persuasive) and result in message resistance. Coherence markers of objective relationships, however, may not. Whether a relationship is subjective or objective is determined by the word or phrase choice and, occasionally, the structure of the sentence. Subjective causality occurs when the persuader presents arguments to demonstrate her or his conclusion; objective causality occurs when the persuader is simply reporting a causal relationship that already exists. Take the following sentences as examples: (1) Crest is the best brand of toothpaste because it is the brand my mom bought; (2) I ran out of toothpaste this morning, so I need to stop at the store on my way home. The first sentence demonstrates subjective causality; it equates my mom’s taste with quality and serves as an argument for why Crest is the best brand of toothpaste. The second sentence demonstrates objective causality; it explains why I am stopping at the store.

  Controlling for previous knowledge, Kamalski and colleagues (Kamalski et al., 2008), found that sentences with objective markers were more persuasive than sentences with subjective markers within topic. However, the text with no markers and the version that contained both objective and subjective markers were not significantly different from the objective-only or subjective-only text versions. It is important to note, though, that the comparison sentences were not equivalent and the manipulations were complex; each version of text was two pages long and contained 25 different manipulations of text. Ultimately, additional research is needed to determine potential moderators. For example, text-based persuasion is a context when the education level, or more specifically reading ability, of the audience could be extremely important.

  Message Features and Persuasion

  * * *

  In this chapter, we reviewed existing research on the effects of some major message features on persuasion outcomes, including content (type of evidence and one- vs. two-sided messages), structure (climax vs. anti-climax structure and explicit vs. implicit conclusion), and style (powerful vs. powerless language, metaphor, message framing, and coherence markers). Overall, available meta-analyses show that these message features have significant effects on persuasion. Dillard and Pfau (2002) argued that studies on the impact of message features are at the heart of persuasion research. Conceptually speaking, persuasion research on message features is uniquely communicative and distinguishes such research from those in the psychology tradition. It does not mean, however, that we can study message effects without considering the psychological mechanisms that underlie such effects. Burleson (1992) argued that if we are to take communication research seriously, we need to study both. This review of the literature suggests that communication scholars are indeed doing that. Researchers have proposed mediating variables that explain effects of message features, and have been testing moderators in meta-
analytic studies as well.

  Practically speaking, findings regarding the effectiveness of message features have direct implications and should provide clear guidelines for message design and production. Arguably, all persuasion theories must consider message features and have implications for message design and production to be good theories. This is what brings truth-value to Kurt Lewin’s (1951, p. 169) famous quote “there is nothing so practical as a good theory.”

  In his chapter in the first edition, Hosman (2002) suggested that in persuasion studies, message features can be analyzed at a micro and linguistic level: phonology, syntax, lexicon, and text/narrative. The literature reviewed in this chapter analyzes message features at a rather macro level: content, structure, and style. This difference demonstrates that there are different approaches to the study of message features in persuasion; and that the meaning of message features is not necessarily objective in nature. McQuarrie and Mick (1999) suggested that interpretation of message features can be (1) based on the presence/absence of features (i.e., more objective); (2) based on receiver response, which emphasizes the receivers’ perception and interpretation of the message features; and (3) text-interpretative meaning that draws on semiotic, rhetorical, and literary theories. Similarly, O’Keefe (2003) observed that in the literature, message features are either defined in an effect-based approach or in terms of intrinsic features (see also Tao & Bucy, 2007).

  For both theoretical and practical purposes, message feature definitions based on effects should be avoided in favor of definitions based on intrinsic features (O’Keefe, 2003). On one hand, variations in message effects variables are caused by the intrinsic features of the message. Implicitly or explicitly, these message effects variables are the mediators of the message features–persuasion outcomes relationship. On the other hand, effects-based definitions offer little when it comes to guidance for message design and production. O’Keefe (2003) argued that failure to recognize the difference between the two types of definitions and oversight of the relationships among these two types of variables and persuasion outcomes would thwart progress in understanding of the effects of message features on persuasion, and understanding of the persuasion process in general. We strive to echo his position and the call for more and better conceptualized and operationalized research on message features and persuasion, with emphasis not just on effects, but on the mediating mechanisms and potential moderators as well. Only in this approach can we further our understanding of the effects of message features on persuasion, test and extend persuasion theories, and at the same time, provide guidance for message design and production for the practice of persuasion.

  References

  * * *

  Allen, M. (1991). Meta-analysis comparing the persuasiveness of one-sided and two-sided messages. Western Journal of Communication, 55, 390–404.

  Allen, M. (1998). Comparing the persuasive effectiveness of one- and two-sided messages. In M. Allen & R. W. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 87–98). Cresskill, MJ: Hampton Press.

  Allen, M., & Preiss, R. W. (1997). Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 4, 125–131.

  Areni, C. S., & Sparks, J. R. (2005). Language power and persuasion. Psychology & Marketing, 22, 507–525.

  Aristotle. (1952). Poetics. (I. Bywater, Trans.). In W. D. Ross (Ed.), The works of Aristotle: Rhetorica, de rhetorica ad Alexandrum, poetica. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

  Bowers, J. W., & Osborn, M. M. (1966). Attitudinal effects of selected types of concluding metaphors in persuasive speeches. Speech Monographs, 33, 147–155.

  Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press.

  Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic Press.

  Burleson, B. R. (1992). Taking communication seriously. Communication Monographs, 59, 79–86.

  Burrell, N. A., & Koper, R. J. (1998). The efficacy of powerful/powerless language on attitude and source credibility. In M. Allen & R. W. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 203–215). Cresskill, MJ: Hampton Press.

  Callister, M. A., & Stern, L. A. (2007). The role of visual hyperbole in advertising effectiveness. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 29, 1–14.

  Colston, H. L., & Keller, S. B. (1998). You’ll never believe this: Irony and hyperbole in expressing surprise. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 499–513.

  Cruz, M. (1998). Explicit and implicit conclusions in persuasive messages. In M. Allen, & R. W. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 217–230). Cresskill, MJ: Hampton Press.

  Das, E., de Wit, J., & Stroebe, W. (2003). Fear appeals motivates acceptance of action recommendations: Evidence for a positive bias in the processing of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 650–664.

  Dillard, J.P., & Pfau, M. (2002). Introduction. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. ix–xx). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  Eisend, M. (2006). Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 187–198.

  Fine, B. (1957). Conclusion-drawing, communicator credibility, and anxiety as factors in opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54, 369–374.

  Geiger, S., & Reeves, B. (1993). The effects of scene changes and semantic relatedness on attention to television. Communication Research, 20, 155–175.

  Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7, 155–170.

  Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199–241). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  Gilkinson, H., Paulson, S. F., & Sikkink, D. E. (1954). Effects of order and authority in an argumentative speech. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 40, 183–192.

  Gulley, H. E., & Berlo, D. K. (1956). Effect of intercellular and intracellular speech structure on attitude change and learning. Speech Monographs, 23, 288–297.

  Hale, J. L., Lemieux, R., & Mongeau, P. A. (1995). Cognitive processing of fear-arousing message content. Communication Research, 22, 459–474.

  Hornikx, J. (2005). A review of experimental research on the relative persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence. Studies in Communication Sciences, 5, 205–216.

  Hosman, L. A. (2002). Language and persuasion. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.). The handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 371–390). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  Hosman, L. A., & Siltanen, S. A. (2006). Powerful and powerless language forms: Their consequences for impression formation, attributions of control of self and control of others, cognitive responses, and message memory. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 25, 33–46.

  Hovland, C., & Mandell, V. (1952). An experimental comparison of conclusion-drawing by the communicator and by the audience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 581–588.

  Hullett, C. R. (2005). The impact of mood on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 32, 423–442.

  Kamalski, J., Lentz, L., Sanders, T., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). The forewarning effect of coherence markers in persuasive discourse: Evidence from persuasion and processing. Discourse Processes, 45, 545–579.

  Kardes, F. (1988). Spontaneous inference processes in advertising: The effects of conclusion omission and involvement on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 225–233.

  Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

  Lakoff, G., & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50, 46–70.r />
  Latimer, A. E., Salovey, P., & Rothman, A. J. (2007). The effectiveness of gain-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behavior: Is all hope lost? Journal of Health Communication, 12, 645–649.

  Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science; selected theoretical papers (D. Cartwright, Ed., pp. 188–237). New York, NY: Harper and Row.

  Lowrey, T. M., & Shrum, L. J. (2007). Phonetic symbolism and brand name preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 406–414.

  MacCormac, E. (1985). A cognitive theory of metaphor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 361–367.

  Mann, T., Sherman, D., & Updegraff, J. (2004). Dispositional motivations and message framing: A test of the congruency hypothesis in college students. Health Psychology, 23, 330–334.

  McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and attitude change: An information processing theory. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, and T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 171–196). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 233–346). New York, NY: Random House.