Message framing and color priming: How subtle threat cues affect persuasion

Abstract

Message framing involves the presentation of equivalent decision outcomes in terms of either gains or losses. Loss-framed messages tend to be more persuasive than gain-framed messages when the decision is perceived to involve uncertainty or threat. The current study examined whether the effectiveness of loss-framed information would be enhanced by the presence of a peripheral threat cue – the color red – which was expected to prime threat via its association with blood and danger. In addition to being primed with the color red or gray (control), male participants (n = 126) read either a gain- or loss-framed pamphlet promoting human papillomavirus vaccination. As predicted, vaccination intentions were higher among participants exposed to a loss-framed message than to a gain-framed message, but only when primed with red (not gray). Findings shed light on the interactive effects of message framing and color priming, and demonstrate that peripheral threat cues may affect processing of persuasive health messages.

Introduction

Imagine being at the doctor’s office for a routine visit and the nurse hands you a pamphlet describing an important new vaccine. Do you think your decision to get vaccinated would be influenced by subtleties such as the tone of the writing or the color of the pamphlet? Although one might think that important decisions such as this would be guided by thoughtful analysis of the health information, we hypothesize that such decisions can, in fact, be affected by the presence of subtle, threat-related cues contained in the content and color of the message. This prediction is based upon an integration of theory and research pertaining to message framing and color priming.

Message framing is a theoretically-grounded persuasive communication strategy aimed at motivating behavior through presentation of equivalent appeals framed in terms of either gains or losses. A gain-framed appeal emphasizes the benefits of engaging in the behavior, whereas a loss-framed appeal emphasizes the costs of not engaging in the behavior. Drawing on prospect theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979, Tversky and Kahneman, 1981), Rothman and Salovey (1997) proposed that whether a gain- or loss-framed message will be more effective depends largely upon whether the behavior described in the message is perceived to involve risk, threat, or uncertainty. Because people are relatively open to taking risks when faced with potential losses, loss-framed appeals should be most effective in promoting behaviors thought to involve potential risk or uncertainty (e.g., being screened for a life-threatening disease). In contrast, because people tend to avoid risks in the face of potential gains, gain-framed appeals should be most effective in promoting behaviors associated with safety and certainty (e.g., exercising). Existing evidence is largely supportive of this framework (see Rothman, Bartels, Wlaschin, and Salovey (2006) for a review; however see also Lauver and Rubin, 1990, Lerman et al., 1992).

Rothman and Salovey’s framework rests upon the notion that perceptions of risk or threat stem from the behavior under consideration; some behaviors are viewed as entailing more risk than others. Vaccination is an interesting health behavior because, although its health benefits are widely accepted by medical science, the public often is skeptical about vaccines. Indeed, studies suggest that vaccination is permeated with perceptions of threat, both in terms of its immediate consequences (pain, side effects) and its long-term effects (effectiveness) (Bekker et al., 2003, Smith et al., 2007, Weinstein et al., 2007). When considering a new vaccine, therefore, an individual may be more responsive to a loss-framed message because people tend to be more willing to take risks (i.e., receive a new vaccine) when faced with losses than with gains. Indeed, recent evidence suggests that, under certain circumstances—particularly circumstances that amplify the salience of threat—loss-framed messages are more persuasive than gain-framed messages in promoting interest in vaccination (Gerend and Shepherd, 2007, Gerend et al., 2008).

Yet effects of message framing may also depend on threat cues that are incidental to the behavior targeted in the message. One intriguing idea is that color—particularly the color red—could serve as a subtle cue that primes threat. Recent research (Elliot et al., 2007, Elliot and Niesta, 2008, Maier et al., 2008) suggests that color can communicate specific information, the meaning of which depends on the situation or context. For example, Elliot et al. (2007) demonstrated that brief exposure to the color red (versus gray or green) resulted in decreased performance on intelligence tests. In explaining their findings, the authors proposed that red primes the threat of failure in an academic context due to learned associations between failing a class and red ink marks on a term paper or exam. The threat of failure in turn evokes avoidance motivation and (ironically) results in diminished test performance.

Why might red prime threat in a health context? Threats to people’s health are both manifested and communicated by the color red. Red commonly conjures images of blood, injury, and infection. Moreover, the color red is used regularly to denote physical risk and danger on warning labels, traffic signals, and threat advisory systems. Indeed, evidence suggests that red is the single color most commonly associated with threat in our society (Wogalter, Conzola, & Smith-Jackson, 2002). At a biological level, red may instinctively signal the presence of impending personal danger (e.g., red signals fighting ability in primates; Setchell & Wickings, 2005). Thus, for both cultural and biological reasons, the color red is likely to signal possible health threats.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the combined effects of message framing and color on the effectiveness of persuasive health messages. The messages pertained to vaccination against a common sexually transmitted infection (STI) known as human papillomavirus (HPV). Infection with certain HPV types can cause genital warts, while infection with other types can cause cervical and anogenital cancers (Bosch et al., 2002, Lacey et al., 2006). Young adults under age 25 are at highest risk for HPV infection (Koutsky, 1997). The current study was conducted with a sample of young men, for whom the HPV vaccine is expected to be available within the next few years. Previous studies have focused almost exclusively on women’s acceptance of the HPV vaccine (Zimet, Shew, & Kahn, 2008), thus relatively little is known about men.

Participants were randomly assigned to read a gain- or loss-framed pamphlet about HPV vaccination. The pamphlet was accented with either the color red or gray (control). We hypothesized that the loss-framed message would be more effective than the gain-framed message (i.e., lead to higher vaccination intentions), but only when other peripheral cues in the situation signaled the presence of threat, that is, when the color red was also present.