(or benefits). Specifically, people tend to be ‘risk averse’, that is they want to avoid
risk, when thinking about gains but, when thinking about potential losses, people tend
to be open to taking risks, or risk seeking. Consequently, a behaviour that is not associ -
ated with risk may seem more attractive when thinking about gains (because we tend
to want to avoid risk when thinking about gains), while a behaviour that is perceived
to be risky may be more attractive when people are thinking about losses or costs (when
people favour risk). Preventive behaviours including condom or sunscreen use are
undertaken to reduce the risk of ill health and so tend to be perceived as low risk. By
contrast, detection behaviours such as breast or testicular self-examination are thought
to be high risk because, despite the potential long-term benefits, there is an immediate
risk of discovering a worrying problem. It has been predicted, therefore, that health
promotion information about preventive behaviours will be most effective when it
focuses upon potential gains, while health promotion information about detection
behaviours will be most effective when it focuses upon potential losses or costs (see
Rothman and Salovey, 1997). There is some evidence to support this. For example,
Detweiler et al. (1999) gave people going to the beach messages that either emphasized
gains associated with sunscreen use (e.g. ‘If you use sunscreen with SPF 15 or higher,
you increase your chances of keeping your skin healthy and your life long’) or losses
associated with not using sunscreen (e.g. ‘If you don’t use sunscreen with SPF 15 or
higher, you decrease your chances of keeping your skin healthy and your life long’).
They found that those who read the gain-focused messages were more likely to redeem
a coupon to collect sunscreen. Moreover, this (gain-focused) group were more likely
to intend to use sunscreen with a sun protection factor of 15 and to intend to apply
sunscreen repeatedly.
However, framing effects do not always produce the desired effects on motivation
and behaviour. One of the main reasons is that not all preventive behaviours are
perceived as low risk and not all detection behaviours are perceived as high risk. For
example, consider parents’ decisions to have their children vaccinated against measles,
mumps and rubella using the combined MMR injection. It is likely that after the
publication of the now refuted report linking MMR vaccination with autism and
inflammatory bowel disease (see above) parents perceived this preventive behaviour
as high risk and therefore, might be more likely to respond to loss-focused messages
rather than gain-focused messages. Abhyankar, O’Connor and Lawton (2008) tested
this hypothesis and found that, as predicted, a loss-framed message (e.g. ‘by not
vaccinating your child against mumps, measles and rubella, you will fail to protect your
child against contracting these diseases’) was more effective in increasing women’s
MMR vaccination intentions than a gain-focused message (e.g. ‘by vaccinating your
child against mumps, measles and rubella, you will be able to protect your child against
contracting these diseases’). Similarly, when a detection behaviour is perceived to result
in a safe or certain outcome, then a gain-focused message is likely to be most effective.
A study by Apanovitch, McCarthy and Salovey (2003) found that women who felt
safe about the outcome of a HIV test because they considered themselves to be at no
risk were more likely to report having the test six months after watching a gain-focused
video message compared to those who saw the loss-focused message.
Other factors influence the extent to which messages are processed. For example,
the degree to which an individual is involved with an issue has been found to influence
the effectiveness of gain- and loss-focused messages. Rothman et al. (1993) found that
CHANGING MOTIVATION 171