The terms and are not entirely transparent labels for this “gain-framed” “loss-framed” message variation. After all, the from a gain-framed appeal might be avoiding a loss (“if “gain” you exercise regularly, you’ll reduce your risk of a heart attack”) and the from a “loss” framed appeal might be foregoing some possible gain (“if you don’t exercise regularly, you’ll miss out on a chance to improve your mood”). In retrospect, it might have been better to use different language (perhaps and so as to draw “compliance-focused” “noncompliance-focused”) attention to the key element in this message variation, namely, the antecedent. But the terminology of and is too well-established to hope for any such “gain-framed” “loss-framed” revision. The question of interest to message designers, of course, is which of these two message kinds is more persuasive. This is a complicated subject, beyond the scope of this article, but at a minimum two things seem clear: Gain-framed and loss-framed messages do not generally differ in persuasiveness, and the evidence for any potential moderating factor is at best mixed. (For some relevant review discussions, see Covey, 2014; Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012; O’Keefe, 2012; O’Keefe & Nan, 2012; O’Keefe & Wu, 2012.) Consequent Variation A second way in such consequence-based arguments can vary is in the nature of the consequent, the outcome that is invoked. These variations have also been labeled as message variations; messages are said to be in terms of this or that consequence. At “framing” “framed” least some of these variations can be seen to represent contrasts between more abstract categories of outcomes, so it will be helpful to catalogue such variations. Short-term vs. long-term consequences. At least for some health message topics, the outcomes invoked by a consequence-based argument might be ones that occur relatively
The terms “gain-framed” and “loss-framed” are not entirely transparent labels for this message variation. After all, the “gain” from a gain-framed appeal might be avoiding a loss (“if you exercise regularly, you’ll reduce your risk of a heart attack”) and the “loss” from a appeal might be foregoing some possible gain (“if you don’t exercise regularly, you’ll miss out on a chance to improve your mood”). In retrospect, it might have been better to use different language (perhaps “compliance-focused” and “noncompliance-focused”) so as to draw attention to the key element in this message variation, namely, the antecedent. But the terminology of “gain-framed” and “loss-framed” is too well-established to hope for any such revision. The question of interest to message designers, of course, is which of these two message kinds is more persuasive. This is a complicated subject, beyond the scope of this article, but at a minimum two things seem clear: Gain-framed and loss-framed messages do not generally differ in persuasiveness, and the evidence for any potential moderating factor is at best mixed. (For some relevant review discussions, see Covey, 2014; Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012; O’Keefe, 2012; O’Keefe & Nan, 2012; O’Keefe & Wu, 2012.) Consequent Variation A second way in such consequence-based arguments can vary is in the nature of the consequent, the outcome that is invoked. These variations have also been labeled as message “framing” variations; messages are said to be “framed” in terms of this or that consequence. At least some of these variations can be seen to represent contrasts between more abstract categories of outcomes, so it will be helpful to catalogue such variations. Short-term vs. long-term consequences. At least for some health message topics, the outcomes invoked by a consequence-based argument might be ones that occur relatively framed