FROOD - Framing Food: Promotion- versus Prevention-framed Messages Carfora V., Jelic A., Bertolotti M., Catellani P.

1. FROOD - Framing Food:
Promotion- versus Prevention-framed Messages
Carfora V., Jelic A., Bertolotti M., Catellani P.
Università Cattolica di Milano
XIII Congresso Nazionale SIPSA
Prospettive di Psicologia della Salute

2. FROOD: Framing Food
It is not what you say,
it’s how you say it

3. CONSEQUENCE
ANTECEDENT Positive Negative
Positive
«If you eat well,
you will improve your health»
«If you eat well,
you will avoid damaging your
health»
Negative
«If you eat badly,
you will miss the opportunity to
improve your health»
«If you eat badly,
you will damage your health»
GAIN
NON GAIN LOSS
NON LOSS
Framing
Prospect Theory – Self-regulatory Model
(Cesario et al., 2013; Rothman & Salovey, 1997; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981)

4. FROOD: Framing Messages
Prefactual Formulation
 Describes the consequences in a
hypothetical form
(Epstude & Roese, 2011)
 Stresses the future effects of the
behaviors implemented in the
present
(Bagozzi et al., 2004)
 Influences attitude and intention
related to the eating behaviours
- (Bertolotti, Carfora & Catellani, 2019)
‘If…
then’

5. FROOD: Profiling Receivers
Prefactual
Message
Receiver’s features
Emotion
Cognition
Behaviour

6. The present research
Promotion and Prevention-framed messages
STUDY 1 STUDY 2
Promoting
vegetables intake
Reducing
red/processed meat intake
Funding: This research was supported by WINGAGE Srl

7. Study 1
Promoting
vegetables intake

8. Pre-test
Prootion (gain)
Non-gain
Loss
Non-loss
 Eating self-efficacy
Low, medium, high
 Stage of change
Precontemplation1, contemplation1,
preparation2, action1, maintenance1
(1 = within the next 6 months
2 = within the next 30 days)
Sample Receivers’ features
Sex
F = 49,
M= 49
Age
M = 27.69,
SD = 12.17
N = 94 adults

9. Promotion
Prevention
«If you eat at least two portions
of vegetables a day,
you will feel more relaxed»
GAIN
Presence of positives
«If you eat at least two portions
of vegetables a day, you will
reduce anxiety»
NON-LOSS
Absence of negatives
Affective messages
Facebook Posts
Dijkstra, Rothman and Pietersma, 2011

10. 5.73
5.69
2.97
4.79
4.89
5.31
Prevention
(non-loss)
Promotion
(gain)
Attitude
Anticipated Regret
Future Intention
5.71
6.06
1.44
3.21
5.27
4.87
4.89
4.03
1.83
3.53
4.12
3.94
Results*
(MANOVA**)
Condition X Stage of Change
Prevention
(non-loss)
Prevention
(non-loss)
Promotion
(gain)
Promotion
(gain)
Contemplation
Preparation
Action
Stage of Change
* Preliminary analyses: randomization was successful
** No significant conditions effect, F(3,80) = 1.65; p = .18, ηp2 = .06);
significant stage of change effect (F(6,162) = 7.96; p = .001, ηp2 = .22);
significant interaction ‘conditions X stage of change’ (F6,162) = 2.31; p = .03, ηp2 = .08)

11. Message X eating self-efficacy
predicted future intention
Message X eating self-efficacy
predicted future intention
Gain message
Non-loss message
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Low Medium high
Contemplation
Eating Self-efficacy
FutureIntention
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Low Medium high
Preparation
Eating Self-efficacy
FutureIntention
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
Low Medium high
Action
Eating Self-efficacy
FutureIntention
Message X eating self-efficacy
did not predict future intention
Condition X Stage of
Change X Self-efficacy
Message condition

12. Study 2
Reducing
red/processed
meat intake

13. Pre-test
Prootion (gain)
Non-gain
Loss
Non-loss
 Stage of change
Precontemplation, contemplation,
preparation, action, maintenance
 Eating self-efficacy
High and low
Sample Receivers’ features
Sex
F = 316,
M= 316
Age
M = 38,02,
SD = 15,66
Range: 18 - 80
N = 632 adults*
*Final sample: N= 483 Excluded who reported to eat < 3 srv. of red/processed meat a week

14. CONSEQUENCE
ANTECEDENT Positive Negative
Positive
«If you eat little red meat and
cold cuts, you will improve the
function of your bowel.»
«If you eat little red meat and cold
cuts, you will avoid damaging the
function of your bowel »
Negative
«If you eat much red meat and
cold cuts, you will miss the
opportunity to improve the
function of your bowel.»
«If you eat much red meat and
cold cuts, you will damage the
function of your bowel.»
GAIN
NON GAIN LOSS
NON LOSS
Messaging intervention
Facebook posts

15. Mancova Results*
Attitude towards reduced RPMC at T2
Self-efficacy
F(1,269) = 2.16; p = .001
Stage of
change
F(1,269) = 4.44; p = .001
Antecedent
F(1,269) = 8.88; p = .001
*Controlling for attitute at T1
SignificantMainEffects
Antecedent X
Self-efficacy
F(4,269) = 10.41; p = .001
Antecedent X
Self-efficacy X
Stage of change
F(4,269) = 2.51; p = .04
Antecedent X
Consequence
F(4,269) = 5.32; p = .001
Consequence X
Stage of Change
F(4,269) = 2.88; p = .02
Antecedent X Consequence
X Self-efficacy X Stage of change
F(3,269) = 2.51; p = .05
SignificantInteractionEffects

16. Antecedent X Self-efficacy
Interaction effects
ANTECEDENT
SELF-EFFICACY
Low High
Positive M = 5.13
SD = .18
M = 3.71
SD = .25
Negative M = 5.06
SD = .15
M = 4.76
SD = .25
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Low High
Eating Self-efficacy
Attitude
Mancova Results
Negative
Positive
Antecedent
F(4,269) = 10.41; p = .001The effect of the antecedent
(“If you eat less…”)
depends on how receivers
feel to be capable of
performing the
recommended action
(“… but… can I eat less?”)
The lower the self-
efficacy is,
the more the
gain/non-loss
messages are effective

17. Consequence X Stage of Change
CONSEQ.
STAGE OF CHANGE
Precontem. Contemp. Prepar. Action Mainten.
Positive M = 4.12a
SD =.14
M = 4.46b
SD =.25
M = 4.84
SD =.34
M = 4.44c
SD =.38
M = 5.49abc
SD =.30
Negative M = 4.43
SD =.13
M = 4.61
SD =.25
M = 4.31
SD =.32
M = 5. 08
SD =.38
M = 4.80
SD =.37
Mancova Results
Interaction effect: F(4,269) = 2.88; p = .02
The consequence effect
(“then…”)
interacts with
receivers’ stage of change
(“Is this consequence in line
with my current behaviour?”)
The higher the stage
of change is,
the more the message
on positive
consequences
(gain/non-gain)
influences attitude.

18. Precontemplation
Self-efficacy
Low
M (DS)
High
M (DS)
Gain 4.05
(.99)
3.86
(.29)
Non-Loss 4.83
(1.26)
3.86
(.33)
Loss 4.47
(1.29)
4.56
(.31)
Non-gain 4.65
(1.24)
3.94
(.31)
Mancova Results
Antecedent X Consequence X Self-efficacy x
Stage of change
We need a gentle threat!
Greater threat may activate
defensive avoidance and result
in an less message acceptance
(Witte, 1992)
You can threat us to motivate
our attitude change!
Evoking greater sense of threat
only if recipients feel capable of
averting the threat by performing
the recommended action
(Rogers, 1983; Van 't Riet et al., 2011)

19. In both studies:
Contemplation &
Low self-efficacy
→ gain
Preparation &
High self-efficacy
→ non-loss
Discussion
The valence of the
antecedents and
consequences
influences receivers
differently
The receivers
features
interact with
different
frames
Next step:
TAILORING
MESSAGES

20. Valentina Carfora
Postdoctoral fellow at the Catholic University
Professor at the University of Maryland
Contact

22. Example: Contemplation Stage
Interaction effect: B = -.48; 95% CI = -.93; -.03
Antecedent X Self-efficacy X Stage of change
5.26
2.98
5.27
4.62
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Low High
Eating Self-efficacy
Attitude
Mancova Results
Negative
Positive
Antecedent

23. Antecedent X Consequence
AttitudeANTEC.
CONSEQUENCE
Positive Negative
Positive
M = 4.45
SD = .22
M = 4.71
SD = .23
Negative M = 4.09
SD = .21
M = 4.65
SD =.19
Mancova Results
F(4,269) = 5.32; p = .001
4.45
4.9
4.71
4.65
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5
Positive
Antecedent
Negative
Antecedent
Negative
Positive
Consequence
Gain
Non-loss
Non-loss is more effective to change attitude, compared to gain

24. M SD
Eating Self-Efficacy 4.13 1.24
Attitude toward reduced RPMC at T1 4.44 1.43
Attitude toward reduced RPMC at T2 4.68 1.26
RPMC at T1 7.50 3.74
Gain Loss Non-gain Non-loss
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Eating Self-efficacy 4.03 1.23 4.17 1.32 4.21 1.16 4.12 1.26
Attitude T1 4.20 1.48 4.60 1.25 4.65 1.21 4.40 1.41
Attitude T2 4.45 1.33 4.65 1.14 4.90 1.16 4.70 1.39
RPMC at T1 7.84 3.48 7.54 3.88 7.08 3.49 7.46 4.40
1. 2. 3. 4.
1. Attitude toward reduced RPMC at T1 1
2. Eating Self-Efficacy .16** 1
3. Attitude toward reduced RPMC at T2 .44** .24** 1
4. RPMC at T1 -.16** -.15** -.21** 1
Condition
N Stage of
Change
Gain 66
Loss 73
Non-gain 72
Non-loss 71