temporal perspective and healthy eating habits (milan 2015)

Mauro Bertolotti, Giorgia Chirchiglia, & Patrizia Catellani

Catholic University of Milan

14th European Congress of Psychology– Milan, July 7-10, 2015

The effects of message framing in promoting healthy eating habits: Differences between younger and

older adults

Bertolotti, Chirchiglia & Catellani

To make people change their eating habits, risks and benefits connected with nutrition must be effectively communicated.

Psychosocial research shows that the accurate framing of the messages enhances their persuasiveness.

Health Communication Long established eating habits are very difficult to change. Calls by authorities to adopt a healthier dietary regime

rarely result in the desired effect.


Message content about health vs. well-being

Messages can be framed according to different regulatory concerns, either safety or growth (Cesario et al., 2013).

Communication about the effects of nutrition reflects two different basic concerns (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000): Maintaining health (i.e., preventing disease risk); Improving well-being (i.e., promoting fitness and

quality of life). The framing of messages about nutrition reflects this

distinction: safety-framed messages are more suitable to address

health concerns; growth-framed messages are more suitable to address

well-being concerns.


Factual and prefactual framing Message framing can also emphasize different aspects of a

suggested behaviour and its expected outcome: A factual frame focuses on the outcome of a behaviour; A prefactual frame focuses on the antecedents leading to such

outcome ("If you..., then..."). Prefactual reasoning on the consequences of one's

behaviour improves readiness and preparation for future behaviour (Bagozzi et al., 2004; Catellani & Milesi, 2011).

When applied to communication on nutrition: Factual framing might be more suitable to

address health concerns; Prefactual framing might be more suitable to

address well-being concerns.


Self-efficacy Self-efficacy is an individual’s expectancy about his/her

ability to perform a certain behaviour (Bandura, 1986, 1997;.

The persuasiveness of a message often depends on recipients' self-efficacy (De Vries et al., 1988, Tudoran et al., 2012)

When people think they have the necessary skills to perform what the message recommends (high self-efficacy), they are more motivated to accept it.

When they don’t feel they have the necessary skills (low self-efficacy), they are more likely to reject it.


Individuals’ temporal orientation

Consideration of Future Consequences (CFC) refers to the extent to which people consider the potential distant outcomes of their behaviors and are influenced by them (Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994).

Individuals with low CFC are more present-oriented, while individuals with high CFC are more future-oriented.

Several studies have demonstrated the link between CFC levels and willingness to adopt healthy behaviors: higher CFC stronger intentions.


Research design

Behavioral intention

Message formulation

(factual/prefactual)

Message evaluation

EngagementAttitudes

Self-efficacy

Message regulatory concern

(growth/safety)

Hp 2

Hp 1

Three studies were conducted with the patronage of the City of Milan.

Consideration of Future

Consequences

Hp 3


Study 1: Participants and measures N = 84 (44 women, 40 men), age M = 74.90, SD = 8:41 Independent variables:

Regulatory concern: growth- vs safety-content

Message framing: factual vs prefactual

Dependent variable Evaluation of the message (convincing, credible) Engagement (interested, involved, motivated by the message) Attitude towards meat consumption ("I like meat") Thought-listing task ("How would you improve your nutrition?") Intention to eat meat and vegetables


Method The article was presented in four different versions:

Fact

ual f

ram

ePr

efac

tual

fram

e

Safety content Growth content

.

The World Health Organization states that "a diet with a high content of meat is bad for your health.”Epidemiological studies have shown that life expectancy is significantly shorter for those who make an abundant consumption of meat.The World Health Organization states

that "if you follow a diet with a high content of meat your health will worsen." Epidemiological studies have shown that if you make an abundant meat consumption, life expectancy will be significantly shorter.

The World Health Organization states that "a diet with a high content of meat decreases the psychophysical well-being". Epidemiological studies have shown that the quality of life is worse in those who make an abundant consumption of meat.

The World Health Organization states that "if you follow a diet high in meat it will decrease the psychophysical well-being". Epidemiological studies have shown that if you make an abundant meat consumption, it will worsen your life quality.


Evaluation of the message

Growth-Content Safety-Content1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

FactualPrefactual

Frame

Message content


Engagement


2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

FactualPrefactual

Frame

Message content



2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

FactualPrefactual

Attitude towards meat

Frame

Message content


Study 2: Participants and measures

Measures Engagement Attitude towards meat consumption Intention to eat meat and vegetables Food-choice task (simulated restaurant menu choice) Healthy-eating self-efficacy ("How capable to eat healthy

do you feel?")

N = 97, (75.5% women), age M = 73.59, SD = 7.34

Independent variables:Regulatory concern: growth- vs safety-

content Message framing: factual vs prefactual


Food choice task“You’ve been invited to enjoy a free dinner. Below you’ll find the menu of the restaurant. For each course you can choose only one dish; please make your choice by marking the option you prefer.”


Intention to eat red meat


1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

FactualPrefactual

Frame

Message content


Food-choice task


0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

FactualPrefactual

Num

ber o

f mea

t-bas

ed c

hoic

es

Frame

Message content


Food-choice task

MessageCongruently Framed

Incongruently Framed

0.0

0.8

1.5

2.3

3.0

Num

ber o

f mea

t-bas

ed ch

oice

s

Self-Efficacy-1 SD +1 SD


Study 3 We replicated the same procedures and measures from Study 2 on

a group of university students, including a measure of the Consideration of Future Consequences in the questionnaire.

N = 97 (72,2% women), age M=25.12, DS=2.34. Independent variables:

Regulatory concern: growth vs. safety content message Message framing: factual vs. prefactual

Measures CFC Engagement Food-choice task Healthy-eating self-efficacy


Frame

Message content


Health Well-being1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

FactualPrefactual



Message content

Low CFC Medium CFC High CFC1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

HealthWell-being

CFC level


Conclusion

Behavioral intention

Message evaluation

EngagementAttitudes

Self-efficacy

Message regulatory concern

(growth/safety)

Message formulation

(factual/prefactual)

Message time perspective(short/long-term)

Other individual differences

CFC


Thank you

Contact: [email protected]