Your mama told ya! The role of inhibiting factors in the promotion of daily SPF sunscreen application
Sara Ennemoser 11104392 Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Science Research Master’s
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. S.J.H.M. (Bas) van den Putte Completion date: 1st February 2018
Abstract
The frequency of skin cancer increased over the past decades. Several skin-protection campaigns previously attempted to promote SPF sunscreen application, however, it is still taken lightly. There is little information regarding which factors may have caused the failure of such campaigns. This study aimed to fill this gap by investigating the role of the inhibiting factors in the promotion of daily SPF sunscreen application. A 2 (temporal framing: short- vs. long-term consequences) × 2 (consideration for future consequences: low CFC vs. high CFC) × 2 (type of claim: health vs. beauty claim) experimental between-subjects design was
employed (N = 211). Overall, the results suggested that the conditional effects between temporal framing and consideration for future consequences (CFC) significantly predicted individuals’ behavioral beliefs. Additional analyses showed that language was also an
important moderator on the aforementioned relationship. No other effect of temporal framing was found to support the remaining hypotheses. The findings contribute to our theoretical understanding of the persuasion process and provide suggestion for future research.
Keywords: temporal framing, consideration for future consequences, counter-arguing,
construal-level theory, persuasion knowledge model, skin cancer, attitude, persuasion, health communication.
Your mama told ya! The role of inhibiting factors in the promotion of daily SPF sunscreen application
“Your mama told ya! To always apply SPF sunscreen when at the beach or during summer staycations”. SPF sunscreen application is a preventive behavior, which can help to avoid the short-term risk of sunburns and the long-term risks of faster skin aging, appearance of dark spots and skin cancer (Burr & Penzer, 2005). However, SPF sunscreen application is widely taken lightly. Skin cancer was and still is the cause of health concerns in many countries worldwide (World Health Organization [WHO], 2017). On one hand several
factors, such as recreational behaviors, the decline in ozone levels and skin type influence the growth of newly diagnosed cases (Burr & Penzer, 2005; WHO, 2017). On the other hand, a daily SPF sunscreen application can maintain individuals’ current skin health status and it can dwindle the risk of future illness (WHO, 2017). Thus, individuals can prevent the risk of skin cancer if they apply SPF sunscreen daily.
Public health has made concerted attempts to convince individuals to protect their skin. In 1981, the health campaign “Slip! Slop! Slap!” was launched with the aim to
encourage Australians to apply SPF sunscreens. However, almost four decades later, still two out of three Australians before their seventy are diagnosed with skin cancer (Cancer Council Australia, 2017). In the wake of the Australian “Slip! Slop! Slap!”, many other
skin-protection programs tried to enhance SPF sunscreen application but with little success (Oyebanjo & Bushell, 2014). This suggests that, overall, health campaigns failed to hit their target (Oyebanjo & Bushell, 2014; Snyder, Hamilton, Mitchell, Kiwanuka-Tondo, Fleming-Milici, & Proctor, 2004). With the current study, I aim to establish what factors could have caused the failure of previous skin-protection campaigns. In an attempt to provide practical suggestions regarding which factors should be accounted for to improve their effectiveness.
Skin cancer is a disease which manifests in the long-run, with a period of ten to thirty years before the onset of symptoms (WHO, 2017), thus, the temporal framing of an SPF sunscreen application message can have important implications on individuals’ attitudes and behavioral choices. Studies show that the effectiveness of temporal framing is largely moderated by individuals’ cognitive trait of consideration for future consequences (CFC; Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994). Individuals lower in CFC have more positive attitudes towards the behavior when exposed to a frame which addresses the short-term benefits of that behavior. Conversely, individuals higher in CFC have more positive attitudes towards the behavior when exposed to a frame which addresses the long-term benefits of that behavior (Strathman et al., 1994). In this study, temporal framing and CFC are also proposed to influence behavioral beliefs. Because attitude is a function of
behavioral beliefs (Conner & Sparks, 2005), it is plausible to assume that the exposure to a certain temporal frame may, or may not, enhance the salience of behavioral beliefs,
depending on a person’s CFC trait. In light of these considerations, I propose the moderator CFC as the first factor which may inhibit daily SPF sunscreen application.
Further, as the Construal-Level Theory (CLT) states, temporal framing can lead individuals to generate pros and cons towards a message (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Counter-arguments are more likely to arise when individuals are presented with the near future consequences of certain behavioral outcomes. This is because individuals’ abstract representations of behavioral outcomes are more concrete, therefore easier to counter-argue, when situated in the near future, as opposed to a distant future. In addition, according to the Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM), individuals develop personal knowledge about marketing tactics (Friestad & Wright, 1994). To refine their attitudes towards suspicious messages, they will activate their persuasion knowledge, which will lead them to generate more counter-arguing towards the message. Existing literature has, to a large extent, failed to
address the link between temporal framing, counter-arguing and attitudes. With an
exploratory approach, I therefore propose the mediator counter-arguing as the second factor which may inhibit daily SPF sunscreen application.
Finally, the moderator type of claim (health vs. marketing claims) is identified as the last factor which may inhibit daily SPF sunscreen application. Empirical studies on food packaging show that marketing claims, compared to health claims, elicit more counter-arguing towards the product (Fenko, Kersten, & Bialkova, 2016). Similarly, the marketing claims (i.e., in terms of beauty claims) on SPF sunscreens may lead to higher levels of counter-arguing and the discounting of the message, being recognized as a persuasive intent (Obermiller, Spangenberg, & MacLachlan, 2005). In light of what previously stated, I formulate the leading research questions of this study:
RQ: What are the effects of temporal framing on individuals’ daily SPF sunscreen application?
Sub_RQ1: Is the relationship between temporal framing (short- vs. long-term consequences), attitudes and behavioral beliefs moderated by CFC?
Sub_RQ2: Is the relationship between temporal framing (short- vs. long-term consequences) and attitudes mediated by counter-arguing?
Sub_RQ3: Is the relationship between temporal framing (short- vs. long-term consequences) and attitudes moderated by the type of claim (health claim vs. marketing claim) which an SPF sunscreen conveys?
Theoretical Background
Temporal Framing and Consideration for Future Consequences (CFC)
Why does temporal framing matter? What kind of temporal framing would enhance positive attitudes towards daily SPF sunscreen application? Further, are people predisposed in the same way towards different temporal frames? In this section, I address these questions by
introducing: firstly, temporal framing and the psychological theory underpinning it, secondly, the cognitive trait of CFC.
Health campaigns usually adopt a communication frame that provides information to prompt individuals to behave in a certain way (Hamilton, Biener, & Brennan, 2008).
Temporal framing is the process by which a behavioral outcome is presented form different time perspectives (Chandran & Menon, 2004). According to the CLT (Trope & Liberman, 2010), individuals form abstract mental construals of distal objects that enable them to make temporal predictions and consider hypothetical alternatives. In several studies, temporal predictions were operationalized as temporal framing messages (Chandran & Menon, 2004; Trope & Liberman, 2010). Temporal framing messages portray different time frames over which the short- or the long-term consequences of a certain behavior are manifested.
Specifically, short-term consequences address immediate behavioral outcomes whereas long-term consequences address delayed behavioral outcomes (Chang & Lee, 2009). Because individuals prefer to consider the hypothetical alternatives that are closely relevant to their goals, the trait of CFC is assumed to guide the preference for certain kinds of temporal frames over others (Orbell & Kyriakaki, 2008).
CFC is a stable cognitive trait that impacts the persuasiveness of the message and shapes individuals’ final evaluations of a behavior. When confronted with a behavioral decision, people consider the short- and long-term outcomes (Strathman et al., 1994). Evidence suggests that individuals with lower CFC assign more weight to the short-term consequences, whereas individuals with higher CFC value the long-term consequences of a behavior more (Orbell & Kyriakaki, 2008). In other words, individuals lower in CFC have a more positive disposition towards the message when its outcomes occur in the short-term, compared to the long-term. Conversely, individuals higher in CFC are better disposed
towards the message when its outcomes occur in the long-term (Orbell & Hagger, 2006; Orbell & Kyriakaki, 2008).
In preventive communication, meta-analyses did not find any effect of gain and loss framing on attitudes (Gallaggher & Updegraff, 2012; O’Keefe & Jensen, 2008). However, Strathman et al. (1994) found that temporal framing significantly predicts attitudes towards environmental messages (i.e., oil drilling). Attitudes were strengthened by the conditional effects between temporal framing and CFC. This supports the assumption that the
effectiveness of temporal framing is largely moderated by CFC (Orbell & Kyriakaki, 2008; Orbell, Perugini, & Rakow, 2004). The interaction between temporal framing and CFC can have important implications for a person’s behavioral choices and life outcomes (Kees, Burton, & Tangari, 2010; Orbell & Kyriakaki, 2008; Orbell et al., 2004; Ouellette, Hessling, Gibbons, Reis-Bergan, & Gerrard, 2005, Strathman et al., 1994). Building on these findings, I propose CFC as a moderator on the main effect of temporal framing on attitude. Thus, the first hypothesis of this study is postulated:
H1: CFC moderates the effects of temporal framing on attitude. Short-term consequences (compared to long-term consequences) lead to more favorable attitudes towards daily SPF sunscreen application for individuals lower in CFC.
Behavioral Beliefs
Existing studies focused largely on the effects of temporal framing and CFC on the dependent measures of attitude, intention, perceived behavioral control and behavior. However, little is known about the role of behavioral beliefs. As the Theory of Planned Behavior suggests, attitude is a function of behavioral beliefs (Ajzen, 1991). Not only behavioral beliefs represent individuals’ perceived outcomes of a behavior, but they determine individuals’ attitudes and actual behavior (Conner & Sparks, 2005; Fishbein & Cappella, 2006). A person owns a large set of behavioral beliefs, and those beliefs are
retained in the memory and retrieved when needed (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Temporal framing and CFC may therefore impact on the retrieval process of salient behavioral beliefs, such as a certain kind of temporal frame may enhance the salience of a person’s behavioral beliefs, depending on whether that person is high or low in CFC.
Moreover, empirical evidence shows that behavioral beliefs are instrumental in promoting SPF sunscreen application. For instance, the belief that SPF sunscreen is an effective form of skin protection can lead to more favorable attitudes towards SPF sunscreen application (Abroms, Jorgensen, Southwell, Geller, & Emmons, 2003). Specifically, a focus group study investigated participants’ reasons to protect themselves from the sun. Participants who held more positive SPF sunscreen behavioral beliefs were more likely to engage in the behavior, compared to the ones who held more negative behavioral beliefs (Abroms et al., 2003). As these findings and the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) suggest, the relationship between behavioral beliefs and attitude is generally strong and meaningful. The intensity and the valence of behavioral beliefs can influence attitudes (Conner & Sparks, 2005).
In light of these considerations, the conditional effects of temporal framing and CFC are hypothesized to influence behavioral beliefs. Further, in a moderated mediation process, temporal framing may influence attitudes by favorably enhancing behavioral beliefs
depending on the CFC trait. The second set of hypotheses of this study is postulated:
H2.1: Short-term consequences (compared to long-term consequences) lead to more favorable behavioral beliefs for individuals lower in CFC.
H2.2: Short-term consequences (compared to long-term consequences) lead to more favorable attitudes towards daily SPF sunscreen application by favorably enhancing behavioral beliefs. This effect is stronger for individuals lower in CFC (compared to individuals higher in CFC).
In the following sections, taking an exploratory approach and building upon the PKM (Friestad & Wright, 1994), I propose the other two factors which may inhibit SPF sunscreen application. Firstly, I present the mediating role of counter-arguing. Secondly, I introduce the moderator type of claim (health vs. marketing claims).
Counter-arguing
In deciding whether to engage in a behavior, a person usually makes mental accounts of pros and cons. The CTL (Trope & Liberman, 2010) suggests that individuals, when exposed to certain temporal frames generate pros or cons. Cons become more salient as the temporal distance from the behavioral outcome decreases (i.e., visible skin improvements within one week). On the contrary, pros become more salient as the temporal distance from the behavioral outcome increases (i.e., visible skin improvements within six months). In other words, a decrease in temporal distance makes easier to generate cons and more difficult to generate pros. Moreover, because attitudes are found to be more in line with the message when the retrieval process of abstract representations is easy, the ease of retrieval is correlated with generating pros and cons (Eyal, Liberman, Trope, & Walther, 2004).
Empirical evidence supports the above notions. When presented with a behavior concerning the near future, as opposed to the distant future, participants were more likely to generate cons and, they had less favorable attitudes towards the behavior (Herzog, Hansen, & Wänke, 2007).
In the current study, these notions are further linked to the PKM (Friestad & Wright, 1994). The PKM states that the exposure to persuasive messages leads to the activation of individuals’ persuasion knowledge. Persuasion knowledge refers to a person’s ability to identify when a persuasion attempt occurs. Because individuals want to protect their freedom in choices, to cope with the persuasion attempt, they will generate more cons, therefore counter-arguments towards the message (Brehm, 1966). Eventually, counter-arguments will
lead to more negative attitudes towards the behavior (Matthes, Schemer, & Wirth, 2007). Specifically, counter-arguing reflects a person’s tendency to question the message validity (Obermiller et al., 2005).
Building upon both theories, I propose that a message which conveys the short-term consequences of daily SPF sunscreen application should be easier to elaborate, compared to a message which conveys the long-term consequences. However, because the retrieval process is more concrete for near future behavioral outcomes than for distant future behavioral outcomes (Trope & Liberman, 2010), short-term consequences may prompt individuals to generate more counter-arguments, than long-term consequences. In the distant future, the abstract representations of the behavioral outcomes (i.e., skin improvements) are vague and blurry, whereas in the near future, due to the behavioral outcomes’ proximity in time, details are much better retrieved and remembered. Thus, a discrepancy between the promised behavioral outcomes and the actual outcomes of daily SPF sunscreen application may easily activate individuals’ persuasion knowledge, which will induce more counter-arguing, and generate more negative attitudes towards the behavior. Building upon this idea, I postulate the third set of hypotheses:
H3.1: Short-term consequences (compared to long-term consequences) elicit more counter-arguing.
H3.2: Counter-arguing mediates the effects of temporal framing on attitude. Short-term consequences (compared to long-Short-term consequences) elicit more counter-arguing, which in turn negatively influences attitudes towards daily SPF sunscreen application. Type of Claim
Message claims influence individuals’ attitudes and evaluations towards a product (Souiden, Abdelaziz, & Fauconnier, 2013). Both claim format and content contribute to how they elaborate the information presented on a product (Wansink, Sonka, & Hasler, 2004).
SPF sunscreen is a purchasing prevention product, which falls into the category of cosmetics (European Commission, 2009). Due to the overabundance of SPF sunscreens in retail and the highly competitive environment, product claims have become for marketers the essential tool to increase sales (Mayhew et al., 2015). However, product claims are not always beneficial to the product (Fenko et al., 2016).
Research shows that the presence of product claims on food packaging leads to different attitudes, depending on whether the claim is health-related or marketing-oriented. On one hand, health claims that address the positive effects of the product on a person’s health generate more positive thoughts (Mayhew et al., 2015). Positive thoughts result in higher levels of persuasion, therefore, more positive attitudes towards the product (Wansink et al., 2004). On the other hand, marketing claims promoting the characteristics of the product which are not health-related, usually generate more negative thoughts (i.e.,
counter-arguments) and therefore negative attitudes towards the product (Fenko et al., 2016). A plausible explanation for this phenomenon lies in the PKM, which suggests that a person’s persuasion knowledge develops simultaneously with the persuasion experience (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Consumers are usually more aware of the persuasive intent which lies behind marketing claims, compared to health claims. This is because health claims are based upon scientific guidelines provided by certified organizations (e.g., European Commission), whereas marketing claims are often introduced by marketers to emphasize the benefits of the product usage and increase sales (Fenko et al., 2016).
Existing research has focused on the effects of product claims on food packaging, but very little is known about their effects on preventive purchasing products such as SPF
sunscreens. Furthermore, the literature has not yet addressed the effects of temporal framing and type of claim on counter-arguing and attitudes. When the hypothesized relationship between temporal framing and counter-arguing holds true, the type of claim should
strengthen the effect of short-term consequences on counter-arguing. A message containing short-term consequences of daily SPF sunscreen application may lead to higher levels of counter-arguing, especially when combined with marketing claims. The last aim of this study is to compare whether marketing claims, which are identified with beauty claims, as opposed to health claims may strengthen the relationship of temporal framing on counter-arguing. When considering attitudes, I further suggest that there may be a moderated-mediation process going on. The fourth set of hypotheses is postulated:
H4.1: Type of claim moderates the relationship between temporal framing and
counter-arguing. Short-term consequences (compared to long-term consequences) elicit more counter-arguing under the marketing claim condition (compared to the health claim
condition).
H4.2: Short-term consequences (compared to long-term consequences) negatively influence attitudes towards daily SPF sunscreen application by indirectly eliciting counter-arguing. This effect is stronger under the marketing claim condition (compared to the health claim condition).
The conceptual model and hypotheses are below presented in Figure 1. The conditional effects of temporal framing and CFC on attitude are indicated by H1. The
conditional effects of temporal framing and CFC on behavioral beliefs are indicated by H2.1, and the moderated-mediation effect is indicated by H2.2. The main effect of temporal
framing on arguing is indicated by H3.1 and the mediation effect through counter-arguing on attitude by H3.2. The moderation effect of the type of claim is indicated by H4.1. Finally, the moderated-mediation effect of temporal framing and type of claim on attitude through counter-arguing is indicated by H4.2.
Figure 1. Theoretical conceptual model and hypotheses. Method
This study employed a 2 (temporal framing: short- vs. long-term consequences) × 2 (CFC: low CFC vs. high CFC) × 2 (type of claim: health vs. marketing claim) factorial between-subjects design to test the hypotheses. Temporal framing and the type of claim were manipulated, while CFC was measured.
Participants
The sample was selected using a convenience sample technique combined with a snowball sample technique from social network sites (i.e., Facebook) during October and November 2017. 288 participants were recruited. Of the 288 participants, 77 participants dropped out form the study or did not complete all survey questions. Their data were further excluded from the analyses. The final sample consisted of 211 participants. In specific, I recruited English speakers (n = 112) and Italian speakers (n = 99). It comprised 139 women (66%) and 72 men (34%). The average age was 28.31 (SD = 10.56 ), ages ranged from 16 to 67 years. Further, the majority of the sample had a bachelor’s (38%) or masters’ degree (37%). Participation was voluntary and no reimbursement was offered. This study obtained ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and all participants gave written informed consent.
Pretest
To assess the effectiveness of the experimental stimuli I conducted a within-subjects experiment. In specific, I tested four temporal frames and six types of claim (see Appendix A for pretest stimuli and Appendix B for a short example of the pretest questionnaire). The order of the pretested stimuli was randomized. I recruited 25 English speakers and 27 Italian speakers. The final sample consisted of 52 individuals (M = 28.69, SD = 10.74; 60% women). Data gathered from the English and Italian version of the questionnaire were firstly merged and secondly analyzed.
Temporal Framing. Several paired-sample t-tests were conducted to compare the effectiveness of the temporal frames (see Table C1.1 and Table C1.2 for descriptive and results of paired-sample t-tests in Appendix C). Participants were asked to rate to what extent they thought the four temporal frames were about the short- or long-term consequences of an everyday care SPF sunscreen application. Answer options were on a bipolar scale 1 = short-term consequences to 7 = long-short-term consequences. Further, participants were asked to rate how credible the temporal frames on a bipolar scale 1 = not at all credible to 7 = definitely credible were. In the long-term condition, I found a significant, medium-sized effect on the difference between “six months” and “three months” on short vs long-term consequences, t(51) = 5.40, p < .001, 95% CI [.65, 1.40], and no significant difference on credibility. Whereas in the short-term condition, I found a non-significant difference between “one week” and “three days” on short vs long-term consequences. However, the difference on credibility was statistically significant, and represented a medium-sized effect, t(51) = 5.05, p < .001, 95% CI [.63, 1.45].
Based on the results of the temporal framing pretest, one long-term frame, namely, “visible skin improvements within six months”, and one short-term frame, “visible skin
Type of Claim. I measured the six types of claim stimuli (i.e., three health claims and three marketing claims) on a newly developed item scale and on two bipolar scales. The 6-item scale was designed to measure whether the claims addressed a person’s health or beauty (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). An example item is “this sunscreen claims to be good for my skin health”. Second, participants were asked to rate to what extent they thought the claims were about the health or beauty benefits of an everyday care SPF sunscreen application. Answer options were on a bipolar scale (1 = health benefits to 7 = beauty benefits). Finally, they were asked to rate how credible the claims on a bipolar scale (1 = not at all credible to 7 = definitely credible) were. To assess the type of claim, I firstly conducted six factor-analyses on the newly developed 6-item scale. The factor-analyses aimed to test whether the scale tapped into the health and the beauty dimensions. Secondly, I run several paired-sample t-tests to compare the effectiveness of the claims.
Factor-Analysis. Results for principal component factor-analyses with varimax
rotation showed that overall the six items formed a two-dimensional scale: two components had eigenvalue above one, and there was a clear point of inflection after the second
component in the scree plot. Cronbach’s alphas showed that the scale had a satisfactory reliability in both type of claim dimensions (see Table C2 for alpha coefficients and Table C3 for mean difference, in Appendix C). For each health and marketing claim, the Health Scale (e.g., “this sunscreen is concerned about my skin health”) and the Beauty Scale (e.g., “this sunscreen aims at enhancing my beauty”) were computed.
Paired-Sample T-test. To test whether health claims and marketing claims were
perceived differently by participants I conducted several paired-sample t-tests on the variables: Health Scale, Beauty Scale, health- vs beauty-benefits (see Table C4 for descriptive; and Table C5 for results of paired-sample t-tests in Appendix C). The Health
Scale and the Beauty Scale were computed on the basis of the results from the factor-analyses.
I found statistically significant differences on the three aforementioned dependent variables, between the health claim “for healthy skin” and all marketing claims, (p < .05). However, the pair “for healthy skin” and “smooth your skin to perfection” did not differ significantly on credibility, t(51) = -.32, p = .752, 95% CI [-.56, .41]. Thus, based on these results “for healthy skin” as health claim and “smooth your skin to perfection” as marketing claim were chosen for the main experiment.
Main Experiment
Experimental Stimuli. The experimental stimuli were retrieved from the Aveda website (Aveda, n.d.) and then modified using Adobe Photoshop CS5 (64 Bit). The stimulus represented an image of an SPF sunscreen which conveyed information about the benefits of SPF sunscreen application as everyday care. I changed the original Aveda brand into a fictitious brand named “Sunnyque”. The brand was the same in both the English and the Italian version of the questionnaire. Further, I placed a quality seal on the left of each SPF image. The seal worked as a cue to enhance the credibility of the stimuli. The experimental stimuli were first created in English and then translated into Italian. The Italian translation aimed simultaneously at decreasing language barriers and increasing accessibility to the study for the Italian-speaking participants. A general statement declaimed “sunscreen application as everyday care may prevent severe skin damages”. The general statement was the same across the four conditions in both versions of the questionnaire. The temporal frames (short- vs. long-term consequences) and the type of claim (health vs. marketing claims) on the SPF sunscreen were manipulated. By using Adobe Photoshop CS5 (64 Bit) I was able to
color were kept consistent across the four conditions (see Appendix D, for the English experimental stimuli).
Temporal Framing. Although the SPF sunscreen benefits were the same in each SPF sunscreen image, the temporal frame of those benefits was manipulated. Based on the results of the pretest, the long-term consequences frame stated “visible skin improvements within six months”. Whereas the short-term consequences frame stated “visible skin improvements within one week”.
Type of Claim. The SPF sunscreen images contained a health claim or a marketing claim. Based on the results of the pretest, the health claim was operationalized as “For healthy skin”. Whereas the marketing claim was operationalized as a general short-statement referring to the good-looking. It stated, “Smooth your skin to perfection”. The type of claim manipulations were inspired by existing claims on skin-care products, which are sold in shops (i.e., Sephora).
Procedure
Each participant was able to take part in the study by using her computer, tablet and/or mobile phone. The study was offered in English and Italian. Participants could choose their language of preference before receiving the informed consent. After collecting the informed consent, I firstly assessed the moderator CFC via survey questions. Then all
participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. Each condition comprised the instruction “you are now presented with Sunnyque, an SPF sunscreen. Please, look carefully at it, read the information provided and answer the related questions. There are no right or wrong answers”. The SPF sunscreen was displayed for a minimum time of ten seconds. Due to the forced timing, I hoped participants would pay greater attention to the manipulation and its claims. Right after the exposure, I administered the remaining survey questions to assess counter-arguing, behavioral beliefs, attitudes towards daily SPF
application and other variables (i.e., demographics, purchase-decision involvement and former behavior). Upon completion of the survey measures, participants were thanked. The total battery of survey questions took approximately 5-7 minutes to complete.
Measures
Consideration for Future Consequences (CFC). CFC cognitive trait was measured by the 12-item CFC scale (Strathman et al., 1994). The scale contained twelve general statements, which refer to individuals’ tendency to consider future consequences. Example items were “I only act to satisfy immediate concerns, figuring the future will take care of itself (I)” and “I am willing to sacrifice my immediate happiness or well-being in order to achieve future outcomes (F)”. Participants were required to indicate on a 5-point Likert scale to what extent the statements characterized them. Answer options ranged from 1= extremely uncharacteristic to 5 = extremely characteristic. Before computing the reliability analysis, the items which referred to the future consequences were reverse coded (i.e., 1= extremely characteristic to 5 = extremely uncharacteristic). Cronbach’s alpha suggested a satisfactory internal reliability (α = .79). Eventually, the scale CFC was computed (M = 2.49, SD = .64). People who scored high in CFC have less consideration for future consequences than people who scored low.
Counter-arguing. The mediator counter-arguing was assessed on a 4-item scale, which was previously designed to measure individuals’ tendency to counter-argue the message. The original items described by Nabi, Moyer-Gusé and Byrne (2007) were slightly modified for the purpose of this study. They included: “I found myself actively agreeing with the message claims’ points (reversed)”. Answer options ranged on a 5-point Likert scale (i.e., 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The counter-arguing scale was computed (M = 2.78, SD = .73, α = .68). Higher scores suggested more counter-arguing towards the message claims.
Behavioral Beliefs. To assess behavioral beliefs, participants were asked to rate the strength of nine belief items on a 5-point Likert scale. Behavioral beliefs were gathered from a qualitative study which explored individuals’ reasons to protect from the sun (Abroms et al., 2003). Example items are “sunscreen prevents severe burns” and “sunscreen is an ineffectual or unreliable form of sun protection (reversed)”. Answer options range from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. After deleting item n. seven and eight, the scale showed a sufficient internal reliability (7 items, α = .60). Responses were then combined and added to give the measure of behavioral beliefs (M = 3.87, SD = .65). Higher scores
suggested stronger behavioral beliefs on the effectiveness of SPF sunscreen application. Attitudes towards Daily SPF Application. To assess attitudes towards daily SPF application, participants were asked to rate the stem “For me to daily apply SPF sunscreen would be…” on a nine differential scale. These differentials reflected the three constructs of affect, cognition and evaluation. The pair word associations were taken from Keer, van den Putte and Neijens (2010). The items for affect were pleasant-unpleasant, enjoyable-not enjoyable and nice-annoying1. The items for cognition were worthwhile-worthless, beneficial- harmful and useful-useless. Finally, those for overall evaluation were positive-negative, good-bad and desirable-undesirable. The order of the nine differentials was randomized. Answer options ranged from 1 to 5 (i.e., 1 = positive and 5 = negative). Differential items were first recoded (i.e., 1 = negative to 5 = positive), higher scores
suggested stronger affect, cognition and evaluation towards daily SPF sunscreen application. Reliability test showed a high Cronbach’s alpha (α = .92). Because all the items showed high internal reliability, the attitude scale was then computed (M = 3.46, SD = .87).
1
To better match with daily SPF sunscreen application the pair word association nice-nasty was changed into
Other Measures
Demographics. Participants were asked to report general demographic variables as gender, age and education. Because skin type is one of the factors which predisposes individuals to skin cancer (see directives for SPF sunscreen choice; American Cancer
Society, 1997), I also included it in the survey questions. To measure it, I used the procedure described by Fitzpatrick (1988). Participants needed to complete the statement “My skin…” by ticking the answer option which characterized them at best. Answer options ranged from 1 = always burns, never tans to 5 = never burns.
Purchase-Decision Involvement. To measure product involvement I used the 3-item scale described by Laurent and Kapferer (1985). Example item was “I choose my SPF sunscreen very carefully”. Participants needed to rate the statements on a 5 point-Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree). The scale for involvement was then computed (M = 3.48, SD = 1.95, α = .93).
Former Behavior. To assess former behavior I created four items following the procedure described by Conner and Sparks (2005, p. 196). On a 5-point bipolar scale (i.e., 1 = definitely do not and 5 = definitely do), participants were asked to indicate their former
behavior with regard to daily SPF sunscreen application. Example item was “I always apply SPF sunscreen during my daily activities (i.e., when shopping)”. Lower scores suggest
participants less engaged in the SPF sunscreen application. The scale for former behavior was then computed (M = 2.56, SD = .91, α = .71).
Preliminary Analysis Between Language Groups
To check whether the English-speaking participants and the Italian-speaking participants did not systematically differ on the variables of interests, I run several independent sample t-test. As Table 1 shows, the groups significantly differed on CFC, counter-arguing, behavioral beliefs and former behavior. Based on the results of the
independent sample t-tests, all further analyses were performed with language as an extra moderator in the model. The language group was recoded into a dummy variable (English-speaking group = 0; Italian-(English-speaking group = 1).
Table 1
Descriptive and Results for T-test between the English-speaking and Italian-speaking Groups
English-speaking Italian-speaking mean difference t(209) p 95% CI d (n = 112) (n = 99) mean (SD) mean (SD) CFC 3.42 (.62) 3.61 (.67) -.19 -2.16 .032 (.09, -.36) .28 Counter-arguing 2.78 (.73) 2.48 (.75) .30 2.96 .003 (1.10, .51) .40 Attitude 3.46 (.87) 3.38 (1.00) .08 .64 .534 (-.17, .33) .08 Behavioral beliefs 3.49 (.49) 3.73 (.51) -.24 -3.48 .001 (-.38, -.10) .47 Involvement 3.48 (1.19) 3.52 (1.28) -.04 -.25 .802 (-.17, .33) .03 Former behavior 2.80 (.96) 2.28 (.76) .52 4.41 <.001 (.30, .77) .68 Note. N = 211. CI = confidence interval.
Plan of Analyses
IBM-SPSS (24) with the PROCESS extension (Hayes, 2012) was used to test the hypotheses as shown in Figure 1. PROCESS was chosen because it constitutes the best approach to moderated-mediation analyses (i.e., H2.2 and H4.2).
The independent variables included temporal framing, CFC, and the conditional effects of Temporal Framing × CFC, as well as type of claim and the conditional effects of Temporal Framing × Type of Claim. Additionally, language and its conditional effects were included as an extra independent variable in the model. These variables were expected to influence attitudes, behavioral beliefs and counter-arguing. Before testing the hypotheses, all variables were mean centered with a SD below one and a SD above one. After standardization, the conditional effects (e.g., Temporal Framing × CFC) were run. The control variables (e.g., purchase-decision involvement) were tested to check if they correlated with the dependent variables (e.g., attitude). For instance, Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted to check
whether participants’ level of purchase-decision involvement correlated with attitudes. If they correlated, purchase-decision involvement was included as a covariate in the further analyses. All analyses were run with a 95% confidence interval and bootstrap at 5000.
Results Randomization Checks
A factorial-ANOVA indicated that participants among the experimental conditions (2×2×2) did not differ in age, F(13, 110) = .54, p = .891, ω² = .01, purchase-decision
involvement, F(13, 110) = .76, p = .699, ω² = .01, and former behavior, F(13, 110) = .47, p = .937, ω² = .02. Chi-squared statistical tests indicated that the conditions did not differ in gender, χ² (3) = 3.80, p = .284, nor in education, χ² (6) = 8.66, p = .193, nor in skin type, χ² (12) = 14.95, p = .244. Hence, randomization was successful.
Control Variables
Continuous Variables. As Table 2 shows, Pearson’s correlation analyses suggested that former behavior (r = .19, p = .006), purchase-decision involvement (r = .31, p < .001) and age (r = .16, p = .018) significantly correlated with attitudes. Age also significantly correlated with behavioral beliefs (r = .14, p = .046). Thus, age, purchase-decision involvement and, former behavior were included as covariates in the further analyses. Table 2
Correlation Coefficients Between Dependent Variables and Control Variables
Variables Attitude Behavioral beliefs Counter-arguing
Purchase-decision involvement .31** .09 .08
Former behavior .19* .06 .10
Skin type -.04 .02 .05
Age .16* .14* .02
Note. N = 211. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Categorical Variables. Kendall’s tau correlation did not show any significant correlation between education and the dependent variables (p > .05). Finally, as Table 3
suggests an independent sample t-test showed that gender (males vs. females) significantly differed on attitude, behavioral beliefs and counter-arguing. Thus, gender was included as a covariate in the further analyses.
Table 3
Descriptive and Results for T-test Between Male and Female Participants
Males Females mean
difference t(209) p 95% CI mean (SD) mean (SD)
Attitude 3.00 (.90) 3.64 (.88) -.64 -4.94 < .001 (-.90,-.39) Behavioral beliefs 3.72 (.70) 3.94 (.60) -.22 -2.25 .026 (-.41, -.03) Counter-arguing 2.82 (.74) 2.55 (.76) .27 2.49 .014 (.05, .48) Note. N = 211. CI = confidence interval.
Main Analyses
Before hypothesis testing, all variables were standardized using z-scores. For an overview of all results see Figure 2.
Figure 2. Relationships between temporal framing and attitude. Unstandardized coefficients are reported.
To test H1 whether CFC moderates the effects of temporal framing such as the effect of short-term consequences (compared to long-term consequences) on attitude is stronger for individuals lower in CFC, I used PROCESS Model 3 (Hayes, 2012). As Table 4 shows, the
conditional effects of Temporal Framing × CFC on attitude were not significant. CFC did not moderate the relationship between temporal framing and attitude. Thus, H1 was rejected. Similarly, the three-way interaction of Temporal Framing × CFC × Language on attitude was not significant. The English-speaking participants and Italian-speaking participants did not statistically differ on their perceptions of temporal framing and CFC on attitude.
To test whether behavioral beliefs mediate the relationship between temporal framing, CFC and attitude, such as short-term consequences (compared to long-term consequences) generate more favorable behavioral beliefs for individuals lower in CFC (H2.1), which in turn positively influence attitude towards daily SPF sunscreen application (H2.2), I used PROCESS Model 69 (Hayes, 2012). As Table 4 shows, there was no significant main effect of temporal framing on behavioral beliefs. However, the conditional effects of Temporal Framing × CFC on behavioral beliefs were significant. Short-term consequences generated more favorable behavioral beliefs for individuals who scored low in CFC. Conversely, long-term consequences generated more favorable behavioral beliefs for individuals who scored high in CFC, b = .54, SE B= .15, t(198) = 3.58, p < .001, 95% CI [.24, .83]. This was a positive effect.H2.1 was therefore retained. Similarly, the three-way interaction of Temporal Framing × CFC × Language was significant, b = -.82, SE B = .29, t(198) = -2.82, p = .005, 95% CI [-1.39, -.25]. Short-term consequences generated more positive behavioral beliefs for individuals who scored low in CFC. Conversely, long-term consequences generated more positive behavioral beliefs for individuals who scored high in CFC. However, the effect was there only for the English-speaking participants but not for the Italian-speaking participants (see Figure 3). The indirect effects of Temporal Framing × CFC interaction on attitude through behavioral beliefs were not significant, even after testing for language. The results showed no moderated-mediation. H2.2 was rejected.
Figure 3. Conditional effects between temporal framing and CFC on behavioral beliefs per language group.
Table 4
Unstandardized Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Confidence Intervals for the Effect of Temporal Framing on Attitude and Behavioral Beliefs Moderated by CFC and Language Dependent Variable Path H1 H2 b (SE) 95% CI b (SE) 95% CI Attitude TF .08 (.14) (-.19, .34) Attitude CFC -.13 (.07) (-.27, .00) Attitude TF × CFC -.02 (.14) (-.27, .00) .00 (.14) (-.28, .29) Attitude Language -.11 (.15) (-.41, .19) -.11 (.15) (-.41, .19) Attitude TF × Language -.25 (.29) (-.83, .33) -.25 (.30) (-.83, .34) Attitude CFC × Language -.02 (.14) (-.29, .25) -.01 (.14) (-.28, .27) Attitude TF × CFC × Language .25 (.29) (-.32, .83) .22 (.29) (-.36, .80) Attitude Beliefs -.05 (.07) (-.19, .09)
Attitude Beliefs × Language -.02 (.15) (-.31, .28)
Attitude Involvement .18 (.08)* (.02, .34) .18 (.08)* (.02, .34) Attitude Former behavior .01 (.08) (-.15, .18) .02 (.08) (-.15, .18) Attitude Gender .44(.16)** (.14, .75) .46 (.16)** (.14, .77) Attitude Age .01 (.00) (-.00, .01) .01 (.00) (-.00, .02) Beliefs TF .05 (.13) (-.21, .31) Beliefs CFC -.08 (.08) (-.22, .07) Beliefs Language .20 (.14) (-.07, .47) Beliefs TF × CFC .54 (.15)*** (.24, .83) Beliefs TF × Language .06 (.28) (-.49, .61) Beliefs CFC × Language .27 (.15) (-.03, .56) Beliefs TF × CFC × Language -.82 (.29)** (-1.39, -.25) Beliefs Gender .28 (.15) (-.03, .58) Beliefs Age .01 (.00)* (.00, .01)
Note. N = 211. TF = temporal framing. CFC = considerations for future consequences. TF: short-term was coded as 0, long-term was coded as 1; Language: English-speaking was coded as 0, Italian-speaking was coded as 1. CI = confidence interval.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
To test whether short-term consequences (compared to long-term consequences) elicit more counter-arguing (H3.1), which in turn negatively influences attitude towards daily SPF application (H3.2), I used PROCESS Model 59 (Hayes, 2012). As Table 5 shows, results
suggested that short-term consequences did not elicit more counter-arguing. H3.1 was
rejected. Even though the main effect of language on counter-arguing was significant, such as the English-speaking participants showed more counter-arguing compared to the Italian-speaking participants, b = -.40, SE B = .19, t(202) = -2.13, p = .034, 95% CI [-.77, -.03]. There was no conditional effects of Temporal Framing × Language on counter-arguing. Further, counter-arguing did not negatively influence attitude towards daily SPF sunscreen application, thus H3.2 was rejected. Additional analyses showed that there was no
moderated-mediation of Temporal Framing × Language on attitude through counter-arguing, k² = -.03, 95% CI [-.15, .05].
To test H4.1 whether the type of claim moderates the relationship between temporal framing and counter-arguing, such as short-term consequences (compared to long-term consequences) elicit more counter-arguing under the marketing claim condition (than under the health claim condition), and H4.2 the moderated mediation process on attitudes, I used PROCESS Model 69 (Hayes, 2012). As Table 5 shows, the conditional effects of Temporal Framing × Type of Claim on counter-arguing were not significant. Type of claim did not moderate the relationship between temporal framing and counter-arguing. H4.1 was rejected. Similarly, the three-way interaction between Temporal Framing × Type of Claim × Language on counter-arguing was not significant. Further, the indirect effects of Temporal Framing × Type of Claim interaction on attitude through counter-arguing were not significant. H4.2 was rejected. Additional analyses showed no moderated mediation of Temporal Framing × Type of Claim × Language interaction on attitude through counter-arguing.
Table 5
Unstandardized Coefficients, Standard Errors, and Confidence Intervals for the Effect of Temporal Framing on Attitude and Counter-arguing Moderated by Type of Claim and Language Dependent Variable Path H3 H4 b (SE) 95% CI b (SE) 95% CI CA TF -.12 (.14) (-.39, .15) -.12 (.14) (-.39, .16) CA Language -.40 (.19)* (-.77, -.03) -.40 (.20) (-.79, -.02) CA TF × Language .30 (.28) (-.25, .85) .31 (.29) (-.26, .87) CA Claim .04 (.14) (-.23, .31) CA TF × Claim .03 (.28) (-.52, .57) CA TF × Claim × Language -.07 (.56) (-1.19, 1.04) CA Gender -.44 (.16)** (-.75, -.13) -.43 (.16) (-.75, -.12) Attitude CA -.09 (.08) (-.25, .07) -.09 (.08) (-.26, .07) Attitude TF × Language -.14 (.29) (-.71, .43) -.16 (.29) (-.74, .42) Attitude CA × Language .01 (.16) (-.30, .32) .02 (.16) (-.30, .33) Attitude Claim .26 (.14) (-.00, .53)
Attitude TF × Claim × Language -.48 (.55) (-1.57, .60) Attitude Involvement .18 (.08)** (.03, .33) .17 (.07)* (.02, .32) Attitude Former behavior .05 (.08) (-.11, .21) .05 (.08) (-.10, .20) Attitude Gender .42 (.16)** (.11, .74) .44 (.16)** (.13, .76) Attitude Age .01 (.00) (-.00, .01) .01 (.00) (-.00, .01) Note. N = 211. CA = counter-arguing. TF = temporal framing. TF: short-term was coded as 0, long-term was coded as 1; Claim: health claim was coded as 0, marketing claim was coded as 1; Language: English-speaking was coded as 0, Italian-speaking was coded as 1. CI =
confidence interval.
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
General Conclusion and Discussion
The first aim of this study was to test the influence of the conditional effects between temporal framing and CFC on attitude and behavioral beliefs towards daily SPF sunscreen application. The second aim was to provide an additional explanation of the effects of
establish whether the type of claim (health vs. marketing claims) moderated the latter relationship. Overall, the findings suggested that temporal framing and individuals’ CFC significantly impact on the retrieval process of salient behavioral beliefs. This effects was there for the English-speaking participants, but not for the Italian-speaking participants. No other significant effect of temporal framing was found to support the remaining hypotheses.
The conditional effects between temporal framing and CFC did not significantly predict attitude towards daily SPF sunscreen application. Thus, H1 was rejected. However, the conditional effects of temporal framing and CFC generated more favorable behavioral beliefs. H2.1 was retained. In specific, a frame which conveyed the short-term consequences (compared to long-term consequences) of daily SPF sunscreen application generated more favorable behavioral beliefs for individuals lower in CFC. This supports the assumption that the extent to which a person considers future consequences influence the retrieval and the salience of a set of behavioral beliefs (Strathman et al., 1994). Although this was not
predicted, I found that the English-speaking participants and the Italian-speaking participants significantly differ on their levels of behavioral beliefs towards SPF sunscreen application, such as the relationship between temporal framing and CFC held true for the English-speaking participants but not for the Italian-English-speaking participants. This points out the importance of cultural differences with regard to health behaviors. When designing skin-protection campaigns, practitioners should address individuals in culturally sensitive ways (Lannin et al., 1998). In the current study, both English-speaking and Italian-speaking participants rated the same behavioral beliefs items. Future research should extend these findings by identifying which behavioral beliefs are more salient for which cultural (e.g., language) group. This can help practitioners to better design effective and tailored skin-protection campaigns by tapping those behavioral beliefs which are considered more salient to the behavior. Only by understanding their target audience and their discriminating beliefs,
practitioners will be more effective in promoting health behaviors (Fishbein & Cappella, 2006). Further, the mediator behavioral beliefs did not influence attitude towards daily SPF sunscreen application. Thus, H2.2 was rejected.
A first plausible explanation for the non-effect on attitudes may lie in the CFC scale as a measurement instrument. Evidence suggests that the CFC scale was not an accurate measurement instrument to predict the variance in alcohol use (Strathman et al., 1994). Further, the CFC scale may be an inappropriate instrument to measure CFC traits when the relationship between the health behavior and its consequences is unknown (Strathman et al., 1994). Specifically, the consequences of the sun exposure on people’s health may be
relatively unsuspected. Many individuals may believe that if they get severe sunburns only once in the summer, they would not long-term harm their skin health. In health
communication, it is extremely important to convey messages with an adequate level of specificity towards the behavior and its outcomes (Fishbein & Cappella, 2005). The CFC scale refers to individuals’ general tendency to consider future consequences, but it lacks of asking about the specific consequences. Future research should address this limitation by including specific items about the consequences of sun exposure.
Temporal framing did not significantly predict counter-arguing, nor attitude towards daily SPF sunscreen application through the mediator counter-arguing. H3.1 and H3.2 were rejected. Adding the moderator type of claim did not lead to any significant effects on arguing, nor on attitude towards daily SPF sunscreen application through counter-arguing. H4.1 and H4.2 were also rejected. Every product presents some claims that aim to communicate its scope. Product claims are essential marketing tools for promoting the characteristics of the product (Fenko et al., 2016). Beauty claims as a specific type of
marketing claim were tested in the current study, future research should broaden the findings by testing more marketing claim dimensions (e.g., ingredient claims). This would be
extremely beneficial to further observe whether individuals’ persuasion knowledge may activate depending on the type of claim a product conveys. Furthermore, the current study did not include manipulation checks in the main experiment. As a consequence it is not possible to ensure the manipulations worked as intended. Future research should introduce a
manipulation check to test the effectiveness of the experimental stimuli. It should be acknowledged that all stimuli (i.e., experimental stimuli and scales) used in the Italian-version of the questionnaire were translated from English into Italian. Thus, they were
susceptible to the item bias. The item bias refers to inconsistencies (e.g., inappropriateness of the item content) in the instrument translations (Van de Vijver, & Hambleton, 1996).
In summary, the current study provided evidence that temporal framing messages and individuals’ tendency to consider future consequences can influence the salience of
behavioral beliefs. But only if individuals hold culturally sensitive behavioral beliefs towards the suggested health behavior (Fishbein & Cappella, 2006). To effectively improve skin-protection campaigns, the messages need to be tailored to the customs and practices of those cultural groups under consideration. “Has your mama ever told ya to apply SPF sunscreen?”. Acknowledgements
I thank Prof. Dr. Nigro, Cosenza, Ciccarelli and Joireman for their sharing of the Italian CFC scale and, Prof. Dr. S.J.H.M. (Bas) van den Putte for his accurate supervision.
References
Abroms, L., Jorgensen, C. M., Southwell, B. G., Geller, A. C., & Emmons, K. M. (2003). Gender differences in young adults’ beliefs about sunscreen use. Health Education &
Behavior, 30(1), 29-43.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
American Cancer Society (1997). Facts on skin cancer (No. 2049-CC). Retrieved from https://www.cancer.org/cancer/skin-cancer/prevention-and-early-detection/uv-protection.html
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford, England: Academic Press. Burr, S., & Penzer, R. (2005). Promoting skin health. Nursing Standard, 19(36), 57-65. Cancer Council Australia. (2017, April 13). Skin Cancer. Retrieved from
http://www.cancer.org.au/about-cancer/types-of-cancer/skin-cancer.html Chang, C. T., & Lee, Y. K. (2009). Framing charity advertising: Influences of message
framing, image valence, and temporal framing on a charitable appeal. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2910-2935.
Chandran, S., & Menon, G. (2004). When a day means more than a year: Effects of temporal framing on judgments of health risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 375-389. Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (2005). Theory of planned behaviour and health behaviour. In M.
Conner & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting health behaviour: Research and practice with social cognition models (2nd ed., pp. 170-222). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
European Commission. (2009). Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products (No. 1223). Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/endocrine_disruptors/docs/cosmetic_1223 _2009_regulation_en.pdf
Eyal, T., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Walther, E. (2004). The pros and cons of temporally near and distant action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 781-795.
Fenko, A., Kersten, L., & Bialkova, S. (2016). Overcoming consumer skepticism toward food labels: The role of multisensory experience. Food Quality and Preference, 48, 81-92. Fishbein, M., & Cappella, J.N. (2006). The role of theory in developing effective health
communications. Journal of Communication, 56, 1-17.
Fitzpatrick, T. B. (1988). The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI. Archives of Dermatology, 124(6), 869-871.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1-31.
Hamilton, W.L., Biener, L. & Brennan, R.T. (2008). Do local tobacco regulations influence perceived smoking norms? Evidence from adult and youth surveys in Massachusetts. Health Education Research , 23(4), 709–722.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/ public/process2012.pdf
Herzog, S. M., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2007). Temporal distance and ease of retrieval. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(3), 483-488.
Kees, J., Burton, S., & Tangari, A. H. (2010). The impact of regulatory focus, temporal orientation, and fit on consumer responses to health-related advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 39(1), 19-34.
Keer, M., van den Putte, B., & Neijens, P. (2010). The role of affect and cognition in health decision making. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(1), 143-153.
Lannin, D. R., Mathews, H. F., Mitchell, J., Swanson, M. S., Swanson, F. H., & Edwards, M. S. (1998). Influence of socioeconomic and cultural factors on racial differences in late-stage presentation of breast cancer. Journal of the American Medical
Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of
Marketing Research, 1(22), 41-53.
Mayhew, A. J., Lock, K., Kelishadi, R., Swaminathan, S., Marcilio, C. S., Iqbal, R., ... & Chow, C. K. (2016). Nutrition labelling, marketing techniques, nutrition claims and health claims on chip and biscuit packages from sixteen countries. Public Health
Nutrition, 19(6), 998-1007.
Matthes, J., Schemer, C., & Wirth, W. (2007). More than meets the eye: Investigating the hidden impact of brand placements in television magazines. International Journal of
Advertising, 26(4), 477-503.
Nabi, R. L., Moyer-Gusé, E., & Byrne, S. (2007). All joking aside: A serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication
Monographs, 74(1), 29-54.
Nigro, G., Cosenza, M., Ciccarelli, M., & Joireman, J. (2016). An italian translation and validation of the consideration of future consequences-14 scale. Personality and
Individual Differences, 101, 333-340.
Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad skepticism: The consequences of disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 7-17.
O'Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2008). Do loss-framed persuasive messages engender greater message processing than do gain-framed messages? A meta-analytic
review. Communication Studies, 59(1), 51-67.
Orbell, S., & Kyriakaki, M. (2008). Temporal framing and persuasion to adopt preventive health behavior: Moderating effects of individual differences in consideration of future consequences on sunscreen use. Health Psychology, 27(6), 770-779.
Orbell, S., Perugini, M., & Rakow, T. (2004). Individual differences in sensitivity to health communications: Consideration of future consequences. Health Psychology, 23(4), 388-396.
Ouellette, J. A., Hessling, R., Gibbons, F. X., Reis-Bergan, M., & Gerrard, M. (2005). Using images to increase exercise behavior: Prototypes versus possible selves. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(5), 610-620.
Oyebanjo, E., & Bushell, F. (2014). A critical evaluation of the UK SunSmart campaign and its relevance to Black and minority ethnic communities. Perspectives in Public
Health, 134(3), 144-149.
Protect Your Hair from Sun (n.d.). Sun Care Products for Hair Aveda. Retrieved from https://www.aveda.com/hair-care/sun-care
Snyder, L. B., Hamilton, M. A., Mitchell, E. W., Kiwanuka-Tondo, J., Fleming-Milici, F., & Proctor, D. (2004). A meta-analysis of the effect of mediated health communication campaigns on behavior change in the United States. Journal of Health
Communication, 9(1), 71-96.
Souiden, N., Abdelaziz, F. B., & Fauconnier, A. (2013). Nutrition labelling: Employing consumer segmentation to enhance usefulness. Journal of Brand Management, 20(4), 267-282.
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 742-752.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
Van de Vijver, F., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests. European
Wansink, B., Sonka, S. T., & Hasler, C. M. (2004). Front-label health claims: When less is more. Food Policy, 29(6), 659-667.
World Health Organization (2017). Skin Cancers. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/uv/faq/skincancer/en/index2.html
Appendix A Pretest Stimuli Temporal Framing Messages (EN)
Figure A1. Short-term “1 week”
Figure A3. Long-term “6 months”
Pretest Stimuli the Type of the Claim (EN)
Figure A5. Marketing Claim “against ageing”
Figure A7. Marketing Claim “Smooth your Skin to Perfection”
Figure A9. Health Claim “For healthy skin”
Appendix B Short Example of Pretest Questionnaire
Please, choose your language of preference
o
Englisho
Italian Informed consentWith this mail, I would like to invite you to participate in a research study to be conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, a part of the University of Amsterdam. The title of the study for which I am requesting your cooperation is ‘Your mama told ya! the role of inhibiting factors in daily sunscreen application’. In the online survey, you will be presented with 10 sunscreen products. After that, several questions will be asked about your thoughts with regard to the sunscreen products. The study will take about 11 minutes to be completed. As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, I can guarantee that:
1) Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions unless you first give your express permission for third parties;
2) Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material.
For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, you are welcome to contact the project leader Sara Ennemoser (sara.ennemoser@student.uva.nl) at any time. Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and the
procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you can contact the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15791, 1001 NG Amsterdam, 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl. Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence. I hope that I have provided you with sufficient information. I would like to take
this opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which I greatly appreciate.
I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research. I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time.
o
I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participateo
I do not agree to participatePlease, read carefully the claims which each sunscreen product conveys. Then answer the questions.
For the next 4 images, rate whether the skin improvements due to the sunscreen application occur in the short- or the long-term. And how credible you think those claims are. There are no right or wrong answers.
Temporal Framing Timing First Click Last Click Page Submit Click Count Image
The above-displayed sunscreen product conveys… 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 short-term consequences
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
long-term consequencesHow credible do you think the claim "visible skin improvements within 6 months" is?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all credible
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
definitely credible Type of Claim Timing First Click Last Click Page Submit Click Count ImageRate the following statements by ticking the answer closer to your opinion. Strongly disagree Strongly agree this sunscreen claims to be good for my skin health
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
this sunscreen aims at enhancing my beautyo
o
o
o
o
o
o
this sunscreen is concerned about my skin healtho
o
o
o
o
o
o
this sunscreen claims to perform well on my skino
o
o
o
o
o
o
this sunscreen tries to persuade meo
o
o
o
o
o
o
this sunscreen is concerned about my beautyo
o
o
o
o
o
o
What type of benefit does the sunscreen claim to convey?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 health-related benefit
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
beauty-oriented benefit How credible do you think the claim "for healthy skin" is?1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all credible
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
definitely credibleAppendix C Pretest Analyses
Table C1.1
Descriptive and Results of Comparison of Long-term Consequence Frames
6 months 3 months mean
difference
t(51) p 95% CI d
Temporal condition mean (SD) mean (SD) LL UL
Short- vs long-term 5.75 (1.19) 4.73 (1.58) 1.02 5.40 < .001 (.65, 1.40) .83 Credibility 4.82 (1.81) 4.59 (1.56) .25 1.13 .264 (-.19, .70) .15 Note. N = 52.
Table C1.2
Descriptive and Results of Comparison of Short-term Consequences Frames
1 week 3 days mean
difference t(51) p 95% CI d mean (SD) mean (SD) LL UL Short- vs long-term 3.24 (1.79) 2.80 (1.84) .43 1.80 .057 (-.50, .93) .24 Credibility 3.75 (1.58) 2.73 (1.48) 1.04 5.05 < .001 (.63, 1.45) .64 Note. N = 52. Table C2
Reliability Coefficients for the Beauty and Health Dimensions α
Type of Claim Health Scale Beauty Scale
Against ageing .74 .74
Smooth your skin to perfection .65 .77
Sublime glow .78 .73
For healthy skin .73 .78
Skin protector .59 .79
