Impacts of Framing and the Interaction with Involvement on Responses toward the Campaign of Helping the Hungry Abroad

국제 기아 돕기 캠페인의 효과에 미치는 긍.부정 프레이밍과 관여도의 영향-상호작용을 중심으로

  • Lee, Seung-Jo (Department of Mass Communication, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Yeon, Bo-Young (Department of Mass Communication, Graduate School, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Koo, Se-Hee (Department of Mass Communication, Graduate School, Chung-Ang University)
  • 이승조 (중앙대학교 미디어공영영상대학 신문방송학부) ;
  • 연보영 (중앙대학교 일반대학원 신문방송학과) ;
  • 구세희 (중앙대학교 일반대학원 신문방송학과)
  • Received : 2010.01.28
  • Accepted : 2010.03.19
  • Published : 2010.03.31

Abstract

This study investigates how framing and the interaction with involvement influences responses toward a help campaign. There could be two possible predictions about the results of framing. One is that, because helping is a risk avoidance behaviors, the positive framing would dominant or the other is that, because helping is mainly mediated by negative emotions such as sadness or guilty, the negative framing would be preferred. The present research was to solve the conflicting predictions and was conducted with a experimental design. The participants were exposed to a campaign emphasizing either positive aspects of the help or negative contexts which would be maintained without any help. The results were that the main effect of framing was not existent, but the significant interaction with involvement on responses was found. The interaction of framing and involvement, though, included unexpected inconsistency between the results of attitude and behavioral intention. The theoretical and practical meanings of the results were discussed.

본 연구는 국제 기아 돕기 캠페인을 대상으로 긍 부정 프레이밍의 영향과 관여도와의 상호작용을 조사하였다. 이론적으로 국제 기아 돕기 캠페인은 위험 회피와 연관된 행동이므로 긍정 프레이밍이 더욱 유효할 것이라는 주장과 돕기 행동은 부정적 감성의 소구가 중요하기 때문에 부정적 프레이밍이 더욱 유효할 것이라는 상충된 예측을 연구를 통해 밝혀내고자 하였다. 연구는 실험으로 설계되었으며, 실험 참가자들은 기부를 하지 않았을 때 지속될 기아 어린이들의 고통을 강조하거나, 기부를 하였을 때 기아 어린이들이 얻을 수 있는 기쁨과 안도를 강조한 캠페인에 각각 노출되었다. 실험 결과는 먼저 긍·부정 프레이밍이 태도나 행위 의도에 영향을 주지 않는 것으로 나타났지만 관여도와 상호작용은 유의미한 것으로 나타났다. 하지만 그 상호작용이 태도와 행위 의도사이에 상반된 방향을 보이는 예상치 못한 결과가 나타났다. 태도에서는 관여도가 높은 집단에서는 부정적 프레이밍이, 관여도가 낮은 집단에서는 긍정적 프레이밍이 더 효과적으로 나타났다. 반면, 행위 의도에서는 그 방향이 반대로 나타나, 관여도가 높은 집단에서는 긍정적 프레이밍이, 관여도가 낮은 집단에서는 부정적 프레이밍이 더 효과적이라는 결과가 도출되었다. 이러한 결과가 내포한 의미와 국제 기아돕기 캠페인 제작에 적용할 수 있는 실용적 의미에 대해 논의하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강철희 (2004). 자선적 행위 조사 연구에 대한 소고. 한국비영리연구, 3(1), 한국비영리학회, 5-43.
  2. 김광수 (1998). 광고에서의 프레이밍 효과: 예상 이론을 중심으로. 광고학 연구, 9(4), 한국광고학회, 193-212.
  3. 김완석 (2007). 효율적인 인지욕구 측정: 단축형 척도 개발. 소비자.광고, 8(1), 한국심리학회, 127-133.
  4. 김정현 (2008). 메시지 프레이밍과 소구 유형, 지각된 위험 및 자기 검색도가 지구 온난화 경고 공익 광고 효과에 미치는 영향. 광고연구, 겨울호, 한국방송광고공사, 357-381.
  5. 김주원, 김용준 (2008). 자선단체기부자의 기부동기와 기부행동에 관한 실증연구. 경영학연구, 37(3), 한국경영학회, 629-658.
  6. 마정미 (2002). 인터렉티브 광고의 효과과정에 관한 연구. 경희대학교 박사학위논문.
  7. 박장원, 박현순 (2007). 기부 관여도, 메시지 소구방식, 자아효능감의 기부 의사 제고 효과에 관한 연구. 홍보학연구, 11(1), 한국홍보학회, 107-140.
  8. 부경희 (2001). 공익광고 메시지의 귀인(attribution) 효과에 관한 실증연구: 메시지 프레이밍(framing) 중개요인들을 중심으로. 광고학연구, 12(4), 한국광고학회, 7-35.
  9. 송종길, 박상호 (2006). 정치관여도, 미디어 중요성, 정치냉소주의와 정치효능감이 정치결정과정에 미치는 영향에 관한 연구. 한국방송학보, 20(3), 한국방송학회, 166-198.
  10. 오은경 (2008. 3. 23). 아프리카 구호현장...한국후원자우물 파주자 마을선 잔치판. 국민일보.
  11. 이두희, 권오영 (1995). 광고모델과 광고배경의 상호작용이 광고효과에 미치는 영향. 광고학연구, 6(1), 한국광고학회, 137-167.
  12. 이승조 (2009). 영상물 시청에 발현된 감성 유인가의 차별적 영향과 편집속도와의 상호작용. 감성과학, 12(1), 한국감성과학회, 33-44.
  13. 이종민, 류춘렬, 박상희 (2007). 광고 메시지 프레이밍 효과에 관한 연구: 개인적 관여도와 상황적 관여도의 역할 비교를 중심으로. 한국언론학보, 51(3), 한국언론학회, 282-307.
  14. 이호배, 김혜원 (2000). 위협 소구 광고의 프레이밍 효과: 인지욕구와 관여도의 조절 역할. 광고학연구, 11(4), 한국광고학회, 109-133.
  15. 정인환 (2009. 2. 6). 기아 인구 10억 명 넘어설 듯. 한겨레 21.
  16. 조형오 (2005), 조기 암 검진 권장을 위한 건강 캠페인에 있어서 메시지 세분화 전략에 관한 연구. 한국광고홍보학보,7(2), 한국광고홍보학회, 183-219.
  17. 조형오, 이건세, 윤수현 (1999). 자궁암 검진광고의 메시지 프레이밍 효과분석: 사전 건강 신념과 메시지 프레이밍 기대수준의 매개역할. 광고학연구, 10(3), 한국광고학회, 123-148.
  18. 홍종필 (2006). 공공 커뮤니케이션 캠페인 설계의 과학적 접근: 미디어 효과, 설득 및 행동변화 이론의 통합화 모형의 활용. 한국심리학회지, 7(2), 한국심리학회, 249-276.
  19. Bagozzi, R. & Moore, D. (1994). Public service advertisement: Emotion and empathy guide prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 56-70.
  20. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265-299. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03
  21. Banks, S. M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A. J., Moyer, A., & Beauvais, J. (1995). The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14, 178-184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.14.2.178
  22. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  23. Block, L. G. & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a healthrelated behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 192-203. https://doi.org/10.2307/3152047
  24. Braun, K. A., Gaeth, G. J., & Levin, I. P. (1997). Framing effects with differential impact: The role of attitude salience. Advance in Consumer Research, 24, 405-411.
  25. Broemer, P. (2002). Relative effectiveness of differently framed messages. The influence of ambivalence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 658-703.
  26. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. K. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306-307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
  27. Detweiler, J. D., Bedell, B. T., Salovey, P., Pronin, A. J., & Rothman, A. J. (1999). Message framing and sunscreen Use: Gain-framed messages motivate beachgoers. Health Psychology, 18(2), 189-196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.18.2.189
  28. Dillard, J. P. & Nabi, R. L. (2006). The persuasive influence of emotion in cancer prevention and detection messages. Journal of Communication, 56, 123-139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00286.x
  29. Donovan, R. J., & Jalleh, B. (2000). Positive verse negative framing of hypothetical infant immunization: The influence of involvement. Health Education & Behavior, 27(1), 82-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700108
  30. Eveland, W. P. & Dunwoody, S. (2002). An investigation of elaboration and selective scanning as mediators of learning from the web versus print. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 46, 34-53. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4601_3
  31. Ganzach, Y., Yaacov, W., & Pinchas, B. (1997). Message framing and buying behavior: On the difference between artificial and natural environment. Journal of Business Research, 40, 91-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(96)00208-1
  32. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197
  33. Grewal, D., Gotlieb, J., & Marmorstein, H. (1994). The moderating effects of message framing and source credibility on the price-perceived risk relationship. Journal of Consumer Research. 21, 145-153. https://doi.org/10.1086/209388
  34. Hibbert, S., Smith, A., Davis, A., & Ireland, F. (2007). Guilt appeals: Persuasion knowledge and charitable giving. Psychology of Marketing, 24(8), 723-742. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20181
  35. Homer, P. M. & Yoon, S. G. (1992). Message framing and the interrelationships among ad-based feelings, affect, and cognition. Journal of Advertising, 21(1), 19-31.
  36. Jones, L. W., Sinclair, R. C., Rhodes, R. E., & Courneya, K. S. (2004). Promoting exercise behavior: An integration of persuasion theories and the theory of planned behavior. British Journal of Health Psychology, 9, 505-521.
  37. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
  38. Kalichman, S. C. & Coley, B. (1995). Context framing to enhance HIV-antibody-testing messages targeted to African American women. Health Psychology, 14, 247-254. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.14.3.247
  39. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, M. M. (1997). Motivated attention: Affect, activation and action. In P. J. Lang, R. F. Simons, & M. Balaban(Eds.), Attention and Orienting: Sensory and Motivational Processes (pp.97-135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  40. Maheswaran, D. & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 361-367. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172593
  41. McGuire, W. J. (1984). Public communication as a strategy for inducing health promoting behavior change. Preventive Medicine, 13, 299-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/0091-7435(84)90086-0
  42. Meyerowitz, B. E. & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 500-510. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.500
  43. Millar, M. G. & Millar, K. U. (2000). Promoting safe driving behaviors: The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(4), 853-866. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02827.x
  44. Monahan, J. L. (1995). Thinking positively: Using positive affect when designing health messages. In E. Maibach & R. L. Parrott (Eds.), Designing health messages: Approaches from communication h & R. and public health practice (pp.81-98). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
  45. Marshall, M. H. & Feeley, H. F. (2006). A normative approach to shaping college students' attitudes toward organ donation. Communication Studies, 57(4), 435-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970600946343
  46. Obermiller, C. (1995). The baby is sick/the baby is well: A test of enviromnental communication appeals. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 55-70.
  47. Pelletier, L. G. & Sharp, E. C. (2008). Persuasive communication and proenviornmental behaviors: How message tailoring and message framing can improve the integration of behaviors though self-determined motivation. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 210-217. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012755
  48. Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J .T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. NY: Springer-Verlag.
  49. Puto, C. P. (1987). The framing of buying decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 301-315. https://doi.org/10.1086/209115
  50. Reinhart, A. M., Marshall, H. M., Feely, T. H., & Tutzauer, F. (2007). The persuasive effects of message framing in organ donation: The mediating role of psychological reactance. Communication Monograph, 74(2), 229-255. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701397098
  51. Rothman, A. J., Pronin, E., & Salovey, P. (1996). The influence of prior concern on the persuasiveness of loss-framed messages about skin cancer. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, Sturbridge, MA.
  52. Rothman, A. J. & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping Perceptions to Motivate Healthy Behavior: The Role of Message Framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3-19.
  53. Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K., & Martin, C. D. (1993). The influence of message framing on intentions to performovey, P.behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(5), 408-433. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1993.1019
  54. Sargeant, A. & Lee, S. (2004). Trust and relationship commitment in the United Kingdom voluntary sector: Determinant of donor behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 613-635. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20021
  55. Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & West, D. C. (2006). Perceptual determinants of nonprofit giving behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59, 155-165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.04.006
  56. Schneider, T. R., Salovey, P., Apanovitch, A. M., Pizarro, J., McCarthy, D., & Zullo, J. (2001a). The effects of message framing and ethnic targeting on mammography use among low-income women. Health Psychology, 20, 256-266. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.20.4.256
  57. Schneider, T. R., Salovey, P., Pallonen, U., Mundorf, N., Smith, N. F., & Steward, W. T. (2001b). Visual and auditory message framing effects on tobacco smoking. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(4), 667-682. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb01407.x
  58. Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1982). The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evidence, and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature, 20, 529-563.
  59. Shiv, B., Edell, J. A., & Payne, J. W. (1997). Factors affecting the impact of negatively and positively framed ad messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(December), 285-294. https://doi.org/10.1086/209510
  60. Steward, W. T., Schneider, T. R., Pizarro, J., & Salovey, P. (2003). Need for cognition moderates responses to framed smoking-cessation messages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(12), 2439-2464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb02775.x
  61. Takemura, K. (1994). Influence of elaboration on the framing of decision. The journal of Psychology, 128(1), 33-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1994.9712709
  62. Tversky, A. & Fox, C. R. (1995). Weighing risk and uncertainty. Psychological Review, 102, 269-283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.269
  63. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
  64. Vitaglione, G. D. & Barnett, M. A. (2003). Assessing a new Dimension of Empathy: Empathic Anger as a predictor of helping and Punishing Desire. Motivation and Empathy, 27(4), 301-325. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026231622102
  65. Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107, 101-126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.1.101
  66. Wilson, D. K., Purdon, S. E., & Wallston, K. A. (1988). Compliance to health recommendation: A theoretical overview of message framing. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 3, 161-171. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/3.2.161
  67. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of consumer Research, 12, 341-352. https://doi.org/10.1086/208520
  68. 네이버 해피빈 (2009) http://happybean.naver.com/
  69. 다음 아고라 (2009) http://agora.media.daum.net/
  70. 행정안전부 http://www.mopas.go.kr/