ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021
A Cognitive-Emotional Model to Explain Message Framing Effects: Reducing Meat Consumption.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Climate Change Impact Menu Labels on Fast Food Ordering Choices Among US Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2022Trial
- Article
- How the sausage is made: Testing the effectiveness of an informative video in promoting sustainable food consumption.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Encouraging impulsive adolescents attending college to eat more fruit and vegetables: A preliminary investigation of negative urgency, message format and frame.Journal of health psychology · 2026Article
- From Emotion to Action: How Framed Sustainability Messages Trigger Physiological Reactions and Influence Consumer Choices.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Introducing the trier univalence neutrality ambivalence (TUNA) database: A picture database differentiating complex attitudes.PloS one · 2024Article
- Perspectives on deprescribing in palliative care.Expert review of clinical pharmacology · 2023Review
- The Influence of Presentation Frames of Visualization Information for Safety on Situational Awareness under a Three-Level User-Interface Design.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Psychosocial drivers influencing local food purchasing: beyond availability, the importance of trust in farmers.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- A theory-based and data-driven approach to promoting physical activity through message-based interventions.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Legumes or Meat? The Effectiveness of Recommendation Messages towards a Plant-Based Diet Depends on People's Identification with Flexitarians.Nutrients · 2022Article
- The Influence of Framing Plant-Based Products in Terms of Their Health vs. Environmental Benefits: Interactions with Individual Wellbeing.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The Effect of Message Framing in Promoting the Mediterranean Diet: The Moderating Role of Eating Self-Efficacy.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Influence of Message Framing on Consumers' Selection of Local Food.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Framing and Tailoring Prefactual Messages to Reduce Red Meat Consumption: Predicting Effects Through a Psychology-Based Graphical Causal Model.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- The Effect of Persuasive Messages in Promoting Home-Based Physical Activity During COVID-19 Pandemic.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We tested the plausibility of a cognitive-emotional model to understand the effects of messages framed in terms of gain, non-loss, non-gain, and loss, and related to the health consequences of red/processed meat consumption. A total of 544 Italian participants reported their attitude toward reduced red/processed meat consumption and intention to eat red/processed meat (time 1 questionnaire). One week later, participants were randomly assigned to four different message conditions: (a) gain messages focused on the positive health outcomes associated with low meat consumption; (b) non-loss messages focused on the avoided negative health outcomes associated with low meat consumption; (c) non-gain messages focused on the missed positive health outcomes associated with high meat consumption; (d) loss messages focused on the negative health outcomes associated with high meat consumption (message sending). After reading the messages, participants answered a series of questions regarding their emotional and cognitive reactions to the messages, their evaluation of the messages, and again their attitude and intention toward red/processed meat consumption (time 2 questionnaire). Comparing different multivariate linear models under the Bayesian approach, we selected the model with the highest plausibility conditioned to observed data. In this model, message-induced fear influenced systematic processing, which in turn positively influenced message evaluation and attitude, leading to reduced intention to consume red/processed meat. Vice versa, message-induced anger reduced systematic processing, which in turn negatively influenced message evaluation, and led to no effect on attitude and intention. The comparison among message conditions showed that gain and non-loss messages activated integrated emotional and cognitive processing of the health recommendation, while loss and non-gain messages mainly activated emotional shortcuts toward attitude and intention. Overall, these results advance our comprehension of the effects of message framing on receivers' attitudes and intentions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.