Persuasive effects of the four types of regulatory-focused message framing in philanthropy advertising

Under the regulatory focus framework (Higgins, 1997, 1998), this dissertation research has examined the persuasive effects of the four types of outcomes framed in philanthropy advertising. Through a comprehensive review of the literature, this research discussed 1) how regulatory-focused messages can be classified into the four frames—gains, non-gains, losses, and non-losses—which varies in overall valence and outcome focus, as well as 2) how previous studies have differentially operationalized their promotion and prevention frames on the basis of the refined message distinction above. Based on the literature review, this research subsequently conducted three empirical studies to examine 3) how the four types of message framing systematically affect the intensity of subjective feelings among message recipients (H1~H2), 4) the moderating role of subjective feelings to understand how the four types of message framing produce differences in ad effectiveness (H3~H4) through change in the intensity levels of pleasure and pain among the message recipients (H5~H6), and 5) the mediating role of individuals’ momentary regulatory focus to understand how the persuasive effects of the advertisement are contingent upon its message frame (i.e., overall valence and outcome focus) and the message recipient’s motivational state (i.e., momentary regulatory focus) functioning synergistically (H7~H8). Results of this research found that participants felt greater pleasure from the ad being framed as gains than as non-losses, whereas participants felt greater pain about the ad being framed as losses than non-gains (Studies 1 and 2). This research also supported that among participants subjective feelings play a mediating role, such that the gain (loss) frame loomed larger than did the non-loss (non-gain) frame, and experiencing more intense subjective feelings in turn led to more positive effects on participants’ attitudes towards the advertising and attitudes towards the nonprofit organization (Study 2). This study also identified a significant moderating role of individuals’ momentary regulatory focus, but revealed a new pattern of three-way interaction on their evaluations of helping others, which departed from the study’s prediction (Study 3). For example, the gain versus non-gain asymmetry in evaluations towards helping behavior was significant only for participants in a promotion focus, with the message framed as gains (vs. non-losses) being more positive; for those in a prevention focus, this asymmetry vanished. In contrast, the loss versus non-loss asymmetry in evaluations of helping behavior was significant only for participants in a prevention focus, with the message framed as losses (vs. non-gains) being more positive; this asymmetry vanished for those in a promotion focus