When the Model Fits the Frame

Abstract

In health-promotional campaigns, positive and negative role models can be deployed to illustrate the benefits or costs of certain behaviors. The main purpose of this article is to investigate why, how, and when exposure to role models strengthens the persuasiveness of a message, according to regulatory fit theory. We argue that exposure to a positive versus a negative model activates individuals’ goals toward promotion rather than prevention. By means of two experiments, we demonstrate that high levels of persuasion occur when a message advertising healthy dietary habits offers a regulatory fit between its framing and the described role model. Our data also establish that the effects of such internal regulatory fit by vicarious experience depend on individuals’ perceptions of response-efficacy and self-efficacy. Our findings constitute a significant theoretical complement to previous research on regulatory fit and contain valuable practical implications for health-promotional campaigns.

Keywords

role models regulatory fit persuasion efficacy appraisal health promotion

A man waiting at the traffic lights sees a poster advertising healthy dietary habits, featuring the image of an obese person: “Eat healthy, stay fit! A healthy diet enables an active metabolism, contributing to the development of a tonic and appealing body.” The man’s intention to improve his diet is not influenced by the advertisement. However, a few days later, he sees the same message associated with a different image: that of a healthy and tonic person. The man decides he will try to eat more healthily, starting that same evening. What has changed between these two situations? Why is one message more persuasive than the other? Is it because in this context the desirable image is the more persuasive? Or is it because of the relation between the image and the specific regulatory-oriented sentence? Given that individuals can self-regulate their conduct by either pursuing ideal or ought end-states (Higgins, 1997), is exposure to a model strong enough to prime one or the other regulatory focus?

Based on recent findings concerning the motivational power of exposure to role models (Lockwood, Jordan, & Kunda, 2002; Lockwood, Sadler, Fyman, & Tuck, 2004), and the persuasive impact of intra-message regulatory fit (Cesario, Grant, & Higgins, 2004; Higgins, 2000), we propose two experiments to analyze how role models and intra-message regulatory fit can be combined to create internal regulatory fit by vicarious experience, a phenomenon that increases the efficacy of health communications promoting healthy behavioral changes. Furthermore, we will explain the process underlying its persuasive effect, with regard to the mediating role of perceived response-efficacy and self-efficacy.

Role Models and Regulatory Focus

Narrative information has been widely used in persuasive communication, as it significantly influences individuals’ decision-making processes (Hammond, Reid, Driezen, & Boudreau, 2013; Lemal & Van der Bulk, 2010). Several studies have demonstrated, for example, that offering an idealized image of another person leads individuals to compare themselves with that person, increasing their desire to improve their lives by adopting the promoted product or behavior (Henderson-King & Henderson-King, 1997; Joshi, Herman, & Polivy, 2004). At the same time, threatening images of a person experiencing negative outcomes are largely deployed in fear appeals, as they increase individuals’ fear of a specific threat and, thus, their willingness to adopt, or refrain from, a specific conduct (Cox & Cox, 2001). Indeed, observing positive or negative role models can inspire and motivate individuals to engage in, or hold back on, a specific behavior (Bandura, 1977; Lockwood et al., 2002). Positive role models—individuals who have achieved desirable outcomes—motivate others by illustrating possible gains, the potential achievements they can strive for, and ways to accomplish them. Negative role models—individuals who experience undesirable outcomes—motivate others by illustrating possible losses, possible misfortunes, and highlighting mistakes to be avoided to prevent them.

Several studies have demonstrated that individuals are most motivated by role models that fit their personal regulatory focus (Lockwood et al., 2002; Lockwood et al., 2004). In fact, individuals tend to adopt one of two motivational orientations, self-regulating their conduct to accomplish either an ideal- or an ought-self (Higgins, 1987), hence adopting a promotion or a prevention focus, respectively. Lockwood et al. (2002) argued that, as role models represent either gains or losses, individuals’ preferences toward a positive versus a negative role model depend on their focus on promotion versus prevention. This hypothesis was confirmed through three studies, in which participants’ regulatory focus was either primed or measured to observe how this influenced their preference for different types of role model. The second experiment, for instance, demonstrated that individuals are academically more motivated by models who promote strategies that are congruent with individuals’ primed regulatory goals. Promotion-primed individuals reported higher academic motivation when exposed to a positive role model, whereas prevention-primed individuals were more motivated when exposed to a negative model.

As regulatory focus can be temporarily induced by activating specific goals (Cesario, Higgins, & Scholer, 2008), we suppose that exposure to role models will serve as a contextual clue to temporarily activate specific regulatory goals, influencing individuals’ sensitivity to different kinds of message-framing. The aim of the present research is thus to explain why, how, and when (under which circumstances) regulatory fit by vicarious experience is persuasive in the promotion of healthy dietary habits.

Why Do Role Models Increase the Persuasiveness of a Message? Internal Fit and Persuasion

Message-framing is most effective when it fits the regulatory concerns met by the promoted behaviors, a phenomenon defined as internal regulatory fit (Cesario et al., 2008). The same health behavior can in fact be described as an effective strategy to pursue promotion concerns, such as improving energy, or prevention concerns, such as preventing illness (Lee & Aaker, 2004). Focusing the message on either promotion or prevention concerns influences the persuasiveness of message-framing: High levels of persuasion have been found when combining promotion concerns with a fitting gain-framing or prevention concerns with a fitting loss-framing (Cesario et al., 2004; Lee & Aaker, 2004; Spiegel, Grant-Pillow, & Higgins, 2004).

Based on these assumptions, we hypothesize that high levels of persuasion will occur when a message describes a role model compatible with the regulatory framing of the message. Exposure to a positive role model, activating promotion goals, is expected to increase the persuasiveness of a promotion-framed message, whereas exposure to a negative model, activating prevention goals, is expected to increase the persuasiveness of a prevention-framed message.

How Do Role Models Increase the Persuasiveness of a Message? The Mediating Role of Efficacy Appraisal

Extensive research in the domain of health promotion has demonstrated that the decision to engage in a health behavior recommended by a communication is based on individuals’ efficacy appraisal, an evaluative dimension composed of two factors: response-efficacy and self-efficacy (e.g., Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012; Green & Witte, 2006; Witte, 1992; Witte & Allen, 2000). Could the underpinnings of the persuasiveness of regulatory fit by vicarious experience be explained with regard to both dimensions of response-efficacy and self-efficacy?

A few studies have already analyzed the relationship between regulatory focus (Keller, 2006) or message-framing (Block & Keller, 1995; Shao, 2012) and perceived response-efficacy and self-efficacy. Keller (2006) demonstrated that promotion-oriented individuals are more likely to be persuaded to use skin cancer preventive behaviors when exposed to a promotional message focused on self-efficacy, whereas prevention individuals are more likely to be persuaded by a message focused on response-efficacy. Shao (2012) also demonstrated that a message advertising either skin cancer detection or prevention is most persuasive when it combines gain-framing (to which promotion-oriented individuals are more sensitive) and self-efficacy, or loss-framing (to which prevention-oriented individuals are more sensitive) and response-efficacy. At the same time, several studies demonstrated that vicarious experience has an effect on both dimensions (e.g., Bandura, 1977), which led us to question: What would happen if a message presented a role model? Would the regulatory fit between framing and role model have an effect on both dimensions of perceived response-efficacy and self-efficacy? In the present study, we argue that including a role model fitting with the framing of a message will have an effect on both dimensions, irrespective of whether the framing focuses on promotion or prevention. Let us examine why this is so.

How could response-efficacy be increased by exposure to a role model compatible with the regulatory framing of a message? Based on recent studies concerning value-from-fit (Higgins, 2002) and its transfer to the evaluation of subsequent objects and behaviors (Avnet & Higgins, 2003; Camacho, Higgins, & Luger, 2003; Higgins, Idson, Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003), we suppose that the mechanism underlying the persuasive effects of regulatory fit by vicarious experience is based, however, on individuals’ evaluation of the importance of a promoted behavior. Regulatory fit generates a feeling of importance, of “feeling right” (Avnet & Higgins, 2003; Higgins, 2000; Higgins et al., 2003): The value-from-fit proposal affirms that when individuals experience regulatory fit, it increases their perception of the value and importance of what they are doing. This sense of importance is then directly transferred to the subsequent evaluation of objects or behaviors. In a series of studies, Higgins and colleagues (2003) demonstrated, for example, that individuals assign a higher monetary value to an object when it has been previously chosen using a strategy that fitted their regulatory focus than a strategy that does not fit (Study 1). These authors also demonstrated that regulatory fit increases individuals’ evaluation of the importance of a certain action (Study 5). The fit and misfit conditions were obtained by measuring individuals’ regulatory focus, and then by offering fitting or misfitting instructions, asking participants to propose improvements to the middle school experience by either maximizing its positive aspects (i.e., promotion-framing) or minimizing its negative aspects (i.e., prevention-framing). Indeed, the results demonstrated that regulatory fit increases individuals’ perception of the importance of the middle school experience for development. This dimension of behavioral importance is a concept close to the dimension of behavioral efficacy: It is measured by examining the extent to which people’s middle school experiences influence their later social development. Transposed to the health domain, it would be possible to measure individuals’ perception of the influence of a certain behavior in pursuing specific health standards, such as engaging in a healthy diet to pursue health improvement or disease prevention. Our hypothesis is that regulatory fit by vicarious experience will increase individuals’ perception of the importance of the behavior promoted in the message (i.e., its response-efficacy).

How could self-efficacy be increased by regulatory fit by vicarious experience? Individuals deciding whether to engage in a health change evaluate both the efficacy of such change in pursuing health standards and their own ability to effectively pursue such a change (Plotnikoff et al., 2010; Witte, 1992). Bandura (1982) demonstrated that individuals’ self-efficacy can be directly boosted by vicarious experience, by observing the behavior of role models and the outcomes they experience. Social learning theory also explains that individuals select the role model that best responds to their standards and goals (Gibson, 2003; Winnykamen, 1982). It is thus possible to suppose that individuals will be most motivated by a role model that fits the health standards whose importance is underlined by the regulatory frame of the message. More precisely, it is expected that individuals receiving a promotion-framed message, stressing the accomplishment concerns and ideal standards pursuable by adopting a healthy diet, will perceive the highest degree of self-efficacy when exposed to a positive model. However, individuals receiving a prevention-framed message, stressing safety concerns and ought-standards, are expected to perceive the highest degree of self-efficacy when exposed to a negative model.

Based on previous considerations, we argue that regulatory fit by vicarious experience increases individuals’ perception of both response-efficacy and self-efficacy, influencing in turn their intention to perform the advocated behavior. It might be asked whether such effect would be the same irrespective of the type of behavioral tactic promoted to pursue a specific health change. Indeed, past evidence—concerning the regulatory influence on individuals’ perception of the importance of a certain behavior—demonstrated that behavioral tactics fitting individuals’ regulatory focus are evaluated as the most important (Freitas & Higgins, 2002). Could the effect of a promotion fit versus a prevention fit differ depending on the behavioral tactic chosen to pursue the advocated health changes?

When Do Role Models Increase the Persuasiveness of a Message? Role Models and Behavioral Tactics

Health standards can be pursued by adopting two different types of behavioral tactic: additive tactics, involving starting a new activity with potentially beneficial consequences, and subtractive ones, involving abstaining from or cutting back on an activity with potentially injurious consequences (Lockwood et al., 2004). This has also been referred to as goal attainment behavior, designed to attain good health, or goal maintenance behaviors, designed to maintain good health (Brodscholl, Kober, & Higgins, 2007). A healthy diet, for instance, can be pursued by eating more fruit and vegetables or by eating less fat and salt.

Individuals mark a preference for one or the other tactic depending on their regulatory focus (Lockwood et al., 2004). As promotion goals involve ensuring that one performs the actions leading to desirable end-states, individuals seeking to achieve gains are especially likely to engage in potentially beneficial activities, by adopting additive tactics. However, as prevention goals are designed to help avoid actions leading to undesirable end-states, individuals seeking to avoid losses are therefore especially likely to avoid potentially deleterious activities, by engaging in subtractive tactics. Lockwood et al. (2004) demonstrated that role models are most motivating when they are congruent with the type of tactic that can be adopted to pursue the desired behavioral change. Two studies, concerning individuals’ intentions to follow academic (Experiment 1) and physical activity (Experiment 2) recommendations, demonstrate that individuals manifest a preference for positive role models when considering engaging in additive tactics and negative role models when considering engaging in subtractive tactics.

We propose that the explanation for these results lies in the fact that exposure to role models activates specific regulatory goals and, thus, specific preferences toward adopting either tactic. Such a phenomenon would help explain the circumstances under which promotion fit is more persuasive than prevention fit. As healthy dietary habits concern both additive and subtractive tactics, we argue that the persuasive effects of the regulatory fit by vicarious experience could be strongest in promoting a congruent behavioral tactic. A regulatory fit on promotion is expected to be most persuasive when promoting additive tactics, whereas a fit on prevention is expected to be the most persuasive when promoting subtractive tactics.

The present research examines the processes underlying the motivational power of role models and the persuasiveness of messages presenting a fitting regulatory frame. More specifically, we test whether, and under what circumstances, a message presenting an internal regulatory fit between the described model and its framing increases individuals’ efficacy appraisal and, consequently, their decision to perform the advocated behavior. To this end, we carried out two experimental studies. First, we demonstrate that integrating either a positive or a negative role model into health-promotional messages strengthens their persuasiveness only when the role model fits their regulatory frame (Study 1), as the fit between the type of model and the type of framing creates an intra-message regulatory fit, which has a strong persuasive effect (Cesario et al., 2008). Moreover, we validate an explanatory model of the persuasiveness of the regulatory fit by vicarious experience (Study 1), demonstrating that it increases individuals’ perception of response-efficacy and self-efficacy concerning the pursuit of a healthy diet and consequently their intention to engage in it. Second, we investigate the circumstances under which regulatory fit by vicarious experience is effective, demonstrating that the persuasiveness of the two types of fit differs depending on the behavioral tactics available to pursue the advocated health-related changes. Study 2 confirms that when the messages advertise both types of tactics, individuals are most willing to engage in the tactic that is congruent with the type of regulatory fit by vicarious experience to which they are exposed and that individuals’ ratings of efficacy appraisal are higher for the congruent than for the incongruent tactic.

Study 1

Based on past research on the fit between regulatory focus and message-framing (Latimer et al., 2008; Lee & Aaker, 2004), it is possible to suppose that individuals’ sensitivity to different types of Message Regulatory Framing will differ according to the type of regulatory goals activated by exposure to role models.

Indeed, we tested whether exposure to role models actually activates specific regulatory focus in a pre-test, assessing whether exposure to role models influences individuals’ evaluation of the importance of different accomplishment and safety concerns involved in pursuing a healthy diet. To this purpose, we presented participants (N = 61) with a message describing either a positive or a negative role model. The positive model was an individual who “. . . is always very healthy thanks to a balanced diet” and experiences positive outcomes resulting from this. The negative model was an individual who “. . . is always sick because of an unbalanced diet” and experiences negative outcomes resulting from this. We then asked participants to rate the value of accomplishment goals—for example, “A healthy diet generates a feeling of fulfillment,” α(N = 6) = .81—and safety goals—for example, “A healthy diet prevents cardiovascular problems,” α(N = 6) = .86—pursuable by adopting a healthy diet on a 7-point scale rating from 1 (not at all) to 7 (completely). The Type of Role Model had a significant effect on the evaluation of both accomplishment—F(1, 59) = 14.64, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .19—and safety—F(1, 59) = 8.16, p = .006, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .12 concerns. Participants receiving the positive model considered accomplishment concerns as more valuable (M = 5.36, SD = 1.01) than those exposed to the negative model (M = 4.41, SD = 0.93); t(1, 59) = 3.83, p = .001, d = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.45, 1.45]. However, when in the negative model condition, participants considered safety concerns as more valuable (M = 5.57, SD = 0.79) than those in the positive model condition (M = 4.79, SD = 1.26); t(1, 59) = −2.86, p = .003, d = 0.74, 95% CI = [−1.32, −0.23]. These results demonstrate that knowing about the gains others experienced by engaging in the target behavior (i.e., positive model), individuals perceived accomplishment concerns to be the most valuable when engaging in a healthy diet, manifesting a regulatory focus on promotion. However, being exposed to the losses experienced by others by not engaging in the target behavior (i.e., negative model) led individuals to perceive safety concerns to be the most valuable when engaging in a healthy diet, manifesting a regulatory focus on prevention.

Based on these findings, we expected a message to be most persuasive when presenting a role model compatible with the regulatory framing. As a positive role model represents positive end-states and the route to accomplish them, it fits with a promotion-framed message underlining the accomplishment concerns of pursuing a healthy diet. As a negative role model represents negative end-states and the route to avoid them, it fits with a prevention-framed message, emphasizing the safety concerns of pursuing a healthy diet. This study also tests an explicatory model of the persuasive impact of regulatory fit by vicarious experience on behavioral intentions, analyzing the mediating role of efficacy appraisal (Bandura, 1977; Rogers, 1983). Such a model predicts that the exposure to a role model fitting the regulatory frame of a message will increase perceived response-efficacy and self-efficacy, consequently strengthening the intention to pursue a healthy diet.

Method

The participants were 167 undergraduates (31 men and 136 women), aged from 18 to 46 (M = 20.58, SD = 3.45). They consented to the study by completing an anonymous questionnaire in a lecture-room environment at the university. They were randomly allocated to experimental conditions, according to a 2 (Type of Role Model: positive vs. negative) × 2 (Message Regulatory Framing: promotion vs. prevention) design. As a result, the participants were homogeneously distributed across the conditions according to their gender and age.

The booklet given to participants presented, at first, the written appeal promoting the pursuit of a healthy diet, with either promotion- or a prevention-framing. More precisely, in the promotion-framed message, a healthy diet was described as an action concerned with accomplishment, designed to produce ideal outcomes. A promotion-framed sentence would state, for instance, that “a diet rich in essential nutrients, such as those found in fruit and vegetables, has direct effects on the biochemistry of the brain, resulting in increased energy, better mood, and a general sense of happiness and fulfillment.” In the prevention-framed message, a healthy diet was described as an action concerned with safety, designed to produce ought-outcomes. A prevention-framed sentence would state, for instance, that

a diet rich in essential nutrients, like those found in fruit and vegetables, enables the body to produce substances from within, which help it to face the physical demands of the world we live in (pollution, daily stress . . .).

In addition, the messages, approximately 290 words in length, started by describing either a positive or a negative role model.

A convenience sample of undergraduate students was used for a post-test framing-manipulation check (N = 39). To check promotion-framing, participants were asked to rate the extent to which the advertisement gave suggestions on how to improve health and considered good health as an ideal. To check prevention-framing, participants were asked to rate the extent to which the advertisement made suggestions on how to maintain good health and considered good health as a responsibility. As expected, individuals evaluated the promotion-framed appeal as giving suggestions on how to improve health (M = 5.45, SD = 0.94) and as describing good health as an ideal (M = 5.01, SD = 1.69) more than the prevention-framed appeal—improve health: M = 4.53, SD = 1.84, t(1, 37) = −1.99, p = .02, d = 0.63, 95% CI = [−0.02, 1.86]; and good health as an ideal: M = 3.68, SD = 1.49, t(1, 37) = 2.42, p = .01, d = 0.83, 95% CI = [0.28, 2.35]. However, individuals evaluated the prevention-framed appeal as giving suggestions on how to maintain good health (M = 5.63, SD = 0.76) and as describing good health as a responsibility (M = 4.68, SD = 1.2) more than the promotion-framed appeal—maintain health: M = 4.61, SD = 1.69, t(1, 37) = −2.58, p = .005, d = 0.78, 95% CI = [−1.89, −0.17] and good health as a responsibility: M = 3.65, SD = 1.42, t(1, 37) = 2.41, p = .01, d = 0.78, 95% CI = [−1.03, −0.16].

The second part of the booklet asked participants to rate their perceived response-efficacy concerning a healthy diet, for example, “A healthy diet is important for personal health,” α(N = 3) = .97; their perception of self-efficacy concerning a healthy diet, for example, “It would be easy for me to adopt a more balanced diet,” r(167) = .64; and their intention to pursue a healthy diet, for example, “I intend to adopt a more balanced diet,” r(167) = .77, on a 7-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (completely). Participants were then thanked and fully debriefed.

Results

The sample was examined for outliers (>3 SDs from the sample mean), and none were found.

Behavioral intention

Neither Type of Role Model—F(1, 163) = 0.09, p = .76—nor Message Regulatory Framing—F(1, 163) = 0.61, p = .44—had significant main effects on participants’ intention to pursue a healthy diet. More importantly, the Type of Role Model × Message Regulatory Framing interaction was significant, F(1, 163) = 10.48, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06 (Figure 1). When receiving a promotion-oriented message, individuals exposed to the positive model were more willing to improve their diet (M = 3.42, SD = 2.03) than individuals exposed to the negative model (M = 2.61, SD = 1.58); t(1, 82) = 2.05, p = .02, d = 0.45, 95% CI = [0.03, 1.61]. However, when receiving a prevention-oriented message, individuals exposed to the negative model reported significantly higher intention (M = 3.73, SD = 2.06) than individuals exposed to the positive model (M = 2.73, SD = 1.47); t(1, 81) = −2.53, p = .005, d = 0.56, 95% CI = [−1.78, −0.21].

Figure 1.

Interactive effect on the intention to engage in a healthy diet.

Response-efficacy

Neither Type of Role Model—F(1, 163) = 0.11, p = .74—nor Message Regulatory Framing—F(1, 163) = 0.45, p = .51—had significant effects on the participants’ perception of the efficacy of a healthy diet. More importantly, the Type of Role Model × Message Regulatory Framing interaction was significant, F(1, 163) = 11.91, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .07, Figure 2. When receiving the promotion-framed message, individuals exposed to the positive model considered engaging in a healthy diet as significantly more effective (M = 6.04, SD = 0.95) than those exposed to the negative model (M = 5.33, SD = 2.01); t(1, 82) = 2.12, p = .02, d = 0.45, 95% CI = [0.04, 1.38]. However, when receiving the prevention-framed message, individuals exposed to the negative model evaluated a healthy diet as more effective (M = 5.96, SD = 0.92) than those exposed to the positive model (M = 5.09, SD = 1.77); t(1, 81) = −2.81, p = .003, d = 0.62, 95% CI = [−1.48, −0.25].

Figure 2.

Interactive effects on response-efficacy and self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy

Neither Type of Role Model—F(1, 163) = 0.04, p = .84—nor Message Regulatory Framing—F(1, 163) = 0.99, p = .32—had significant main effects on participants’ perception of self-efficacy concerning the pursuit of a healthy diet. More importantly, the Type of Role Model × Message Regulatory Framing interaction was significant, F(1, 163) = 13.14, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .07 (Figure 2). When receiving a promotion-oriented message, individuals exposed to the positive model reported significantly higher self-efficacy (M = 5.27, SD = 1.21) than those exposed to the negative one (M = 4.41, SD = 1.38); t(1, 82) = 3.09, p = .001, d = 0.66, 95% CI = [0.31, 1.43]. However, when receiving a prevention-oriented message, individuals exposed to the negative model reported significantly higher self-efficacy (M = 5.01, SD = 1.64) than those exposed to the positive version (M = 4.22, SD = 1.62); t(1, 81) = −2.18, p = .02, d = 0.48, 95% CI = [−1.49, −0.07].

Mediation model

Significant correlations were found concerning response-efficacy and self-efficacy, r(N = 167) = .61; response-efficacy and intention, r(N = 167) = .51; and self-efficacy and intention, r(N = 167) = .48. To test the mediating role of “response-efficacy” and “self-efficacy” (Figure 3), we used a parallel multiple mediator model (Model 4 in PROCESS; Hayes, 2012). This macro ran 5,000 bootstrapping to estimate the indirect effects. All paths for the full process model are illustrated in Figure 3 and their corresponding coefficients are provided in Table 1. The total effect (c1) of the Type of Role Model × Message Regulatory Framing on intentions to improve one’s diet is significant (β = .4516, t = 3.2344, p = .0015). The direct effect c2 is not significant, as it is completely mediated by the intervening variables (β = .2163, t = 1.6167, p = .1079). Both specific indirect effects are significant, as evidenced by bootstrap CIs that do not contain zero. The specific indirect effect through “response-efficacy” is significant (a1b1 = .1489, 95% CI = [0.0690, 0.2777]), as is the specific indirect effect through “self-efficacy” (a2b2 = .0863, 95% CI = [0.0083, 0.2133]). Thus, the interaction of the Type of Role Model and the Message Regulatory Framing increases both perceived response-efficacy and perceived self-efficacy, which in turn generate greater intentions to improve one’s diet.

Figure 3.

Parallel multiple mediators model.

Table 1.

Path Coefficients From the Parallel Multiple Mediator Model.

Path section	Coefficients (SE)
a1	.3951*** (.1137)
a2	.4154*** (.1012)
b1	.3770*** (.1019)
b2	.2077* (.1019)
c1	.4516** (.1396)
c2	.2163 (.1338)

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The present results demonstrate that exposure to role models increases individuals’ intentions to engage in a balanced diet only when the Type of Role Model fits the type of regulatory frame of the message. Participants exposed to internally fitting messages, either presenting a positive model and a promotion-framing or a negative model and a prevention-framing, are the most willing to engage in a healthy diet. The present results build on and add to existing research on the influence of narrative evidence in persuasive communication (Hinyard & Kreuter, 2006; Winterbottom, Bekker, Conner, & Mooney, 2008): The motivational power of role models directly depends on the regulatory framing of the context in which the model is presented.

Moreover, the present data demonstrate that the impact of regulatory fit by vicarious experience on behavioral intention is mediated by its effects on individuals’ efficacy appraisal, in both its dimensions of response-efficacy and self-efficacy. On one hand, participants exposed to regulatory fit by vicarious experience perceived the higher efficacy of pursuing a healthy diet to reach health standards. This result confirms our hypothesis, in accord with past literature on the transfer of value-from-fit hypothesis (Higgins et al., 2003): The value resulting from regulatory fit is transferred to individuals’ perception of the importance and efficacy of the advocated behavior. On the other hand, participants exposed to regulatory fit by vicarious experience perceived higher self-efficacy. This result is in accord with past studies demonstrating that individuals are most motivated by the role model who best responds to their interests and goals established in the specific context of the message (Winnykamen, 1982).

A limitation of the present study concerns the corpus of messages proposed to participants. Indeed, the messages do not only advocate the benefits of improving one’s diet but also focus on a specific additive tactic to pursue a healthy diet: eating more fruit and vegetables. When both additive and subtractive tactics are relevant to the pursuit of a specific standard, individuals manifest a preference toward one or the other type of tactic depending on their regulatory focus (Scholer, Fujita, Zou, Stroessner, & Higgins, 2010). They in fact evaluate those goal-pursuing tactics that fit their regulatory focus as the most important (Freitas & Higgins, 2002). As exposure to role models can activate specific regulatory goals and thus focus, we decided to investigate whether it also generates a preference toward specific behavioral tactics. This led us to analyze whether the effects of the two types of regulatory fit by vicarious experience differ according to the behavioral tactic chosen by individuals to pursue the advocated behavior.

Study 2

To analyze whether the effects of regulatory fit by vicarious experience differ depending on the type of tactic available, we developed a message recommending both the increase of fruit and vegetable intake and the decrease of fat and salt intake. It is reasonable to suppose that individuals’ intention to engage in either tactic will be influenced by the type of regulatory concerns activated by exposure to role models.

Indeed, we tested whether exposure to role models actually leads individuals to be more interested in additive or subtractive behaviors in a pre-test. To this purpose, we presented participants (N = 60) with a message describing either a positive or a negative role model. The positive model was an individual who “. . . is always very healthy thanks to a balanced diet” and experiences positive outcomes resulting from this. The negative model was an individual who “. . . is always sick because of an unbalanced diet” and experiences negative outcomes resulting from this. We then asked participants to rate the importance of additive—for example, “Eating fruit and vegetables,” α(N = 6) = .79—and subtractive—for example, “Avoiding fats,” α(N = 6) = .89—tactics in the pursuit of a healthy diet, on a 7-point scale rating from 1 (not at all valuable) to 7 (very valuable). The Type of Role Model had a significant effect on the evaluation of both additive tactics—F(1, 58) = 5.41, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .27—and subtractive tactics—F(1, 58) = 14.84, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .21. Additive tactics were considered as more valuable by individuals exposed to the positive model (M = 5.41, SD = 0.79) than by those exposed to the negative one (M = 4.27, SD = 1.07); t(1, 58) = 4.69, p = .001, d = 1.21, 95% CI = [0.65, 1.62]. However, participants exposed to the negative role model considered subtractive behaviors as more valuable (M = 5.66, SD = 0.71) than those exposed to positive behaviors (M = 4.52, SD = 1.46); t(1, 58) = −3.85, p = .001, d = 0.99, 95% CI = [−1.74, −0.55]. When aware of the gains experienced by others engaging in the target behavior, individuals mark a clear preference for additive tactics to pursue the intended health change. However, when exposed to the losses experienced by others not engaging in the target behavior, individuals reported a clear preference for subtractive tactics aiming to pursue the intended health change.

Based on these findings, the purpose of Study 2 was to distinguish the underpinnings of the persuasiveness of a promotion fit versus a prevention fit. More precisely, we expected the message featuring a positive model and a fitting promotion-framing to increase individuals’ perception of response-efficacy and self-efficacy concerning the additive tactic (i.e., increasing fruit and vegetable intake), as well as their intention to engage in it. However, the message featuring a negative model and a fitting prevention-framing was expected to increase individuals’ perception of response-efficacy and self-efficacy concerning the subtractive tactic (i.e., decreasing fat and salt intake), as well as their intention to engage in it.

Method

A total of 125 university undergraduates (23 men and 102 women), aged from 18 to 27 (M = 19.64, SD = 1.79), consented to the study by completing the anonymous questionnaire, in a lecture-room environment at the university. Participants were randomly allocated to experimental conditions according to a 2 (Type of Role Model: positive vs. negative) × 2 (Message Regulatory Framing: promotion vs. prevention) design. As a result, the participants were homogeneously distributed across the conditions according to their gender and age.

The booklet given to participants presented, at first, a written message. Each message was approximately 355 words in length. The messages started with the description of either a positive or a negative role model. Next, the corpus of the messages promoted the increase of fruit and vegetable intake with either a promotion or a prevention-framing. An example of the former would be “By eating fruit and vegetables, you will ingest an adequate quantity of vitamins and minerals which will render you more appealing,” whereas a prevention-framed example would be “By eating fruit and vegetables, you will facilitate the functioning of your immune system which will protect you against diseases.” For a decrease of fat and salt intake, a promotion-framed message might read “Limiting salt intake strengthens the functioning of the heart and kidneys,” whereas a prevention-framed message would read “Limiting salt intake prevents the dangers of cardiac and kidney malfunctions.”

A convenience sample of undergraduate students was used for a post-test framing-manipulation check (N = 38). To check the promotion-framing, participants were asked to rate the extent to which the advertisement gave suggestions on how to improve health and considered good health as an ideal. To check prevention-framing, participants were asked to rate the extent to which the advertisement gave suggestions on how to maintain good health and considered good health as a responsibility. As expected, individuals evaluated the promotion-framed appeal as giving suggestions on how to improve health (M = 5.21, SD = 1.08) and as describing a good health as an ideal (M = 4.53, SD = 1.12) more than the prevention-framed appeal—improve health: M = 4.11, SD = 1.13, t(1, 36) = 3.12, p = .002, d = 0.99, 95% CI = [0.39, 1.82]; and good health as an ideal: M = 3.56, SD = 1.19, t(1, 36) = 2.54, p = .005, d = 0.84, 95% CI = [0.19, 1.75]. However, individuals evaluated the prevention-framed appeal as giving suggestions on how to maintain good health (M = 5.28, SD = 0.96) and as describing good health as a responsibility (M = 4.83, SD = 1.34) more than the promotion-framed appeal—maintain health: M = 4.21, SD = 1.36, t(1, 36) = −2.91, p = .003, d = 0.91, 95% CI = [−1.87, −0.34]; and good health as a responsibility: M = 3.68, SD = 1.64, t(1, 36) = −2.15, p = .02, d = 0.77, 95% CI = [−2.04, −0.06].

The second part of the booklet presented participants with a questionnaire, beginning with their perception of response-efficacy concerning increasing fruit and vegetable intake—for example, “Eating more fruit and vegetables is useful for personal health,” r(125) = .88—and decreasing fat and salt intake—“Eating less fat and salt is useful for personal health,” r(125) = .85. Participants were then asked to rate their perception of self-efficacy concerning the increase of fruit and vegetable intake (i.e., “If I wanted to, I’m sure I could eat more fruit and vegetables”) and the decrease of fat and salt intake (i.e., “If I wanted to, I’m sure I could eat less fat and salt”). The questionnaire finally analyzed individuals’ intention to increase their fruit and vegetable intake—for example, “I intend to eat more fruit and vegetables,” r(125) = .51—and to decrease their fat and salt intake—for example, “I intend to eat less fat and salt,” r(125) = .52. All dependent measures were assessed on a 7-point scale rating from 1 (not at all) to 7 (completely). Participants were finally thanked and fully debriefed.

Results

All means concerning behavioral intention, response-efficacy, and self-efficacy are reported in Table 2. The sample was examined for outliers (>3 SDs from the sample mean), and none were found.

Table 2.

Means and Effects Depending on the Type of Fit (Study 2).

Measures	M (SD)				Difference of fit
Measures	PosPro (promotion fit)	PosPre	NegPro	NegPre (prevention fit)	Difference of fit
Increase fruit and vegetable intake
Intention*	4.55 (1.52)	2.74 (1.14)	2.85 (1.09)	3.84 (1.08)	p = .02
Response-efficacy*	6.27 (0.86)	5.02 (1.74)	5.7 (2.09)	5.52 (1.67)	p = .01
Self-efficacy**	5.77 (1.36)	4.76 (1.73)	4.97 (2.22)	5.03 (2.19)	p = .05
Decrease fat and salt intake
Intention*	3.66 (1.29)	2.55 (1.22)	2.68 (0.96)	4.29 (1.64)	p = .04
Response-efficacy*	5.34 (1.99)	4.81 (1.89)	4.82 (1.89)	6.31 (0.77)	p = .005
Self-efficacy*	5.11 (1.81)	4.58 (1.79)	4.61 (1.98)	5.94 (1.41)	p = .02

Note. PosPro = Positive model × Promotion-framing; PosPre = Positive model × Prevention framing; NegPro = Negative model × Promotion-framing; NegPre = Negative model × Prevention framing. Bold values represent the response rates compared one to the other to analyze the differential impact of the type of fit.

Interactive effect: p < .01. **Interactive effect: p ≤ .1.

Behavioral intention

Increasing fruit and vegetable intake

The Type of Role Model had no significant effect on individuals’ intention to eat more fruit and vegetables, F(1, 121) = 1.89, p = .17, whereas Message Regulatory Framing had an effect, F(1, 121) = 3.48, p = .07. More importantly, the Type of Role Model × Message Regulatory Framing interaction was significant, F(1, 121) = 40.74, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .25. Participants exposed to the positive model were more willing to increase their fruit and vegetable intake when reading the promotion-oriented message (M = 4.55, SD = 1.52) than when reading the prevention-framed version (M = 2.74, SD = 1.14); t(1, 62) = 5.39, p <.001, d = 1.35, 95% CI = [1.14, 2.47]. However, participants exposed to the negative model reported higher intentions when reading the prevention-oriented message (M = 3.84, SD = 1.08) than when reading the promotion-framed one (M = 2.85, SD = 1.09); t(1, 59) = −3.55, p < .001, d = 0.91, 95% CI = [−1.55, −0.43]. It is important to specify that participants experiencing the promotion fit had a significantly higher intention to eat more fruit and vegetables than those experiencing the prevention fit, t(1, 60) = 2.12, p = .02, d = 0.55, 95% CI = [0.04, 1.38].

Decreasing fat and salt intake

Neither Type of Role Model—F(1, 121) = 2.71, p = .11—nor Message Regulatory Framing—F(1, 121) = 1.11, p = .29—had significant effects on individuals’ intention to eat less fat and salt. More importantly, the Type of Role Model × Message Regulatory Framing interaction was significant, F(1, 121) = 34.06, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .22. Participants exposed to the positive model were more willing to decrease their fat and salt intake when reading the promotion-oriented message (M = 3.66, SD = 1.29) than when reading the prevention-framed version (M = 2.55, SD = 1.22); t(1, 62) = 3.55, p < .001, d = 0.88, 95% CI = [0.48, 1.74]. However, participants exposed to the negative model reported higher intentions when reading the prevention-oriented message (M = 4.29, SD = 1.64) than when reading the promotion-framed version (M = 2.68, SD = 0.96); t(1, 59) = −4.65, p <.001, d = 1.19, 95% CI = [−2.29, −0.91]. It is important to specify that participants experiencing the prevention fit had significantly higher intention to eat less fat and salt than those experiencing the promotion fit, t(1, 60) = 1.68, p = .04, d = 0.43, 95% CI = [−1.38, 0.12].

Response-efficacy

Increasing fruit and vegetable intake

Neither Type of Role Model—F(1, 121) = 1.05, p = .31—nor Message Regulatory Framing—F(1, 121) = 2.37, p = .13—had significant effects on individuals’ perception of the efficacy of increasing fruit and vegetable intake. More importantly, the Type of Role Model × Message Regulatory Framing interaction was significant, F(1, 121) = 7.41, p = .007, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .06. Participants exposed to the positive model perceived a higher response-efficacy when reading the promotion-oriented message (M = 6.27, SD = 0.86) than when reading the prevention-framed version (M = 5.02, SD = 1.74); t(1, 62) = 3.63, p < .001, d = 0.91, 95% CI = [0.57, 1.95]. However, participants exposed to the negative model perceived higher response-efficacy when reading the prevention-oriented message (M = 5.52, SD = 1.67) than when reading the promotion-framed version (M = 5.17, SD = 2.09); t(1, 59) = −0.72, p = .23. It is important to specify that participants experiencing the promotion fit considered eating more fruit and vegetables to be significantly more effective than those experiencing the prevention fit, t(1, 60) = 2.24, p = .015, d = 0.56, 95% CI = [0.08, 1.43].

Decreasing fat and salt intake

Neither Type of Role Model—F(1, 121) = 2.56, p = .11—nor Message Regulatory Framing—F(1, 121) = 2.42, p = .12—had significant main effects on individuals’ perception of the efficacy of decreasing fat and salt intake. More importantly, the Type of Role Model × Message Regulatory Framing interaction was significant, F(1, 121) = 10.91, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .08. Participants exposed to the positive model perceived higher response-efficacy reading the promotion-oriented message (M = 5.34, SD = 1.99) than when reading the prevention-focused one (M = 4.81, SD = 1.89); t(1, 62) = 1.11, p = .13. However, participants exposed to the negative model perceived higher response-efficacy reading the prevention-focused message (M = 6.31, SD = 0.77) than when reading the promotion-oriented one (M = 4.82, SD = 1.89); t(1, 59) = −4.04, p < .001, d = 1.03, 95% CI = [−2.23, −0.75]. It is important to specify that participants experiencing the prevention fit considered eating less fat and salt as significantly more effective for personal health than participants experiencing the promotion fit, t(1, 60) = 2.53, p = .005, d = 0.64, 95% CI = [−1.73, −0.21].

Self-efficacy

Increasing fruit and vegetable intake

Neither Type of Role Model—F(1, 121) = 0.61, p = .44—nor Message Regulatory Framing—F(1, 121) = 1.94, p = .17—had significant effects on individuals’ perceived self-efficacy concerning the increase of fruit and vegetable intake. More importantly, the Type of Role Model × Message Regulatory Framing interaction was not significant, F(1, 121) = 2.52, p = .11. However, participants exposed to the positive model perceived a significantly higher self-efficacy when reading the promotion-oriented message (M = 5.77, SD = 1.36) than when reading the prevention-framed version (M = 4.76, SD = 1.73); t(1, 62) = 2.61, p < .01, d = 0.65, 95% CI = [0.24, 1.79]. However, participants exposed to the negative model perceived the same degree of self-efficacy when reading the prevention-oriented message (M = 5.03, SD = 2.19) as when reading the promotion-framed version (M = 4.97, SD = 2.22); t(1, 59) = −0.12, p = .45. It is important to specify that participants experiencing the promotion fit considered eating more fruit and vegetables to be significantly more effective than those experiencing the prevention fit, t(1, 60) = 1.59, p = .05, d = 0.41, 95% CI = [−0.19, 1.67].

Decreasing fat and salt intake

Neither Type of Role Model—F(1, 121) = 1.88, p = .17—nor Message Regulatory Framing—F(1, 121) = 1.68, p = .19—had significant effects on individuals’ perceived self-efficacy concerning the decrease of fat and salt intake. More importantly, the Type of Role Model × Message Regulatory Framing interaction was significant, F(1, 121) = 8.71, p = .004, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .07. Participants exposed to the positive model perceived the same degree of self-efficacy when reading the promotion-oriented message (M = 5.11, SD = 1.81) as when reading the prevention-focused version (M = 4.58, SD = 1.79); t(1, 62) = 1.16, p = .16. However, participants exposed to the negative model perceived higher self-efficacy when reading the prevention-focused message (M = 5.94, SD = 1.41) than when reading the promotion-oriented version (M = 4.61, SD = 1.98); t(1, 59) = −3.05, p < .005, d = 0.77, 95% CI = [−2.21, −0.46]. It is important to specify that participants experiencing the prevention fit considered eating less fat and salt as significantly more effective for personal health than participants experiencing the promotion fit, t(1, 60) = 2.03, p = .02, d = 0.52, 95% CI = [−1.66, −0.01].

Discussion

The present results confirm that messages presenting an internal regulatory fit by vicarious experience are more persuasive than messages presenting a regulatory misfit. Furthermore, our data show that one type of regulatory fit is more persuasive than the other depending on the type of behavioral tactics privileged by individuals to pursue a healthy diet. Individuals exposed to a promotion fit are more willing to increase fruit and vegetable intake, reporting higher response-efficacy and self-efficacy concerning this tactic, than individuals exposed to a prevention fit. However, individuals exposed to a prevention fit are more willing to decrease fat and salt intake, reporting higher response-efficacy and self-efficacy concerning this tactic, than individuals exposed to a promotion fit. These results answer the question concerning the circumstances under which a role model strengthens the persuasiveness of a promotional message. Indeed, presenting a role model fitting with the message regulatory frame is more persuasive than presenting a misfitting role model, and it is even more persuasive in the promotion of congruent behavioral tactics.

General Discussion

The primary purpose of this article has been to explain how exposure to role models strengthens the persuasiveness of health-promotional communication. Our findings demonstrate that the Type of Role Model to which individuals are exposed activates specific regulatory foci. Being exposed to a positive role model leads individuals to perceive the pursuit of a healthy diet as an action aimed at accomplishment concerns (Study 1, pre-test) and to prefer additive tactics to pursue it (Study 2, pre-test), both features characterizing a regulatory focus on promotion (Higgins, 2000; Lockwood et al., 2004). However, being exposed to a negative role model leads individuals to perceive the pursuit of a healthy diet as an action aimed at safety concerns (Study 1, pre-test) and to prefer subtractive tactics to pursue it (Study 2, pre-test), both features characterizing a regulatory focus on prevention. The results from Studies 1 and 2 therefore demonstrate that exposure to a role model, activating a specific regulatory focus, renders a message more or less persuasive depending on its framing, as individuals are more influenced by a message framed to fit their regulatory focus. The participants were indeed more willing to follow the recommendation presented by a message featuring regulatory fit between the model and the framing, rather than a message featuring regulatory misfit. To answer our first question (why?), exposure to role models strengthens the effectiveness of a fitting-framed message because it creates regulatory fit, generating higher persuasiveness.

The second purpose was to explain how regulatory fit by vicarious experience strengthens the effectiveness of a health-promotional message, increasing individuals’ intention to engage in a specific behavior. A mediation model was validated by Study 1, demonstrating that a message presenting an internal regulatory fit by vicarious experience increases individuals’ perception of both response-efficacy and self-efficacy concerning the advocated behavior, which in turns increases individuals’ intention to engage in it. This is in agreement with extensive research in the domain of health promotion that has demonstrated that the decision to engage in a health-related behavior is based on individuals’ perception and expectancies about such behavior (e.g., Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012; Rothman, Bartels, Wlaschin, & Salovey, 2006; Rothman & Salovey, 1997; Witte, 1992; Witte & Allen, 2000). Indeed, an individual’s decision to engage in a health-related behavior depends directly on their evaluation of such behavior as effective in pursuing a specific health standard (i.e., response-efficacy; Rogers, 1983; Witte, 1992) as well as their evaluation of their personal ability to effectively perform it (i.e., self-efficacy; Bandura, 1977; Witte, 1992). Our findings demonstrate that regulatory fit by vicarious experience increases individuals’ perception of the importance and efficacy of the advocated behavior as an effective response to pursue health standards. This is in line with past findings demonstrating that value from regulatory fit is transferred to the subsequent evaluation of the importance of a behavior (Higgins et al., 2003). Our findings also demonstrate that regulatory fit by vicarious experience increases individuals’ perception of self-efficacy concerning the advocated behavior, in agreement with past studies demonstrating that role models boost self-efficacy when they match the individuals’ goals and interests (Bandura, 1977; Gibson, 2003; Winnykamen, 1982). To answer our second question (how?), exposure to role models strengthens the effectiveness of a fitting-framed message by increasing perceived response-efficacy and self-efficacy. Our results advance past findings demonstrating the existence of a special link between promotion focus and self-efficacy, and prevention focus and response-efficacy (Keller, 2006; Shao, 2012). In the present research, we decided to measure perceived self-efficacy and response-efficacy, rather than manipulating them in a message, to demonstrate that regulatory fit by vicarious experience increases both dimensions irrespective of the type of regulatory framing or regulatory focus activated by the role model. We argue that this depends on the presence of a role model fitting the framing of a message promoting health behavior. This raises new questions about the influence of role models in advertisement: Could different characteristics of a role model influence different dimensions of efficacy appraisal? If the role model represents the ease of a behavior rather than its efficacy, would this render one type of regulatory framing more efficient than the other?

The third purpose of our work was to investigate when—under what circumstances—regulatory fit by vicarious experience is most persuasive. The findings from Study 2 demonstrate that such a fit is more effective than a misfit in promoting both additive and subtractive tactics to pursue a healthy diet, but that one type of fit is even more persuasive than the other depending on the type of tactic available. A promotion fit is more persuasive in promoting additive tactics, whereas a prevention fit is more effective in promoting subtractive tactics. This is explained by the fact that individuals manifest a preference for one or the other type depending on their regulatory focus (Freitas & Higgins, 2002; Lockwood et al., 2004). As exposure to role model activates a specific focus, it also influences individuals’ preference for additive versus subtractive tactics, rendering one type of fit more persuasive than the other. To answer to our third question (when?), exposure to role models strengthens the effectiveness of a fitting-framed message especially promoting a congruent tactic.

To better illustrate our model, let us return to the man waiting at the traffic lights referred to in the introduction. We asked whether a message advertising a healthy diet to develop an appealing body would be more effective when combined with the image of an obese or a healthy person. Our regulatory fit by vicarious experience model explains that the message would benefit from the image of a healthy person, because it fits the regulatory focus of the message and thus it increases individuals’ perception of the efficacy of a healthy diet and of their ability to pursue it. Moreover, the persuasiveness of such advertisement would yet increase if it also depicted a congruent behavioral tactic to develop a healthy diet, such as eating more fruit, as the additive action of engaging in potentially beneficial activities is congruent with the promotion fit presented by the message.

This research has raised some issues that merit further research. First, the main limitation of the research is the use of a paper-and-pencil procedure with no measure of actual behavior within a sample of young university students. Future studies should thus aim to replicate our findings using a wider sample, with a behavioral measure to verify the effects of regulatory fit by vicarious experience on the actual initiation of the change promoted by the message. Second, recent research (Higgins, 2006) suggests that increased engagement arising from regulatory fit accounts for its effects on the intensity of the observed responses (Idson, Liberman, & Higgins, 2004). It is reasonable to suppose that regulatory fit could increase individuals’ engagement in a situation, by strengthening their evaluation of the personal relevance of the issue addressed by a promotional message. Individuals’ engagement being a moderator of central processing, leading to stronger and more durable attitude-changes (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), it is possible to hypothesize that engagement from regulatory fit would lead to a more effective and lasting persuasive impact. Further studies should thus measure whether regulatory fit by vicarious experience influences receivers’ engagement, which should in turn influence individual’s decision to perform the target behavior. Third, past research on regulatory fit has also advanced an explication of its persuasive effects based on processing fluency (Lee & Aaker, 2004): The ease of processing an internally fitting message increases its persuasive power. Could the increase of processing fluency have been a moderator of the effect of regulatory fit on efficacy appraisal? It is possible to suppose that a message which is easy to understand also leads individuals to consider the advertised behavior as easy and efficient. Future studies could analyze the effect of regulatory fit by vicarious experience on processing fluency and its effect on efficacy appraisal.

This article makes several significant theoretical contributions. First, it builds on past literature on regulatory fit in the field of health-related decision making, extending past results on the value-from-fit hypothesis (Higgins, 2000). The present research confirms that the persuasiveness of the message depends on individuals’ efficacy appraisal, concerning both response-efficacy and self-efficacy (Witte, 1992). Second, this article supports previous findings in the field of vicarious learning (Bandura, 1982; Winnykamen, 1982), by demonstrating that exposure to a role model significantly influences individuals’ decisions only when the model is compatible with the regulatory focus contextually induced by the regulatory frame of the persuasive message.

Overall, the studies presented in this article demonstrate and explain the importance of exposure to role models as a technique to strengthen the persuasiveness of health-promotional communication. As role models are widely used as a persuasive strategy in health-promotional campaigns and interventions, our research demonstrates that not all role models are effectively persuasive: It is fundamental to choose the right model accordingly to the type of message-framing and to the type of behavioral change advertised.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

The online supplemental material is available at .

References

Avnet

Higgins

E. T.

(2003). Locomotion, assessment, and regulatory fit: Value transfer from “how” to “what.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 525-530. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00027-1

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. New York, NY: General Learning Press.

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122

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 health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, XXXII, 192-203. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3152047

Brodscholl

J. C.

Kober

Higgins

E. T.

(2007). Strategies of self-regulation in goal attainment versus goal maintenance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 628-648. doi:10.1002/ejsp.380

Camacho

C. J.

Higgins

E. T.

Luger

(2003). Moral value transfer from regulatory fit: What feels right is right and what feels wrong is wrong. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 498-510. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.498

Cesario

Grant

Higgins

E. T.

(2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388-404. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.388

Cesario

Higgins

E. T.

Scholer

A. A.

(2008). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic principles and remaining questions. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 444-463. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00055.x

Cox

A. D.

(2001). Communicating the consequences of early detection: The role of evidence and framing. Journal of Marketing, 65(3), 91-103. doi:10.1509/jmkg.65.3.91.18336

10.

Freitas

A. L.

Higgins

E. T.

(2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regulatory fit. Psychological Science, 13, 1-6. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00401

11.

Gallagher

K. M.

Updegraff

J. A.

(2012). Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43, 101-116. doi:10.1007/s12160-012-9446-6

12.

Gibson

D. E.

(2003). Developing the professional self-concept: Role model construals in early, middle, and late career stages. Organization Science, 14, 591-610. doi:10.1287/orsc.14.5.591.16767

13.

Green

E. C.

Witte

(2006). Can fear arousal in public health campaigns contribute to the decline of HIV prevalence? Journal of Health Communication, 11, 245-259. doi:10.1080/10810730600613807

14.

Hammond

Reid

J. L.

Driezen

Boudreau

(2013). Pictorial health warnings on cigarette packs in the United States: An experimental evaluation of the proposed FDA warnings. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 15, 93-102. doi:10.1093/ntr/nts094

15.

Hayes

A. F.

(2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.personal.psu.edu/jxb14/M554/articles/process2012.pdf

16.

Henderson-King

(1997). Media effects on women’s body esteem: Social and individual difference factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 399-417. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00638.x

17.

Higgins

E. T.

(1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319

18.

Higgins

E. T.

(1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280

19.

Higgins

E. T.

(2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 5, 1217-1230. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217

20.

Higgins

E. T.

(2002). How self-regulation creates distinct values: The case of promotion and prevention decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12, 177-191. doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP1203_01

21.

Higgins

E. T.

(2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review, 113, 439-460. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.439

22.

Higgins

E. T.

Idson

L. C.

Freitas

A. L.

Spiegel

Molden

D. C.

(2003). Transfer of value from fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1140-1153. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1140

23.

Hinyard

L. J.

Kreuter

M. W.

(2006). Using narrative communication as a tool for health behavior change: A conceptual, theoretical, and empirical overview. Health Education & Behavior, 34, 777-792. doi:10.1177/1090198106291963

24.

Idson

L. C.

Liberman

Higgins

E. T.

(2004). Imagining how you’d feel: The role of motivational experiences from regulatory fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 926-937. doi:10.1177/0146167204264334

25.

Joshi

Herman

C. P.

Polivy

(2004). Self-enhancing effects of exposure to thin-body images. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 35, 333-341. doi:10.1002/eat.10253

26.

Keller

P. A.

(2006). Regulatory focus and efficacy of health messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 109-114. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/504141

27.

Latimer

A. E.

Williams-Piehota

Katulak

N. A.

Cox

Mowad

Higgins

E. T.

Salovey

(2008). Promoting fruit and vegetable intake through messages tailored to individual differences in regulatory focus. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 363-369. doi:10.1007/s12160-008-9039-6

28.

Lee

A. Y.

Aaker

J. L.

(2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 205-218. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.205

29.

Lemal

Van den Bulck

(2010). Testing the effectiveness of a skin cancer narrative in promoting positive health behavior: A pilot study. Preventive Medicine, 51, 178-181. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.04.019

30.

Lockwood

Jordan

C. H.

Kunda

(2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854-864. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854

31.

Lockwood

Sadler

Fyman

Tuck

(2004). To do or not to do: Using positive and negative role models to harness motivation. Social Cognition, 22, 422-450. doi:10.1521/soco.22.4.422.38297

32.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. New York, NY: Springer.

33.

Plotnikoff

R. C.

Lippke

Trinh

Courneya

K. S.

Birkett

Sigal

R. J.

(2010). Protection motivation theory and the prediction of physical activity among adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in a large population sample. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 643-661. doi:10.1348/135910709X478826

34.

Rogers

R. W.

(1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In Cacioppo

J. T.

Petty

R. E.

(Eds.), Social psychophysiology: A source book (pp. 153-176). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

35.

Rothman

A. J.

Bartels

R. D.

Wlaschin

Salovey

(2006). The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56(Suppl. 1), S202-S220. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00290.x

36.

Rothman

A. J.

Salovey

(1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3-19. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3

37.

Scholer

A. A.

Fujita

Zou

Stroessner

S. J.

Higgins

E. T.

(2010). When risk seeking becomes a motivational necessity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 215-231. doi:10.1037/a0019715

38.

Shao

(2012). Framing and efficacy: The effect of regulatory fit on skin cancer prevention and detection. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 24, 161-180. doi:10.1080/10495142.2012.705176

39.

Spiegel

Grant-Pillow

Higgins

E. T.

(2004). How regulatory fit enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 39-54. doi:10.1002/ejsp.180

40.

Winnykamen

(1982). L’apprentissage par observation. [Learning by observation]. Revue française de pédagogie, 59, 24-29. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41162029

41.

Winterbottom

Bekker

H. L.

Conner

Mooney

(2008). Does narrative information bias individual’s decision making? A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 67, 2079-2088. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.037

42.

Witte

(1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeal: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59, 329-349. doi:10.1080/03637759209376276

43.

Witte

Allen

(2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 591-615. doi:10.1177/109019810002700506

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.32 MB