Subjects possessing two distinct types of self-discrepancies, actual: ideal (Al) and actual: ought (AO), read a persuasive message about the importance of eating breakfast, framed in terms of either positive or negative outcomes. On the basis of an analysis of each discrepancy type as a chronic, individual motivational force and each frame as a momentary, situational motivational force, the positive outcome frame was predicted to be more effective than the negative outcome frame in motivating AO subjects to change their eating patterns; the opposite was predicted for Al subjects. The results supported this prediction. AO subjects' thoughts, feelings, and intentions showed a stronger persuasive effect of positive outcome framing than of negative outcome framing; the opposite was true for AIsubjects. The predicted interaction was also found on an immediate behavioral commitment measure. On a delayed action measure, only the effect predicted for AO subjects was found.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bargh, J. A. , Lombardi, E. G., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Automaticity of chronically accessible constructs in person x situation effects on person perception: It's just a matter of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 599-605.
2.
Berkowitz, L. , & Cottingham, D. R. (1960). The interest value and relevance of fear-arousing communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 3743.
3.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. New York: W. H. Freeman.
4.
Dabbs, J. M. , & Leventhal, H. (1966). Effects of varying the recommendations in a fear-arousing communication. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 525-531.
5.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.
6.
Higgins, E. T. (1989a). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to suffer? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 93-136). New York: Academic Press.
7.
Higgins, E. T. (1989b). Continuities and discontinuities in self-regulatory and self-evaluative processes: A developmental theory relating self an d affect. Journal of Personality, 57, 407-444.
8.
Higgins, E. T. , Bond, R., Klein, R., & Strauman, T. (1986). Self-discrepancies and emotional vulnerability: How magnitude, accessibility, and type of discrepancy influence affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 5-15.
9.
Higgins, E. T. , Strauman, T., & Klein, R. (1986). Standards and the process of self-evaluation: Multiple affects from multiple stages. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 23-63). New York: Guilford.
10.
Higgins, E. T. , & Tykocinski, O. (1992). Self-discrepancies and biographical memory: Personality and cognition at the level of psychological situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 527-535.
11.
Higgins, E. T. , Tykocinski, O., & Vookles, J. (1990). Patterns of self-beliefs: The psychological significance of relations among the actual, ideal, ought, can, and future selves. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Self-inference processes: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 6). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
Janis, I. L. (1954). Personality differences associated with responsiveness to fear-arousing communications. Journal of Personality, 23, 154-166.
13.
Kanouse, D. E. (1984). Explaining negativity biases in evaluations and choice behavior: Theory and research. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 703-708.
14.
Kanouse, D. E. , & Hanson, R. (1972). Negativity in evaluations. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
15.
Lehmann, S. (1970). Personality and compliance: A study of anxiety and self-esteem in opinion and behavior change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 76-86.
16.
Leventhal, H. (1970). Findings and theory in the study of fear communications. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 119-186). New York: Academic Press.
17.
McCroskey, J. C. , & Wright, D. W. (1971). A comparison of the effects of punishment-oriented and reward-oriented messages in persuasive communication. Journal of Communication, 21, 83-93.
18.
McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In E. F. Borgatta & W. W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 1130-1187). Chicago: Rand McNally.
19.
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.
20.
Moretti, M. M. , & Higgins, E. T. (1990). Relating self-discrepancy to self-esteem: The contribution of discrepancy beyond actual-self ratings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 108-123.
21.
Niles, P. (1964). The relationship of susceptibility and anxiety to acceptance of fear-arousing communications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University.
22.
Powell, F. A. , & Miller, G. R. (1967). Social approval and disapproval cues in anxiety-arousing communications. Speech Monographs, 34, 152-159.
23.
Rhodes, N. , & Wood, W. (in press). Individual differences in influence ability: Self-esteem and intelligence. Psychological Bulletin
24.
Roberson, M. R. , & Rogers, R. W. (1988). Beyond fear appeals: Negative and positive appeals to health and self-esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3, 277-287.
25.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
26.
Schwarz, N. , Bless, H., & Bohner, G. (1991). Mood and persuasion: Affective states influence the processing of persuasive communications. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 161-199). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
27.
Sutton, S. R. (1982). Fear-arousing communications: A critical examination of theory and research. In J. R. Eiser (Ed.), Social psychology and behavioral medicine (pp. 303-337). Chichester, England: John Wiley.
