We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Despite extensive research on framing effects in public health communication, there is still a lack of knowledge on how gain frames v. loss frames can encourage healthy eating behaviour among children.
Design:
Drawing on the Prospect Theory as well as on the Reactivity of Embedded Food Cues in Advertising Model, an experiment exposed children to an audio-visual cartoon movie with gain-framed nutritional messages about eating fruit (gain condition), loss-framed nutritional messages about eating fruit (loss condition) or a message without any food (control group). Children’s fruit intake was measured as the dependent variable. Children’s awareness of gain- and loss-framed arguments was treated as mediators, while children’s age and parents’ self-reported food-related mediation styles were modelled as moderators.
Setting:
Vienna, Austria, in 2018.
Participants:
Children aged 6–10 years (N 161).
Results:
Children in the gain frame group were more aware of gain-framed arguments, and children in the loss frame group were more aware of loss-framed arguments than those in the control group. However, only the mediator awareness of gain-framed arguments increased fruit intake. Additionally, there was a direct effect of the gain-framed message on fruit intake compared to the control group. The loss condition did not reveal such an effect. Neither parent’s food-related mediation styles nor children’s age moderated those results.
Conclusion:
Gain-framing seems to be more effective in influencing children’s healthy food choices compared to loss-framing. Implications for health communication strategies aimed at children are discussed.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.