San Jose State University Message Content Factor Research Paper Please write two pages on message content factor.Attached below are the pdf slides lecture

San Jose State University Message Content Factor Research Paper Please write two pages on message content factor.Attached below are the pdf slides lecture regarding to the topic.I’ll also included the messages I’ve chosen to write on.Long-term results :“Regular exercise can be as effective at treating depression as medication”. – Numerous studies have shown that people who exercise regularly experience fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety than those who do not exercise regularly. One-sided message – presents positives of taking action: “Not making time for yourself can lead to depression”. Gain-framing : prevent teenagers from commit suicide thoughts, insomnia, trouble with memory, and weakened immune system.“ By seeking for help, you can overcome suicidal thoughts and prevent things from getting worse” MESSAGE CONTENT
FACTORS
Dr. Zhang
MESSAGE CONTENT FACTORS
 Distinctions in a message that can strengthen the persuasive effect
1. Consequence desirability
2. One-sided vs two-sided messages
3. Gain-loss framing
4. Appeals
CONSEQUENCE
DESIRABILITY
CONSEQUENCE DESIRABILITY
 A common way of trying to persuade people is by appealing to the
consequences of the advocated action.
 “If the advocated action A is undertaken, then desirable
consequence D will occur.”
EXAMPLE #2
Look at the following two messages. Which one is for people who
value short-term results? Which one is for people who value longterm results?
 A: If you don’t use sunscreen, you could have a painful burn.
 B: If you don’t use sunscreen, you could increase your risk of skin
cancer.
For people who value shorter term results:
“If you don’t use sunscreen you could have a painful burn.”
For people value longer term results:
“If you don’t use sunscreen you could increase your risk of skin cancer.”
ONE-SIDED & TWOSIDED MESSAGES
One-Sided & Two-Sided Messages:
• One-sided messages: only provides the positives of taking action
• Two-sided Messages: presents both positives and negatives of taking
action (pros and cons)
One-Sided & Two-Sided Messages
ELM: high/low elaboration: central/peripheral routes
• Neither is more effective than the other
• One-sided messages: Best used for low elaborators
• Two-sided Messages: Best used for high elaborators
ONE-SIDED & TWO-SIDED MESSAGES
 Research has shown that, in general, messages that present a major
benefit but do not address any drawbacks (one-sided messages)
tend to be most appropriate when intended audience members are
already in favor of an idea or practice.
 In contrast, messages that present a major benefit and directly
address any major drawbacks (two-sided messages) work best when
people are not favorably predisposed.
GAIN-LOSS
FRAMING
GAIN FRAMING
 Emphasizes the advantages of undertaking the advocated action.
 “If you wear sunscreen you will have attractive skin when you’re
older”
 “If a cancer is detected early, it is less likely to be fatal.”
 “The advantage of detecting cancer early is that you may need less
radical procedures.”
LOSS FRAMING
 Emphasizes the disadvantages of not engaging in the advocated
action.
 “If you don’t wear sunscreen you will have unattractive skin when
you’re older. ”
 “The disadvantage of failing to detect cancer early is that you may
need radical procedures.”
 “If cancer is detected late, it is more likely to be fatal.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4295292/
COMPARISON
 Loss-framed messages will be
more persuasive than gainframed messages for disease
detection behaviors, e.g.,
breast cancer screening
 Gain-framed messages will
bed more persuasive than
loss-framed messages for
disease prevention behaviors,
e.g., sunscreen use
APPEALS
 Positive emotional appeals
 Humorous appeals
 Threat/fear appeals
POSITIVE EMOTIONAL APPEALS
 Frederickson (2009) identifies the ten most common positive emotions as joy,
gratitude, serenity, interest, hope, pride, amusement, inspiration, awe and love.
 Showing the benefits intended audience members will gain when they take the
action portrayed in the message.
 Research has shown that, in general, messages that present a major benefit but do
not address any drawbacks (one-sided messages) tend to be most appropriate when
intended audience members are already in favor of an idea or practice.
 In contrast, messages that present a major benefit and directly address any major
drawbacks (two-sided messages) work best when people are not favorably
predisposed.
HUMOROUS APPEALS
 Can work for simple messages, especially if most competing communication is
not humorous.
 The humor should be appropriate for the health issue and convey the main
message; otherwise, the message, also, humorous messages can become
irritating if repeated too frequently people tend to remember the joke but
not the health issue.
THREAT APPEALS
THREAT APPEALS
 Messages designed to encourage the adoption of behaviors aimed at
protecting against a potential treat.
 Have been shown to be effective with two groups. Research has shown that
such appeals tend to be more effective with “copers” (people who are not
anxious by nature) and “sensation seekers” (certain youth), and when
exposure to the message is voluntary (picking up a brochure rather than
mandatory attendance at a substance abuse prevention program).
THREAT APPEALS/FEAR APPEALS
Research has also shown that, to be effective, a threat appeal
should include:
 A compelling threat of physical or social harm
 Evidence that the intended audience is personally vulnerable
to the threat
 Solutions that are both easy to perform (i.e., intended
audience members believe they have the ability to take the
action) and effective (i.e., taking the action will eliminate the
threat)
SUMMARY
 The most appropriate type of appeal may differ from this general
guidance, depending upon gender, age, ethnicity, severity of the
problem, and the intended audience’s relationship to the problem.
 Pinkbook: Backer, Rogers, and Sopory (1992); Goldberg, Fishbein, and
Middlestadt (1997); Kotler and Roberto (1989); Maibach and Parrott (1995);
Palmgreen et al. (1995); Siegel and Doner (1998).
REFERENCE
 Fredrickson, B. L. (2009). Positivity. New York, NY: Crown.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment