Promoting Safe Driving Behaviors: The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement

By M. Millar, K. Millar. 2000

138 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d63af1ec40706c41115d28a810181ba6f1ae62af

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality

Magali A. Delmas

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Persuasive communication and proenvironmental behaviours: How message tailoring and message framing can improve the integration of behaviours through self-determined motivation. (2008, background): “…and the benefits of adopting a specific behaviour (i.e., gain-framed messages; public transportation reduces GGE) because these messages are now more congruent with the actions that could eliminate risk or the fear associated with a specific issue (Detweiler et al., 1999; Millar & Millar, 2000).”
The dynamics of behavior change: Evidence from energy conservation (2016, background): “In consumer research, high engagement or issue involvement has been linked with short-run responsiveness to framing interventions (Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy, 1990; Millar and Millar, 2000).”
Need for Cognition Moderates Responses to Framed Smoking‐Cessation Messages1 (2003, background): “Other investigations have reported more pronounced framing effects when individuals were highly involved in an issue (Millar & Millar, 2000; Rothman, Salovey, Antone, Keough, & Martin, 1993), yet in the current work, stronger effects were observed for individuals lower in NFC, who presumably were…”
The Effects of Gain Versus Loss Message Framing and Point of Reference on Consumer Responses to Green Advertising (2015, background): “People may be more responsive to gain messages that stress a desired outcome and the benefits of adopting a specific behavior because these messages are more congruent with the actions that could eliminate risk (Detweiler et al. 1999; Millar and Millar 2000).”
The Advantages of Compliance or the Disadvantages of Noncompliance? A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relative Persuasive Effectiveness of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Messages (2006, unknown): “….012 6,522 2/2/1 McKee et al. (2004) .067 271 2/3/3 Meyerowitz & Chaiken (1987) combined .219 91 1/3/3 Meyers-Levy & Maheswaran (2004) .270 147 2/3/3 Millar & Millar (2000) .079 277 2/3/3 Mitchell (2001) .010 125 3/4/4 Myers et al. (1991) .035 2,201 1/4/4 Oshikawa (1965) Abel .117 123…”
The Strategic Use of Gain- and Loss-Framed Messages to Promote Healthy Behavior: How Theory Can Inform Practice (2006, background): “Consistent with this perspective, several studies have found framing effects only when people are involved with the issue (e.g., Millar & Millar, 2000), or when they score high in need for cognition (e.g., Rothman, Martino, Bedell, Detweiler, & Salovey, 1999; Study 1), which reflects a…”