Effects of Positive-Negative Message Framing on Health-Related Attitudes, Intentions, and Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review with particular focus on Health Behavioral Characteristics Moderators and Cultural-level Moderators

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0
🔓 Open OA copy View at publisher
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-17

This meta-analysis found very small advantages for positive framing in health promotion and negative framing in health detection, with loss-framing outperforming gain-framing in collectivistic cultures and tentative gain-framing advantage in individualistic cultures.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Health message framing refers to ways in which information about favorable consequences of adhering to health recommendations and unfavorable consequences without adhering to health recommendations can be presented (Cesario et al., 2013; Rothman et al., 2006; Joyal-Desmarais et al., 2022). Findings have been mixed and contradictory with hundreds of studies being conducted since the previous large-scale meta-analysis on health message framing (Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012). This study included three-level meta-analyses on message framing studies regarding health behavioral attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behaviors, with 1295 effect sizes, 430 studies from 66 countries. Comparing positive-framing and negative-framing, results indicated tentative evidence for very small positive-framed advantage for health promotion and/or illness prevention that involved encouragement of healthy behavior (g = 0.04) and support for very small negative-framed advantage (g = -0.08) for health detection. Furthermore, moderation of behavioral frequency was inconclusive. Comparing gain-framing and loss-framing, loss-framing outperformed gain-framing for people from collectivistic and survival-oriented cultures/samples (gs = -0.26 to -0.29), with tentative evidence for gain-framing advantage for individualistic cultures (g = 0.07). Findings showed inconclusive evidence for moderation of indulgence-restraint, power distance, and dialecticism. We also found support for gain-framing advantage for health recuperation behavioral intentions (g = 0.20). Implications and directions, including culturally-congruent health communication (Betsch et al., 2016), more analyses and research on real-world benefits, costs, and risks of message framing choices, and realistic effect size expectations for sample size determination, were discussed. We called for more multi-regional studies, experiments that tease apart confounds, and studies examining mechanisms. Keywords: message framing, health behavior, behavioral function, cultural moderation, meta-analysis

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-26T02:00:01.498150+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0