BACKGROUND: Researchers must identify strategies to optimize the persuasiveness of messages used in public education campaigns encouraging fruit and vegetable (FV) intake. PURPOSE: This study examined whether tailoring messages to individuals' regulatory focus (RF), the tendency to be motivated by promotion versus prevention goals, increased the persuasiveness of messages encouraging greater FV intake. METHOD: Participants (n = 518) completed an assessment of their RF and were randomly assigned to receive either prevention- or promotion-oriented messages. Messages were mailed 1 week, 2 months, and 3 months after the baseline interview. Follow-up assessments were conducted 1 and 4 months after the baseline assessment. RESULTS: Regression analyses revealed that at Month 4, the messages were somewhat more efficacious when congruent with participants' RF. CONCLUSION: RF may be a promising target for developing tailored messages promoting increased FV intake, and particularly for encouraging individuals to meet FV guidelines.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Researchers must identify strategies to optimize the persuasiveness of messages used in public education campaigns encouraging fruit and vegetable (FV) intake. PURPOSE: This study examined whether tailoring messages to individuals' regulatory focus (RF), the tendency to be motivated by promotion versus prevention goals, increased the persuasiveness of messages encouraging greater FV intake. METHOD:Participants (n = 518) completed an assessment of their RF and were randomly assigned to receive either prevention- or promotion-oriented messages. Messages were mailed 1 week, 2 months, and 3 months after the baseline interview. Follow-up assessments were conducted 1 and 4 months after the baseline assessment. RESULTS: Regression analyses revealed that at Month 4, the messages were somewhat more efficacious when congruent with participants' RF. CONCLUSION: RF may be a promising target for developing tailored messages promoting increased FV intake, and particularly for encouraging individuals to meet FV guidelines.
Authors: Karen E Steinhauser; Elizabeth C Clipp; Judith C Hays; Maren Olsen; Robert Arnold; Nicholas A Christakis; Jennifer Hoff Lindquist; James A Tulsky Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: A C Marcus; J Heimendinger; P Wolfe; D Fairclough; B K Rimer; M Morra; R Warnecke; J H Himes; S L Darrow; S W Davis; K Julesberg; R Slevin-Perocchia; M Steelman; J Wooldridge Journal: Prev Med Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: M Serdula; R Coates; T Byers; A Mokdad; S Jewell; N Chávez; J Mares-Perlman; P Newcomb; C Ritenbaugh; F Treiber Journal: Epidemiology Date: 1993-09 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Josefa L Martinez; Susan E Rivers; Lindsay R Duncan; Michelle Bertoli; Samantha Domingo; Amy E Latimer-Cheung; Peter Salovey Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Amy E Latimer; Susan E Rivers; Tara A Rench; Nicole A Katulak; Althea Hicks; Julie Keany Hodorowski; E Tory Higgins; Peter Salovey Journal: J Exp Soc Psychol Date: 2008-05
Authors: John A Updegraff; Cameron Brick; Amber S Emanuel; Roy E Mintzer; David K Sherman Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Lindsay R Duncan; Amy E Latimer; Elizabeth Pomery; Susan E Rivers; Michelle C Berotoli; Peter Salovey Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Rebecca A Ferrer; Isaac M Lipkus; Jennifer L Cerully; Colleen M McBride; James A Shepperd; William M P Klein Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 4.634