Todd Lucas1,2, Lenwood W Hayman1, James E Blessman1,3, Kanzoni Asabigi3, Julie M Novak4. 1. Department of Family Medicine and Public Health Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA. 2. Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA. 3. Department of Health and Wellness Promotion, City of Detroit, Michigan, USA. 4. Department of Communication, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This preliminary study examined the effect of gain versus loss-framed messaging as well as culturally targeted personal prevention messaging on African Americans' receptivity to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This research also examined mechanistic functions of perceived racism in response to message framing. DESIGN AND METHODS: Community samples of African Americans (N = 132) and White Americans (N = 50) who were non-compliant with recommended CRC screening completed an online education module about CRC, and were either exposed to a gain-framed or loss-framed message about CRC screening. Half of African Americans were exposed to an additional and culturally targeted self-control message about personal prevention of CRC. Theory of planned behavior measures of attitudes, normative beliefs, perceived behavioural control, and intentions to obtain a CRC screen served as primary outcomes. The effect of messaging on perceived racism was also measured as an outcome. RESULTS: Consistent with prior research, White Americans were more receptive to CRC screening when exposed to a loss-framed message. However, African Americans were more receptive when exposed to a gain-framed message. The contrary effect of loss-framed messaging on receptivity to screening among African Americans was mediated by an increase in perceived racism. However, including an additional and culturally targeted prevention message mitigated the adverse effect of a loss-framed message. CONCLUSION: This study identifies an important potential cultural difference in the effect of message framing on illness screening among African Americans, while also suggesting a culturally relevant linking mechanism. This study also suggests the potential for simultaneously presented and culturally targeted messaging to alter the effects of gain and loss-framed messaging on African Americans. STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION: What is already known on this subject? African Americans are at an increased risk of both developing and dying from colorectal cancer (CRC). These disparities can be attributed in large part to deficits in the use of CRC screening among African Americans. Guided by prospect theory, available literature suggests that selectively pairing gain and loss-framed messaging with illness prevention and detection can better promote adaptive health behaviour. Specifically, loss-framed messages that emphasize the potential costs of failing to act may promote better use of illness detection behaviours, such as CRC screening. Emerging literature highlights the potential for cultural differences in the effects of gain and loss messaging on health behaviour, especially among collectivist or interdependent cultures. What does this study add? This study is the first to identify a potential and important cultural difference in the effect of message framing on cancer screening among African Americans, whereby gain-framed messaging better compelled receptivity to CRC screening. This study is also the first to show that the use of loss-framed messaging may reduce receptivity to CRC screening among African Americans by increasing perceived racism. This study demonstrates that simultaneously including a culturally targeted personal prevention message may attenuate the negative effects of loss-framed messaging on CRC screening among African Americans.
OBJECTIVE: This preliminary study examined the effect of gain versus loss-framed messaging as well as culturally targeted personal prevention messaging on African Americans' receptivity to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This research also examined mechanistic functions of perceived racism in response to message framing. DESIGN AND METHODS: Community samples of African Americans (N = 132) and White Americans (N = 50) who were non-compliant with recommended CRC screening completed an online education module about CRC, and were either exposed to a gain-framed or loss-framed message about CRC screening. Half of African Americans were exposed to an additional and culturally targeted self-control message about personal prevention of CRC. Theory of planned behavior measures of attitudes, normative beliefs, perceived behavioural control, and intentions to obtain a CRC screen served as primary outcomes. The effect of messaging on perceived racism was also measured as an outcome. RESULTS: Consistent with prior research, White Americans were more receptive to CRC screening when exposed to a loss-framed message. However, African Americans were more receptive when exposed to a gain-framed message. The contrary effect of loss-framed messaging on receptivity to screening among African Americans was mediated by an increase in perceived racism. However, including an additional and culturally targeted prevention message mitigated the adverse effect of a loss-framed message. CONCLUSION: This study identifies an important potential cultural difference in the effect of message framing on illness screening among African Americans, while also suggesting a culturally relevant linking mechanism. This study also suggests the potential for simultaneously presented and culturally targeted messaging to alter the effects of gain and loss-framed messaging on African Americans. STATEMENT OF CONTRIBUTION: What is already known on this subject? African Americans are at an increased risk of both developing and dying from colorectal cancer (CRC). These disparities can be attributed in large part to deficits in the use of CRC screening among African Americans. Guided by prospect theory, available literature suggests that selectively pairing gain and loss-framed messaging with illness prevention and detection can better promote adaptive health behaviour. Specifically, loss-framed messages that emphasize the potential costs of failing to act may promote better use of illness detection behaviours, such as CRC screening. Emerging literature highlights the potential for cultural differences in the effects of gain and loss messaging on health behaviour, especially among collectivist or interdependent cultures. What does this study add? This study is the first to identify a potential and important cultural difference in the effect of message framing on cancer screening among African Americans, whereby gain-framed messaging better compelled receptivity to CRC screening. This study is also the first to show that the use of loss-framed messaging may reduce receptivity to CRC screening among African Americans by increasing perceived racism. This study demonstrates that simultaneously including a culturally targeted personal prevention message may attenuate the negative effects of loss-framed messaging on CRC screening among African Americans.
Authors: Todd Lucas; Mark A Lumley; John M Flack; Rhiana Wegner; Jennifer Pierce; Stefan Goetz Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Todd Lucas; Jacqueline Woerner; Jennifer Pierce; Douglas A Granger; Jue Lin; Elissa S Epel; Shervin Assari; Mark A Lumley Journal: Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol Date: 2018-07-30
Authors: Jennifer Cunningham-Erves; Tilicia L Mayo-Gamble; Pamela C Hull; Tao Lu; Claudia Barajas; Caree R McAfee; Maureen Sanderson; Juan R Canedo; Katina Beard; Consuelo H Wilkins Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 2.532
Authors: Jennifer Cunningham-Erves; Claudia Barajas; Tilicia L Mayo-Gamble; Caree R McAfee; Pamela C Hull; Maureen Sanderson; Juan Canedo; Katina Beard; Consuelo H Wilkins Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Todd Lucas; Hayley S Thompson; James Blessman; Anurag Dawadi; Caroline E Drolet; Kelly A Hirko; Louis A Penner Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Anurag Dawadi; Todd Lucas; Caroline E Drolet; Hayley S Thompson; Kent Key; Rhonda Dailey; James Blessman Journal: Psychol Health Med Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 3.898
Authors: Charles R Rogers; David G Perdue; Kenneth Boucher; Kevin M Korous; Ellen Brooks; Ethan Petersen; John M Inadomi; Fa Tuuhetaufa; Ronald F Levant; Electra D Paskett Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-05 Impact factor: 3.390