When message-frame fits salient cultural-frame, messages feel more persuasive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examines the persuasive effects of tailored health messages comparing those tailored to match (versus not match) both chronic cultural frame and momentarily salient cultural frame. Evidence from two studies (Study 1: n = 72 European Americans; Study 2: n = 48 Asian Americans) supports the hypothesis that message persuasiveness increases when chronic cultural frame, health message tailoring and momentarily salient cultural frame all match. The hypothesis was tested using a message about health risks of caffeine consumption among individuals prescreened to be regular caffeine consumers. After being primed for individualism, European Americans who read a health message that focused on the personal self were more likely to accept the message-they found it more persuasive, believed they were more at risk and engaged in more message-congruent behaviour. These effects were also found among Asian Americans who were primed for collectivism and who read a health message that focused on relational obligations. The findings point to the importance of investigating the role of situational cues in persuasive effects of health messages and suggest that matching content to primed frame consistent with the chronic frame may be a way to know what to match messages to.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".