626980
research-article2016
CRXXXX10.1177/0093650215626980Communication ResearchKim and Nan
Article
Temporal Framing Effects
Differ for Narrative Versus
Non-Narrative Messages:
The Case of Promoting
HPV Vaccination
Communication Research
1­–17
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0093650215626980
crx.sagepub.com
Jarim Kim1 and Xiaoli Nan2
Abstract
Building upon extant research on temporal framing effect (i.e., relative persuasiveness
of present- vs. future-oriented messages), this study investigates whether temporal
framing effect differs for narrative versus non-narrative messages in the context of
promoting human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among young adults. Results of
a controlled experiment (N = 416) indicated that a present-oriented (vs. futureoriented) message led to more favorable attitudes and stronger intentions and
perceived vaccine efficacy when the messages were presented in a narrative format,
whereas a future-oriented (vs. present-oriented) message resulted in similar attitudes,
intentions, and perceived vaccine efficacy when the messages were presented in a nonnarrative format. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.
Keywords
consideration of future consequences, temporal framing, narrative, HPV, HPV vaccine
The role of time reference in persuasion has recently garnered research attention (e.g.,
Kees, 2011; Nan, Zhao, Yang, & Iles, 2015; Orbell & Kyriakaki, 2008). It has been
suggested that present-oriented messages, which focus on the immediate consequences
of an advocated behavior, should be more effective than future-oriented messages,
which describe the same consequences as occurring in the distant future (e.g., Chandran
1Kookmin
University, Seoul, South Korea
of Maryland, College Park, USA
2University
Corresponding Author:
Jarim Kim, School of Communication, Kookmin University, 77 Jeongneung-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul,
136-702, South Korea.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016
2
Communication Research 
& Menon, 2004). Empirically, several studies have found that the relative persuasiveness of present- versus future-oriented messages is at least contingent on characteristics of message recipients (Kees, 2010, 2011; Kim & Nan, 2016; Orbell & Kyriakaki,
2008; Zhao, Nan, Iles, & Yang, 2015).
Extending previous research, the current study attempts to investigate whether temporal framing effects (i.e., relative persuasiveness of present- vs. future-oriented messages) differ as a function of other message features, in particular, whether a message
is narrative-based or non-narrative-based. A narrative message is composed of a series
of events causally and sequentially linked, where specific characters are featured
(Dahlstrom & Ho, 2012), often referred to as a story. A non-narrative message, in contrast, typically contains expository or didactic forms of information that make claims
based on evidence and reasons (Kreuter et al., 2007).
We develop hypothesis concerning the interaction between temporal framing and
narrative versus non-narrative message format based on construal level theory (CLT;
Trope & Liberman, 2000), which argues that people form different mental representations of events depending on whether the event occurs in the near future or the distant
future. According to CLT, immediate events are associated with more concrete mental
representations or low-level construals (e.g., watching television tomorrow may mean
flipping channels on the sofa), whereas distant events are associated with more abstract
mental representations or high-level construals (e.g., watching television next year
may mean being entertained; Liberman & Trope, 1998). We propose that processing of
future-oriented messages and non-narrative messages should result in high-level construals and that processing of present-oriented messages and narrative message should
lead to low-level construals. Matching of construal levels within a message, we argue,
is expected to enhance message persuasiveness.
We investigate the interaction between temporal framing and narrative versus nonnarrative message format in the important context of health messages promoting
human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among young adults. HPV is the most common sexually transmitted infection in the United States; approximately 79 million
Americans are already infected with HPV and an additional 14 million are being newly
diagnosed each year (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2014). HPV
is the leading cause of cervical cancer. Each year, more than 10,000 women in the
United States are diagnosed with cervical cancer (CDC, 2014) and over 70% of cervical cancers are caused by HPV (National Cancer Institute, 2011). Although HPV vaccines have proved to be highly effective in preventing HPV (CDC, 2012), public
acceptance of HPV vaccines has not been satisfactory, especially among young adults.
According to the National Immunization Survey (NIS) data for 2011, only 43.1% of
females aged 19 to 21 years and 21.5% of females aged 22 to 26 years have received
at least one of the three required shots. Coverage was even much lower among males
(e.g., 2.8% of males aged 19-21 years and 1.7% of those aged 22-26; CDC, 2013). The
CDC recommends that all kids who are 11 or 12 years old should get the three-dose
series of HPV vaccine to protect against HPV. Young women can get HPV vaccinated
through age 26, and young men can get vaccinated through age 21 (through age 26
among high-risk groups; CDC, 2015).
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016
3
Kim and Nan
Conceptual Background
Temporal Framing
Recently, scholars (e.g., Chandran & Menon, 2004; Kees, 2011; Nan et al., 2015;
Orbell & Hagger, 2006; Orbell & Kyriakaki, 2008; Orbell, Perugini, & Rakow, 2004;
Strathman, Gleicher, Boninger, & Edwards, 1994) have started attending to the implications of temporal framing for message persuasive effects. This line of research
mainly focuses on the relative persuasiveness of present-oriented messages that focus
on the immediate consequences of a behavior (e.g., “Exercise gives you a quick energy
boost”) versus future-oriented messages that emphasize the distant outcomes of the
behavior (e.g., “Exercise makes you more energetic in the long run”).
Two theoretical perspectives suggest that present-oriented messages might be more
persuasive than future-oriented messages. First, CLT (Trope & Liberman, 2000)
argues that temporal distance alters how individuals construe an event, and such
altered mental representations affect individuals’ evaluations and choices. In specific,
CLT suggests that individuals perceive a distant event in more abstract, schematic, and
decontextualized terms (i.e., high-level construals) and a proximal event in more concrete, detailed, and contextualized terms (i.e., low-level construals). For example,
Liberman and Trope (1998) found that moving into a new apartment was perceived
differently depending on time reference. To their study participants, moving occurring
next year meant starting a new life whereas the same event occurring tomorrow meant
packing and carrying boxes. Drawing upon CLT, Chandran and Menon (2004) tested
the effects of temporal framing on risk perception in three health-related contexts (i.e.,
mononucleosis, cell phone radiation, and heart disease). They found that health risks
framed in a proximal term (i.e., “Every day, a great many people die of cancer”)
resulted in greater perceived risks, health-concerns, and behavioral intention compared with the same risks framed in a distant term (e.g., “Every year, a great many
people die of cancer”). Presumably, health risks framed in proximal terms are construed as more concrete and thus are more psychologically impactful compared with
those framed in distant terms.
Similarly, temporal discounting research (Chapman, 1996; Chapman & Elstein,
1995) suggests that distant future outcomes tend to be easily discounted, compared
with immediate outcomes. For example, people prefer immediately getting US$100 to
receiving US$120 after 1 month (L. Green & Myerson, 2004). As such, it has been
suggested that messages focusing on the distant consequences of an advocated action
may be less persuasive than those focusing on the immediate consequences (Zhao
et al., 2015).
More recently, however, research has suggested that temporal framing effects
may be moderated by message recipients’ personality traits, particularly consideration of future consequences (CFC; Strathman et al., 1994). CFC is defined as “the
extent to which individuals consider the potential distant outcomes of their current
behaviors and the extent to which they are influenced by these potential outcomes”
(Strathman et al., 1994, p. 743). According to Strathman et al. (1994), individuals
high in CFC are more concerned with the future outcomes of their current
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016
4
Communication Research 
behaviors, and thus, should be more persuaded by future-oriented messages,
whereas those low in CFC are more concerned with immediate outcomes, and consequently, should be more persuaded by present-oriented messages. Studies found
support for these predictions in various contexts such as environmental behaviors
(Strathman et al., 1994), colorectal cancer screening (Orbell et al., 2004), type 2
diabetes screening (Orbell & Hagger, 2006), sunscreen use (Orbell & Kyriakaki,
2008), and obesity (Kees, 2010, 2011).
Although message recipients’ personality traits have been shown to moderate temporal framing effects, few studies have assessed the potential role of other message
features in determining the relative persuasiveness of present- versus future-oriented
messages. In particular, it is unknown whether temporal framing effects differ for narrative versus non-narrative messages, a key message feature that has recently received
a great deal of research attention in persuasive communication (Hinyard & Kreuter,
2007).
Narrative Versus Non-Narrative Messages
Traditional persuasive messages are typically constructed with didactic arguments
and/or statistical evidence, but persuasive messages can also be presented as stories or
narratives. Narrative communication, defined as “a representation of connected events
and characters that has an identifiable structure, is bounded in space and time, and
contains implicit or explicit messages about the topic being addressed” (Kreuter et al.,
2007, p. 222), has been suggested as a powerful tool for persuasion (Hinyard &
Kreuter, 2007).
Several theoretical perspectives including the transportation-imagery model (M. C.
Green & Brock, 2000), the extended elaboration likelihood model (Slater & Rouner,
2002), and the entertainment overcoming resistance model (Moyer-Gusé, 2008) suggest that narratives (vs. non-narratives) enhance message recipients’ engagement with
the messages (i.e., transportation) and therefore are more persuasive. Empirical evidence regarding the relative effects of narratives versus non-narratives on belief, attitude, and behavior change has been mixed. For example, some studies found narratives
to be more effective in increasing risk perception and behavioral intention (e.g., de
Wit, Das, & Vet, 2008; McQueen, Kreuter, Kalesan, & Alcaraz, 2011). Others reported
greater effectiveness of non-narratives in increasing risk perception (Baesler &
Burgoon, 1994; Greene & Brinn, 2003) and inducing behavior change (Greene &
Brinn, 2003). Still others found narratives and non-narratives to have similar impacts
on risk perception (e.g., Nan, Dahlstrom, Richards, & Rangarajan, 2015) and attitudes
toward a recommended behavior (Wilson, Mills, Norman, & Tomlinson, 2005). Allen
and Preiss (1997), based on their meta-analysis, reported that non-narratives are
slightly more persuasive than narratives, but other scholars (Winterbottom, Bekker,
Conner, & Mooney, 2008) warned that the relative persuasiveness of narratives and
non-narratives is still inconclusive. One way of making sense of these mixed findings
is to investigate the potential interactions between narrative versus non-narrative message format and other message features.
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016
5
Kim and Nan
Interaction of Temporal Framing and Narrative Versus Non-Narrative
Message Format
As CLT (Trope & Liberman, 2003) would suggest, present-oriented messages, which
focus on the immediate outcomes of a behavior, are likely to produce more low-level
construals, whereas future-oriented messages, which focus on the distant outcomes of
the behavior, are likely to generate more high-level construals. Based on the premise
of CLT, we propose that narrative versus non-narrative messages could be associated
with different levels of construals as well, a possibility that has not been assessed,
conceptually or empirically, in past research.
By definition, narratives involve a “sequence of events influenced by the actions of
specific characters” (Dahlstrom & Ho, 2012, p. 593). Detailed illustration of an event,
context, character, or action as well as concrete emotions or beliefs that the character
holds within a narrative may be conveyed. For example, the testimony of a female
breast cancer survivor conveys her characteristics (e.g., demographics, socioeconomic
status), how she detected the cancer, and how she feels about having a mammogram.
Such concrete representation regarding breast cancer and having a mammogram may
lead to low-level construals by adding rich details. In contrast, non-narratives are typically constructed with didactic arguments and/or statistical evidence. Such information is often abstract and decontextualized, and therefore is expected to be associated
with high-level construals.
Matching the construal level of temporal framing and that of the narrative versus
non-narrative message format may lead to higher processing fluency, that is, the
extent to which a message is easy to process, which has been shown in numerous
studies to ultimately enhance persuasive outcomes (Lee, 2001; Lee & Labroo, 2004;
Mandler, Nakamura, & Van Zandt, 1987). Although limited, evidence supporting a
positive effect of message feature matching on processing fluency exists. Lee and
Aaker (2004), for example, demonstrated that a gain-framed message (i.e., a persuasive message focusing on the positive outcomes of adopting the recommended
action) is more persuasive when it is matched with a promotional (e.g., “Preliminary
medical research suggests that drinking purple grape juice may contribute to the
creation of greater energy! . . . Get Energized!”) versus preventional (i.e., “Preliminary
medical research suggests that drinking purple grape juice may contribute to healthy
cardiovascular function! . . . Prevent Clogged Arteries!”) regulatory focus. Similarly,
a loss-framed message (i.e., a persuasive message focusing on the negative outcomes of not adopting the recommended action) is more effective when it is matched
with a preventional versus promotional regulatory focus. The researchers further
showed that the matched conditions resulted in higher processing fluency, which led
to enhanced persuasive effects.
As such, we expect that matching a narrative message with present-oriented (vs.
future-oriented) temporal framing will lead to more favorable persuasive outcomes. In
addition, matching a non-narrative message with future-oriented (vs. present-oriented)
temporal framing should lead to greater persuasive effects. Formally, we propose the
following hypothesis concerning the interaction between temporal framing and
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016
6
Communication Research 
narrative versus non-narrative message format in the context of promoting HPV
vaccination:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Temporal framing and narrative versus non-narrative message
format will interact such that (a) for narrative messages, present-oriented (vs.
future-oriented) framing will lead to more favorable attitudes toward HPV vaccination and intentions to get HPV vaccination and (b) for non-narrative messages,
future-oriented (vs. present-oriented) framing will lead to more favorable attitudes
toward HPV vaccination and intentions to get HPV vaccination.
Temporal framing and narrative versus non-narrative message format have both
been shown to influence specific health beliefs. Present-oriented messages increase
perceived health risks in various contexts (i.e., mononucleosis, cell phone radiation,
heart disease; Chandran & Menon, 2004). A narrative (vs. non-narrative) format
increases perceived risk of diseases such as Hepatitis B virus (de Wit et al., 2008) and
breast cancer (McQueen et al., 2011) while decreasing perceived barriers in obtaining
a mammogram (McQueen et al., 2011). Statistical information was found to increase
perceived susceptibility to skin cancer (Greene & Brinn, 2003). It is unclear, however,
if or how the interaction between these two message features would exert effects on
specific health beliefs. Previous literature tends to focus on attitudes and/or intentions
as indicators of persuasive outcomes. No previous study has examined the interactive
effects of temporal framing and narrative versus non-narrative message format on
health beliefs. Understanding these effects would help elucidate the underlying mechanisms for the (potential) interaction effects on attitudes and intentions. Given the lack
of related research, we propose the following research question:
Research Question 1 (RQ1): Will temporal framing interact with narrative versus
non-narrative message format to influence specific health beliefs including perceived susceptibility to the health risk (HPV), perceived severity of the health risk
(HPV), perceived benefits of performing the recommended behavior (HPV vaccination), and perceived barriers of performing the recommended behavior (HPV
vaccination)?
Method
Participants and Procedure
A web-based experiment using a 2 (temporal framing: present-oriented vs. futureoriented) × 2 (message format: narrative vs. non-narrative) factorial design was conducted. Undergraduate students were recruited from a large Eastern university in the
United States to participate in the study in exchange for course credit. Those who had
received any HPV shot were excluded from the study. As the final sample, 416 students (M age = 20.05, SD = 2.37; 33.7% female; 57.2% White, 19.5% Asian, 16.3%
Blacks, 6.3% Hispanic, and 0.7% Others) participated in the study.
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016
7
Kim and Nan
After receiving the university’s institutional review board approval, we invited the
participants to a web page, where they were asked to read and digitally sign an
informed consent form and then were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. Participants first responded to a set of preliminary questions assessing
their prior knowledge about HPV and the HPV vaccine, and then were presented with
a message promoting HPV vaccination, which was either present-oriented or futureoriented and in either narrative or non-narrative format. After reading the message,
participants were asked to respond to a battery of questions measuring several variables, including attitudes and intentions toward HPV vaccination, manipulation
checks, and demographic information. At the end of the survey, participants were
debriefed and thanked. It took about 20 minutes for participants to complete the study.
Message Stimuli
In the beginning of the health message, basic information regarding HPV and the HPV
vaccine was provided. Then, two features of the message were experimentally manipulated: temporal framing and narrative versus non-narrative message format. Following
prior studies (e.g., Kees, 2011), we manipulated temporal framing by altering the time
frame in which the health benefits of the HPV vaccine were obtained. The presentoriented message focused on the short-term benefits of HPV vaccination, while the
future-oriented message focused on the long-term benefits of the vaccine. At the same
time, the message was presented in either narrative or non-narrative format. The narrative messages contained reference to a specific character and were presented in a
story format. The non-narrative messages made no reference to a specific character
and were presented in a didactic format. The message stimuli are reported in Table 1.
Key Measures
Unless indicated otherwise, 7-point items were used and averaged to form an index for
each construct. Higher scores indicated more positive beliefs, attitudes, or greater
intentions toward vaccination.
Attitude toward HPV vaccination. Attitude toward HPV vaccination was measured using
three semantic differential scales (e.g., very harmful-very beneficial, very foolish-very
wise, and very bad-very good) adapted from past research (Ajzen, 2006; Orbell et al.,
2004) in response to the question “Getting vaccinated against the human papillomavirus (HPV) is” (Cronbach’s α = .95, M = 5.99, SD = 1.17).
Intention toward HPV vaccination. Intention was measured using six items adapted from
Nan (2012). Participants were asked to imagine the scenario that the HPV vaccine was
offered either free or with a retail price of US$360. For each scenario, three items
assessed intentions of obtaining the vaccine (e.g., “How likely would you be to get the
HPV vaccine in the future?”; free: Cronbach’s α = .92, M = 4.76, SD = 1.70; paid:
Cronbach’s α = .91, M = 2.94, SD = 1.53).
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016
8
Communication Research 
Table 1. Message Stimuli Used in the Experiment.
Present-oriented
Future-oriented
Narrative
Genital HPV is the most common sexually
transmitted virus in the United States.
More than half of sexually active men and
women are infected with HPV at some
time in their lives. HPV is usually spread
through sexual contact.
Clinical trials showed that the HPV
vaccine was highly effective against highrisk HPV types, which are responsible for
cervical cancer in females and anal cancer
in both males and females.
“I know the HPV vaccine works fast
to protect my body,” said Ashley, a
University of X student who recently got
vaccinated against HPV, “Right after I got
the HPV vaccine, I felt a huge sense of
relief!”
Non-narrative
Genital HPV is the most common sexually
transmitted virus in the United States.
More than half of sexually active men and
women are infected with HPV at some
time in their lives. HPV is usually spread
through sexual contact.
Clinical trials showed that the HPV
vaccine was highly effective against highrisk HPV types, which are responsible for
cervical cancer in females and anal cancer
in both males and females.
The HPV vaccine works fast to protect
your body. Imagine the huge sense of
relief you will feel immediately after you
have received the HPV vaccine!
Genital HPV is the most common sexually
transmitted virus in the United States.
More than half of sexually active men and
women are infected with HPV at some
time in their lives. HPV is usually spread
through sexual contact.
Clinical trials showed that the HPV vaccine
was highly effective against high-risk HPV
types, which are responsible for cervical
cancer in females and anal cancer in both
males and females.
“I know the HPV vaccine provides longlasting protection to my body,” said
Ashley, a University of X student who
got vaccinated against HPV several years
ago, “It has been several years since I got
the vaccine, I am still feeling a huge sense
of relief!”
Genital HPV is the most common sexually
transmitted virus in the United States.
More than half of sexually active men and
women are infected with HPV at some
time in their lives. HPV is usually spread
through sexual contact.
Clinical trials showed that the HPV vaccine
was highly effective against high-risk HPV
types, which are responsible for cervical
cancer in females and anal cancer in both
males and females.
The HPV vaccine provides long-lasting
protection to your body. Imagine the
huge sense of relief you will feel years
after you have received the HPV vaccine!
Note. HPV = human papillomavirus.
Health beliefs. Four specific health beliefs were measured, including perceived susceptibility to the health risk (HPV), perceived severity of the health risk (HPV), and
perceived benefits and barriers of adopting the recommended behavior (HPV vaccination). Three items assessed perceived susceptibility (e.g., “It is likely that I will
contract the HPV”; α = .79, M = 3.41, SD = 1.31). Three items assessed perceived
severity (e.g., “I believe that the HPV is extremely harmful”; α = .73, M = 4.64,
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016
9
Kim and Nan
SD = 1.40). Three items assessed perceived benefits of HPV vaccination, operationalized as perceived vaccine efficacy in preventing HPV (i.e., “I believe the HPV
vaccine works in preventing the HPV”; “I believe the HPV vaccine is effective in
preventing the HPV”; “I believe if I get the HPV vaccine, I will be less likely to get
the HPV”; α = .82, M = 5.30, SD = 1.14). The above nine items were adapted from
Witte’s Risk Behavior Diagnosis Scale (Witte, Meyer, & Martell, 2001). Six items
adapted from McRee, Brewer, Reiter, Gottlieb, and Smith (2010) assessed perceived
barriers. The first three assessed safety concerns (e.g., “The HPV vaccine is unsafe”;
α = .60, M = 3.78, SD = 1.10) and the other three assessed perceived logistic/financial barriers (e.g., “I am concerned that the HPV vaccine costs more than I can pay”;
α = .77, M = 3.21, SD = 1.33).
Control variables. Age, gender, and two other variables—whether one had heard of
HPV (78.4% yes and 21.6% no) and whether one had heard of the cervical cancer vaccine or HPV shot (68.5% yes and 31.5% no)—were included in the analyses as control
variables. Having gender as a control variable was important, because women showed
greater knowledge regarding HPV (Pearson’s χ2 = 6.72, p = .01) and the HPV vaccine
(Pearson’s χ2 = 14.57, p < .001) than men.
Data Analysis Strategies
To address the hypothesis and research question, we conducted a series of analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA). ANCOVA was chosen because it allows for group comparisons while controlling for the effects of other variables that are not of primary interest.
As suggested in previous research (Kim & Nan, 2015), such variables might include
age, gender, having heard of HPV, and having heard of the HPV vaccine. Through
ANCOVAs, we first examined the main effects of temporal framing and narrative
versus non-narrative message format. Then we assessed the interaction between these
two message features.
Results
Manipulation Checks
Manipulation checks were performed on temporal framing (present-oriented vs.
future-oriented) and message format (narrative vs. non-narrative) using a series of
analyses of variance (ANOVAs). Results showed that participants in the presentoriented message condition perceived the message to focus more on the short-term
benefits of getting the HPV vaccine (M = 3.54, SD = 0.95) than those in the futureoriented message condition (M = 3.34, SD = 1.00), F(1, 414) = 4.79, p = .03. Participants
in the narrative message condition (M = 5.04, SD = 1.49) perceived the message to be
written in a person’s narrative to a greater extent than those in the non-narrative message condition (M = 3.65, SD = 1.71), F(1, 414) = 78.70, p < .001. Therefore, both
manipulations were considered effective.
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016
10
Communication Research 
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
To determine the dimensionality among the key outcome variables, we submitted the
15 health belief items which measured five constructs (i.e., perceived susceptibility,
perceived severity, perceived vaccine efficacy, perceived vaccine safety, and perceived
logistic/financial barriers), the three items for attitudes, and the six items for two intention measures (i.e., with and without cost) to a CFA, specifying an eight-factor structure. Key indices suggested a good fit of the measurement model (χ2 = 581.06, p <
.001, root mean square error approximation [RMSEA] = .06, comparative fit index
[CFI] = .94, normed fit index [NFI] = .90), based on criteria recommended by Mueller
and Hancock (2008) and Hu and Bentler (1999).
Main Results
H1 predicted that for narrative messages, present-oriented framing, compared with
future-oriented framing, would lead to more favorable attitudes and intentions toward
HPV vaccination, whereas for non-narrative messages, future-oriented framing, compared with present-oriented framing, would lead to more favorable attitudes and intentions toward HPV vaccination. To test H1, a series of ANCOVAs was conducted on
attitudes and intentions toward HPV vaccination. Temporal framing and message format were entered as fixed factors, and four covariates were included (i.e., age, gender,
having heard of HPV, having heard of the HPV vaccine) to control for possible effects
of those variables. Results indicated that the main effects of message format were
statistically significant on attitudes, F(1, 408) = 4.71, p = .03, and approached significance on intentions when the vaccine cost US$360, F(1, 408) = 2.68, p = .10.
Specifically, a non-narrative message led to more favorable attitudes (M non-narrative =
6.12 vs. M narrative = 5.88) and intentions (M non-narrative = 3.08 vs. M narrative = 2.83).
Of importance, the interaction effects of temporal framing and message format on
attitudes, F(1, 408) = 5.03, p = .03; intentions when the vaccine was offered for free,
F(1, 408) = 3.90, p = .05; and intentions when the vaccine cost US$360, F(1, 408) =
3.93, p = .05, were statistically significant. We conducted simple effects analyses (see
Table 2 for descriptive statistics) to further determine the nature of the interactions.
For attitudes toward HPV vaccination, the results indicated that the presentoriented (vs. future-oriented) message yielded more favorable attitudes, F(1, 408) =
3.85, p = .05, when the messages were narrative-based. On the other hand, the futureoriented (vs. present-oriented) message led to similar attitudes when the messages
were non-narrative-based.
For intentions to get the HPV vaccine when offered free of cost, the results indicated that the present-oriented (vs. future-oriented) message led to stronger intentions,
F(1, 408) = 4.03, p = .05, when the messages were narrative-based. In contrast, the
future-oriented (vs. present-oriented) message led to similar intentions when the messages were non-narrative-based. For intentions to get the HPV vaccine with cost, the
results revealed a similar pattern. However, neither simple effect achieved statistical
significance. Given the findings collectively, we considered H1 partially supported.
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016
11
Kim and Nan
Table 2. Means and Standard Deviations Related to Hypothesis 1.
Message type Temporal framing
Attitudes
M (SE)
Intentions_free
M (SE)
Intentions_pay
M (SE)
Narrative
Non-narrative
Present-oriented
Future-oriented
Present-oriented
Future-oriented
6.03 (.11)a
5.72 (.11)b
6.02 (.11)
6.23 (.12)
4.96 (.16)a
4.50 (.17)b
4.70 (.16)
4.90 (.18)
2.99 (.14)
2.67 (.15)
2.93 (.15)
3.22 (.16)
Note. Means with different superscripts are significantly different at the level of .05.
To address the research question, a series of ANCOVAs was conducted on health
beliefs related to HPV and HPV vaccine. Temporal framing and message format were
entered as fixed factors and four additional variables were included as covariates (i.e.,
age, gender, having heard of HPV, having heard of the HPV vaccine).
The main effect of message format was significant on perceived vaccine efficacy in preventing HPV, p = .01 (M non-narrative = 5.43 vs. M narrative = 5.18) and
approached significance on perceived severity of HPV, p = .06 (M non-narrative =
4.76 vs. M narrative = 4.53). In both cases, the non-narrative (vs. narrative) messages led to more of the health belief.
Of importance, the interaction effect was significant on perceived vaccine efficacy
in preventing HPV, F(1, 408) = 8.68, p < .01. Simple effects analyses (see Table 3 for
descriptive statistics) showed that when the messages were narrative-based, the present-oriented (vs. future-oriented) message increased individuals’ perceived vaccine
efficacy in preventing HPV, F(1, 408) = 5.44, p = .02. On the other hand, when the
messages were non-narrative-based, the future-oriented (vs. present-oriented) message appeared to increase individuals’ perceived vaccine efficacy in preventing HPV,
and this difference approached significance, F(1, 408) = 3.43, p = .07.
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to investigate the temporal framing effect, that
is, the relative persuasiveness of present-oriented versus future-oriented messages and
the potential moderating role of narrative versus non-narrative message format.
Drawing upon CLT (Trope & Liberman, 2003), we posited that a present-oriented
message would be more persuasive than a future-oriented message when the messages
were presented in a narrative format. Conversely, we predicted that a future-oriented
message would be more persuasive than a present-oriented message when the messages were presented in a non-narrative format.
As CLT posits, people use high-level construals to represent distant events and use
low-level construals to represent proximal events. High-level construals tend to be
associated with general, abstract, and goal-oriented aspects of an event, whereas lowlevel construals tend to be associated with specific, concrete, and non-goal-oriented
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016
12
Communication Research 
Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations Related to RQ1.
Temporal
framing Narrative
HPV
HPV
HPV vaccine HPV vaccine HPV logistic
susceptibility severity
efficacy
safety
barriers
Message type
M (SE)
M (SE)
M (SE)
M (SE)
M (SE)
Presentoriented
Futureoriented
Non-narrative Presentoriented
Futureoriented
3.32 (.12)
4.57 (.13)
5.35 (.10)a
3.77 (.10)
3.21 (.12)
3.53 (.13)
4.46 (.14)
5.00 (.11)b
3.88 (.11)
3.17 (.12)
3.42 (.13)
4.71 (.13)
5.30 (.11)a
3.73 (.10)
3.22 (.12)
3.36 (.14)
4.85 (.15)
5.60 (.12)b
3.75 (.12)
3.24 (.13)
Note. Means with different superscripts are significantly different at the level of .10. RQ = research
question; HPV = human papillomavirus.
aspects of an event. A central thesis of our research is that narratives, wherein a character describes specific details of an event, should be generally associated with lowlevel construals, whereas non-narratives, wherein summary of facts, statistics, and
didactic arguments are typically presented, should be generally associated with highlevel construals. The matching of a narrative consisting of low-level construals with a
present-oriented temporal framing could result in what has been termed processing
fluency (Lee, 2001; Lee & Labroo, 2004), making the message easier to process and
resulting in greater message effectiveness. Likewise, the matching of a non-narrative
consisting of high-level construals with a future-oriented temporal framing is likely to
enhance message persuasiveness as well.
Results of the controlled experiment in the context of promoting HPV vaccination
among young adults were largely consistent with our predictions. We found the interaction between temporal framing and message format to be significant for all three
dependent variables of interest, that is, attitudes toward HPV vaccination and intentions to get the vaccine (free of cost and with cost). Our findings may be seen as consistent with previous studies demonstrating matching effects in persuasive messages
(e.g., Lee & Aaker, 2004). Interestingly, the persuasive advantage of the present-oriented (vs. future-oriented) message was particularly strong under the narrative condition. It may be that the low construals produced by a short-term frame are most
compatible with the low construals produced by a narrative message format, resulting
in strong processing fluency.
In addition to the primary indicators of message effects (i.e., attitudes, intentions),
we examined the interaction effects of temporal framing and narrative versus nonnarrative message format on various health beliefs. We found that temporal framing
and message format interacted to influence perceived vaccine efficacy in preventing
HPV in a similar way as they did to influence attitudes and intentions. Specifically, the
present-oriented (vs. future-oriented) message increased perceived vaccine efficacy in
preventing HPV when the messages adopted a narrative format. In contrast, the
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016
13
Kim and Nan
future-oriented (vs. present-oriented) message increased perceived vaccine efficacy
when the messages were presented in a non-narrative format. Given the consistent patterns of interaction, we speculated that the joint effects of temporal framing and message format on attitudes and intentions occurred at least partially through perceived
vaccine efficacy. This speculation is supported by previous research showing that perceived vaccine efficacy mediates a personality trait’s influence on vaccination behaviors (Kim & Nan, 2015; Morison, Cozzolino, & Orbell, 2010; Nan & Kim, 2014).
As communication research continues to explore the implications of time reference
for message persuasiveness, our study suggests that the relative persuasiveness of
present-oriented and future-oriented messages may not be a simple matter. We demonstrated that whether the messages are presented in a narrative or non-narrative format
determines which temporal framing exerts more persuasive power. Our research,
together with previous research on the moderating role of consideration for future
consequences in temporal framing effects (e.g., Orbell et al., 2004; Strathman et al.,
1994), calls for more systematic investigation of the impact of temporal framing as
regulated by message- or audience characteristics.
Moreover, our findings related to the effects of narrative versus non-narrative
message format were revealing. As mentioned earlier, several theoretical frameworks (M. C. Green & Brock, 2000; Moyer-Gusé, 2008; Slater & Rouner, 2002)
suggest that narratives (vs. non-narratives) enhance message recipients’ engagement
with the messages (i.e., transportation) and therefore should be more persuasive. Yet
empirical evidence regarding the relative persuasiveness of narrative (vs. nonnarrative) messages has been mixed. Adding to this body of literature, our findings
appeared to suggest that overall non-narrative messages are more effective than narrative messages as in our experiment the non-narrative (vs. narrative) messages led
to more favorable attitudes toward HPV vaccination and somewhat greater intentions to get the vaccine with cost. The non-narrative (vs. narrative) messages also
induced greater beliefs in vaccine efficacy and HPV severity. However, the main
effects of message format may be misleading without considering the interaction
between message format and temporal framing.
Although not a central focus of this research, temporal framing indeed appeared to
act as a moderator of the relative effects of narrative (vs. non-narrative) messages—
overall, the narrative message was more persuasive than the non-narrative message
when the messages were present-oriented, whereas the non-narrative message was
more persuasive than the narrative message when the messages were future-oriented.
As such, we believe that exploring message features that might moderate narrative
effects is a fruitful path for future research on narrative persuasion.
Practical implications of our findings are straightforward. As health professionals
develop messages to influence attitudes and behaviors and consider whether the shortterm or long-term consequences of adopting a health behavior should be emphasized,
they may see an increase in message persuasiveness if a present-oriented message is
matched with a narrative format and if a future-oriented message is matched with a
non-narrative format. The matching could not only enhance attitudes and intentions
toward the advocated health behavior but also desirable beliefs about the behavior
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016
14
Communication Research 
such as perceived effectiveness of the behavior in preventing the health problem (i.e.,
perceived response efficacy).
Of course, all conclusions and implications of this study need to be considered
within several constraints. First, our sample consisted of college students only and
therefore the findings cannot be generalized to other young adult populations. Although
the participants in this study had not received the HPV vaccine, they might have high
knowledge about the HPV vaccine as many of their peers had been vaccinated. Our
baseline data indicated that 78.4% of the participants had heard of HPV and 68.5% had
heard of the HPV vaccine. Second, the findings are necessarily tied to HPV vaccination as a unique preventive health behavior. It is unclear whether the same pattern of
results would emerge in other health contexts such as the promotion of detection
behaviors (e.g., mammography). Third, though our temporal framing manipulation
was considered effective given the statistically significant difference across conditions, the mean difference was small. We suspect that the small difference might have
attenuated temporal framing effects on HPV vaccination-related outcomes. Future
research that utilizes stronger manipulations is indeed needed to fully capture temporal
framing effects. Finally, our study measured intentions rather than actual behaviors.
Intentions are a good, but not perfect, predictor of behavior. Future research may seek
to determine the impact of temporal framing and narrative versus non-narrative message format on both short-term and long-term behaviors.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
References
Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire. Retrieved from
https://people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf
Allen, M., & Preiss, R. W. (1997). Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical
evidence using meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 14, 125-131.
Baesler, E., & Burgoon, J. (1994). The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence on
belief change. Communication Research, 21, 582-602.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012, July). HPV vaccine information for young
women—Fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv-vaccineyoung-women.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013, February). Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report (MMWR): Noninfluenza vaccination coverage among adults—United States,
2011. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6204a2.htm?s_
cid=mm6204a2_w
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014, March). Genital HPV infection: Fact sheet.
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016
15
Kim and Nan
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015, August). HPV vaccines. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/hpv/vaccine.html
Chandran, S., & Menon, G. (2004). When a day means more than a year: Effects of temporal
framing on judgments of health risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 375-389.
Chapman, G. B. (1996). Temporal discounting and utility for health and money. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 771-791.
Chapman, G. B., & Elstein, A. S. (1995). Valuing the future: Temporal discounting of health
and money. Medical Decision Making, 15, 373-386.
Dahlstrom, M. F., & Ho, S. S. (2012). Ethical considerations of using narrative to communicate
science. Science Communication, 34, 592-617. doi:10.1177/1075547012454597
de Wit, J. B. F., Das, E., & Vet, R. (2008). What works best: Objective statistics or a personal
testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence
on risk perception. Health Psychology, 27, 110-115.
Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2004). A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 769-792.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public
narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701-721.
Greene, K., & Brinn, L. S. (2003). Messages influencing college women’s tanning bed use:
Statistical versus narrative evidence format and a self-assessment to increase perceived
susceptibility. Journal of Health Communication, 8, 443-461.
Hinyard, L. J., & Kreuter, M. W. (2007). Using narrative communication as a tool for health
behavior change: A conceptual, theoretical, and empirical overview. Health Education &
Behavior, 34, 777-792. doi:10.1177/1090198106291963
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
Kees, J. (2010). Temporal framing in health advertising: The role of risk and future orientation.
Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 32, 33-46.
Kees, J. (2011). Advertising framing effects and consideration of future consequences. Journal
of Consumer Affairs, 45, 7-32.
Kim, J., & Nan, X. (2015). Consideration of future consequences and HPV vaccine uptake
among young adults. Journal of Health Communication, 20, 1033-1040. doi:10.1080/108
10730.2015.1018583
Kim, J., & Nan, X. (2016). Effects of consideration of future consequences and temporal
framing on acceptance of the HPV vaccine among young adults. Health Communication.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10410236.2015.1038774
Kreuter, M. W., Green, M. C., Cappella, J. N., Slater, M. D., Wise, M. E., Storey, D., . . .
Woolley, S. (2007). Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: A framework to guide research and application. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 33, 221-235.
Lee, A. Y. (2001). The mere exposure effect: An uncertainty reduction explanation revisited.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1255-1266.
Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory
fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
86, 205-218.
Lee, A. Y., & Labroo, A. A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand
evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 151-165.
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near
and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75, 5-18.
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016
16
Communication Research 
Mandler, G., Nakamura, Y., & Van Zandt, B. J. S. (1987). Nonspecific effects of exposure on
stimuli that cannot be recognized. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 15, 646-648.
McQueen, A., Kreuter, M. W., Kalesan, B., & Alcaraz, K. I. (2011). Understanding narrative
effects: The impact of breast cancer survivor stories on message processing, attitudes, and
beliefs among African American women. Health Psychology, 30, 674-682.
McRee, A.-L., Brewer, N. T., Reiter, P. L., Gottlieb, S. L., & Smith, J. S. (2010). The Carolina
HPV Immunization Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (CHIAS): Scale development and associations with intentions to vaccinate. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 37, 234-239.
Morison, L., Cozzolino, P., & Orbell, S. (2010). Temporal perspective and parental intention to
accept the human papillomavirus vaccination for their daughter. British Journal of Health
Psychology, 15, 151-165.
Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18, 407-425.
Mueller, R. O., & Hancock, G. R. (2008). Best practices in structural equation modeling. In J.
W. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 488-508). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Nan, X. (2012). Communicating to young adults about HPV vaccination: Consideration of message framing, motivation, and gender. Health Communication, 27, 10-18.
Nan, X., Dahlstrom, M. F., Richards, A., & Rangarajan, S. (2015). Influence of evidence type
and narrative type on HPV risk perception and intention to obtain the HPV vaccine. Health
Communication, 30, 301-308.
Nan, X., & Kim, J. (2014). Predicting H1N1 vaccine uptake and H1N1-related health beliefs:
The role of individual difference in consideration of future consequences. Journal of Health
Communication, 19, 376-388.
Nan, X., Zhao, X., Yang, B., & Iles, I. (2015). Effectiveness of cigarette warning labels:
Examining the impact of graphics, message framing, and temporal framing. Health
Communication, 30, 81-89. doi:10.1080/10410236.2013.841531
National Cancer Institute. (2011, September). Human papillomaviruses and cancer. Retrieved
from http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/HPV
Orbell, S., & Hagger, M. (2006). Temporal framing and the decision to take part in type 2 diabetes screening: Effects of individual differences in consideration of future consequences.
Health Psychology, 25, 537-548.
Orbell, S., & Kyriakaki, M. (2008). Temporal framing and persuasion to adopt preventive health
behavior: Moderating effects of individual differences in consideration of future consequences on sunscreen use. Health Psychology, 27, 770-779.
Orbell, S., Perugini, M., & Rakow, J. (2004). Individual differences in sensitivity to health
communications: Consideration of future consequences. Health Psychology, 23, 388-396.
Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment—Education and elaboration likelihood:
Understanding the processing of narrative persuasion. Communication Theory, 12,
173-191.
Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of
future consequences scale: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 742-752.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 876-889. doi:10.1037/00223514.79.6.876
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016
17
Kim and Nan
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403-421.
Wilson, K., Mills, E. J., Norman, G., & Tomlinson, G. (2005). Changing attitudes towards polio
vaccination: A randomized trial of an evidence-based presentation versus a presentation
from a polio survivor. Vaccine, 23, 3010-3015.
Winterbottom, A., Bekker, H. L., Conner, M., & Mooney, A. (2008). Does narrative information bias individual’s decision making? A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine,
67, 2079-2088. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.037
Witte, K., Meyer, G., & Martell, D. (2001). Effective health risk messages: A step-by-step guide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Zhao, X., Nan, X., Iles, I. A., & Yang, B. (2015). Temporal framing and consideration of future
consequences: Effects on smokers’ and at-risk nonsmokers’ responses to cigarette health
warnings. Health Communication, 30, 175-185. doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.974122
Author Biographies
Jarim Kim (PhD, University of Maryland, 2014) is an assistant professor in the College of
Communication at Kookmin University.
Xiaoli Nan (PhD, University of Minnesota, 2005) is an associate professor in the Department
of Communication at the University of Maryland.
Downloaded from crx.sagepub.com at Monash University on February 24, 2016