For a message encouraging people to get a screening for an undetected illness, should the primary frame emphasize the benefits of screening or the negative outcomes of not screening?

For a message encouraging people to get a screening for an undetected illness, the primary frame should emphasize the benefits of screening. This approach is known as gain framing, which focuses on the positive consequences of taking a recommended health action. For example, a gain-framed message might state that "Getting screened early significantly increases your chances of successful treatment and a full recovery" or "Screening provides peace of mind and allows for early intervention, protecting your health." This contrasts with loss framing, which emphasizes the negative consequences of *not* taking the recommended action, such as "Not getting screened means you risk a late diagnosis, which can lead to more aggressive treatments and reduced survival rates."

Research in health communication and behavioral economics consistently shows that for detection behaviors like screening, which aim to uncover an undetected illness (an illness a person has but is not aware of), gain-framed messages are generally more effective. Screening is typically perceived as a low-risk action taken to maintain or improve health, or to gain valuable information that can lead to better health outcomes. According to principles like Prospect Theory, individuals tend to be risk-averse when considering potential gains; they are more motivated to take a certain action to secure a positive outcome. Therefore, when a message highlights the clear, positive benefits (gains) of undergoing screening, such as early detection, better prognosis, or increased longevity, people are more persuaded to engage in that behavior to secure these potential gains. Emphasizing what can be gained by taking the action aligns with how people process decisions regarding health maintenance and improvement.