Total views : 238

A Study on Differences in Attitudes and Memory Effects according to the Regulatory Focus Tendencies of Facebook Users and the Types of Message Appeals


  • Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Namseoul University, CheonAn, Korea, Republic of


Background/Objectives: This study aims to empirically determine differences in memory effects according to the individual tendencies of Facebook business page users with regard to regulatory focus (promotion/prevention) and types of Facebook message (rational/emotional appeal). Methods/Statistical Analysis: To test the aforementioned hypotheses, this study used a 2 X 2 between-subjects factorial design. The two factors are the self-regulatory focus (promotion/ prevention focus) of subjects, and (2) the types of message appeals (rational/emotional). Thus, this experiment used a 2 X 2 between-subjects factorial design according to the self-regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention focus) of subjects and the types of message appeals (rational/emotional), and conducted the analysis using Two-Way MANOVA. It is considered more valid to conduct MANOVA than repeating ANOVA for each dependent variable since it is grounded on relationships among dependent variables. Findings: First, emotional messages generated greater brand attitudes and memory effects among promotion-focused Facebook users. Second, prevention-focused Facebook users showed relatively high brand attitudes, with no difference between rational and emotional appeals. However, the memory effect was greater for emotional messages. Third, promotion-focused Facebook users tended to remember evaluation-focused information more than attribute-focused information. Fourth, unlike promotion-focused users, prevention-focused Facebook users tended to remember attribute-focused information more than evaluation-focused information. These users engage in systematic or cognitive information processing. Since prevention-focused users protect themselves from negative consequences such as risk or loss and try to increase their safety, they are extremely careful in their decision-making process. This motivates them to closely examine the attributes of the experimental product and remember the functions and features to be used in decision making. Application/Improvements: Since such users perceive their surroundings positively and place a greater emphasis on the benefits or achievements that can be obtained from products, they prefer emotional aspects in processing information on advertising models or other elements related to products


Facebook, Memory Effects, Message Appeals, Regulatory Focus.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 225)


  • Pepsi drops super bowl to focus on facebook. brand channel [Internet]. [Cited 2010 Jan 02]. Available from: Pepsi-Drops-Super-Bowl- To-Focus-On-Facebook.aspx.
  • Tory HE. How self-regulation creates distinct values: The case of promotion and prevention decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2002; 12(3):177-91.
  • Friedman F , Ronald S, Forster J . The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002; 81(6):1001–13.
  • Meyerowitz BE, Chaiken S. The effect of message framing on breast self-examination, attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1987; 52(1):500–10.
  • Lee JH , Yu SY . The Mediating effect of the flow experience: causal model analysis on the effect of users' awareness of Sns characteristics on the acceptance of SNS. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015; 8(8):258–66. DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2015/v8iS8/70527.
  • Ramesh NJ , Andrews A. Personalized search engine using social networking activity. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015; 8(4):301–6. DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i4/60376.
  • Han S. The interactive role of advertising appeals, self-monitoring, and product types. The Korean Journal of Advertising. 1999; 10(1):223–42.
  • Lipsman L, Mudd M, Rich R, Bruich B. The power of "like": How brand reach (and influence) Fans through social-media Marketing. Journal of Advertising Research. 2012; 52(1):40–52.
  • Higgins ET. Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Zanna M, editor. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press; 1998. p. 30.
  • Friedman F , Ronald R, Forster SJ. The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002; 81(6):1001–13.
  • Camacho C , Christopher JE, Higgins T , Luger L . Moral value transfer from Regulatory Fit: What feels right is right and what feels wrong is wrong. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2002; 84(1):498–510.
  • Crowe E, Higgins ET. Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1997; 69(2):117–32.
  • Liberman N, Trope Y. The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: a test of temporal -onstrual theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998; 75(1):5–18.
  • Zhu Z, Meyers-Levy Z. Exploring the cognitive mechanism that underlies regulatory focus effects. Journal of Consumer Research. 2007; 34(1):89–96.
  • Raamakirtinan S, Livingston LMJ. Identifying influential users in facebook - A sentiment based approach. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2016; 9(10):1–9. DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i10/86735.
  • Banerjee S. Prioritizing decision alternatives for social media planning. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Feb; 8(S4):293–8. DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2015/v8iS4/69333.
  • Nivedha R, Sairam N. A machine learning based classification for social media messages. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015 Jul; 8(16):1–4. DOI: 10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i16/63640.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.