The relative effectiveness of gain‐framed and loss‐framed messages in charity advertising: Meta‐analytic evidence and implications

Meta‐analysis is a primary avenue for the development of cumulative knowledge and an essential step in the process theory testing. It provides a more specific quantitative understanding of a subject while correcting for sampling and measurement errors. This project is a modest first attempt to extend existing meta‐analytic work on the effect of gain‐ versus loss‐framed messages to charity advertising research. A meta‐analysis of 27 studies ( k = 40, N = 9,298) finds that gain‐framed and loss‐framed appeals do not differ significantly on persuasiveness in charity advertising. The random‐effects model reveals a mean r of .002 (95% CI −0.061–0.064, p = .96) after correcting for sampling and measurement errors. A re‐analysis ( k = 38) excluding two outliers yielded a mean r of .03 (95% CI −0.022–.073, p = .29). Among published studies ( k = 32), there was tentative indication pointing to the slight advantage of gain‐framed appeals. The framing effect does not differ by which type of donation the message calls for (monetary vs. organ), nor is it affected by moderators such as study setting and population. The little difference finding echoes previous conceptual and empirical work and calls for more work identifying moderating factors and boundary conditions on framing research. Practical implications and future directions are discussed.