What's in a frame anyway?: A meta-cognitive analysis of the impact of one versus two sided message framing on attitude certainty Derek D. Rucker a, ⁎ , Richard E. Petty b , Pablo Briñol c a Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, USA b Ohio State University, USA c Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Campus Cantoblanco, Madrid 28049, Spain Received 20 January 2008 Available online 14 March 2008 Abstract The current research examines a potentially new strategy to increase attitude certainty: framing messages as two sided. That is, we explore the consequences of articulating that others have considered both the positives and negatives of a message position, in the absence of any real differences in substantive content presented. Although classic research and theory appear to assume no clear benefit for simply framing a message as two sided, we develop and apply a meta-cognitive approach that predicts advantages for such messages with respect to attitude certainty and attitude-behavior correspondence. © 2008 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. One topic that has received considerable attention within the persuasion literature is whether persuaders can enhance their influence by presenting some drawbacks to their product or proposal. This can be seen clearly in work on one-sided versus two- sided appeals (e.g., Hovland, Janis, & Kelly, 1953). In the former, only positive information is given, whereas in two-sided messages, a source discloses not only positive information, but some negative information as well (e.g., Bohner, Einwiller, Erb, & Sibler, 2003; Kamins & Marks, 1987; Pechmann, 1992; Sawyer, 1973). Although research on one-sided versus two-sided persuasion easily occupies volumes, there is an interesting caveat to this body of work. Prior investigations have not considered the effects of separating whether a message is simply framed as one-sided versus two-sided from the actual content of the message. That is, relative to a one-sided message, a two-sided message is accompanied by negative information, which gives it the label “two-sided,” though sometimes this information is also discounted (e.g., Lumsdaine & Janis, 1953). However, what if the same message is simply framed as being based on the consideration of one or two sides, but presents the same substantive information? For example, consider a movie that receives only praise from movie critics Ebert and Roeper. Should the movie be marketed by simply highlighting the positive opinions of these critics, or might there be a benefit to reminding the audience that Ebert and Roeper are critics who consider both the positives and negatives of the films they view? Similarly, there is clear variance in how websites provide shoppers with other consumers' opinions about a product. At Epinions.com, feedback about the product is separated into the pros and cons for each user, making it clear that both the good and bad points of the product have been solicited and taken into consideration. Amazon.com lists general user feedback making it less clear whether users were encouraged to provide both their positive and negative responses. Consequently, two reviews can contain substantively equivalent information but differ in how salient it is that both positive and negative information about the product has been considered. An interesting question for consumer research is, if the same substantive product attributes are to be presented, does it matter whether a consumer perceives the message to be a result of considering one versus both sides? We refer to how the message is presented, as opposed to the actual content of the message, as one-sided versus two-sided framing. To our knowledge, evidence for the effects of one-sided versus two-sided framing of the same message is absent. This might be due in part to a) an emphasis on differences in the content of one- sided versus two-sided messages, b) a failure to consider that consumers' perceptions of how others reached an attitude or Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Journal of Consumer Psychology 18 (2008) 137 – 149 Journal of CONSUMER PSYCHOLOGY ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: d-rucker@kellogg.northwestern.edu (D.D. Rucker), petty.1@osu.edu (R.E. Petty), pablo.brinnol@uam.es (P. Briñol). 1057-7408/$ - see front matter © 2008 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2008.01.008