The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Guilt versus Shame: Coping, Fluency, and Framing in the Effectiveness of Responsible Drinking Messages
Abstract
This article presents three studies on how the negative emotions of guilt and shame differentially influence the effectiveness of health messages framed as gains or losses. Guilt appeals are more effective when paired with gain frames, whereas shame appeals are more effective when paired with loss frames. These framing effects occur because gain frames facilitate the use of problem-focused coping strategies favored by guilt, whereas loss frames facilitate the use of emotion-focused coping strategies favored by shame. Frames that fit with the emotion facilitate the activation of coping strategies consistent with that emotion and consequently lead to greater fluency and message effectiveness. These effects manifest on intentions to binge drink and time spent viewing alcohol advertising.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/651257 · Cited by 12,583
Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion
Lazarus, R. S. (1991) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.46.8.819 · Cited by 3,272
Moral Emotions and Moral Behavior
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145 · Cited by 3,222
Ketelaar, T., & Tung Au, W. (2003) · Cognition and Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930143000662 · Cited by 482
Are shame and guilt related to distinct self-discrepancies? A test of Higgins's (1987) hypotheses.
Tangney, J. P., Niedenthal, P. M., Covert, M. V., & Barlow, D. H. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.256 · Cited by 296
Cited by
A Self‐Regulatory Model of Resource Scarcity
Cannon, C., Goldsmith, K., & Roux, C. (2019) · Journal of Consumer Psychology · doi:10.1002/jcpy.1035 · Cited by 280
The Effect of Negative Message Framing on Green Consumption: An Investigation of the Role of Shame
Amatulli, C., De Angelis, M., Peluso, A. M., Soscia, I., & Guido, G. (2019) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-017-3644-x · Cited by 267
(2020) · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.110420 · Cited by 225
AI increases unethical consumer behavior due to reduced anticipatory guilt
Kim, T., Lee, H., Kim, M. Y., Kim, S., & Duhachek, A. (2023) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-021-00832-9 · Cited by 188
Self-citationShame‐Free Guilt Appeals: Testing the Emotional and Cognitive Effects of Shame and Guilt Appeals
Boudewyns, V., Turner, M. M., & Paquin, R. S. (2013) · Psychology & Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.20647 · Cited by 74
Metadata
- Authors
- Duhachek, A., Agrawal, N., & Han, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-12
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 928-941
- ISSN
- 0022-2437 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7193
- OpenAlex
- W1997609762
- Cited by
- 217
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 173.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Guilt versus Shame: Coping, Fluency, and Framing in the Effectiveness of Responsible Drinking Messages. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1509/jmr.10.0244
- The paper
- Duhachek, A., Agrawal, N., & Han, D. (2012). Guilt versus Shame: Coping, Fluency, and Framing in the Effectiveness of Responsible Drinking Messages. Journal of Marketing Research. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0244
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
