Decision framing: Moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2004, Pages 77-93

  Simon, Andrew F ^a   Fagley, N S ^b,d,e   Halleran, Jennifer G ^c,f  

^a SETON HALL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c DREW UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f WESTERN NEW MEXICO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Choice; Decision making; Framing effects; Individual differences; Justification; Math skill; Need for cognition: Depth of processing

Indexed keywords

EID: 10044277824     PISSN: 08943257     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bdm.463     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Betz, N. E. (1978). Prevalence, distribution, and correlates of math anxiety in college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 25, 441-448.
2. Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: the effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 192-203.
3. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
4. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: the life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
5. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
6. Chatterjee, S., Heath, T. B., Milberg, S. J., & France, K. R. (2000). The differential processing of price in gains and losses: the effects of frame and need for cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 61-75.
7. Christensen, C., Heckerling, P., Mackesy-Amiti, M. E., Bernstein, L. M., & Elstein, A. S. (1995). Pervasiveness of framing effects among physicians and medical students. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8, 169-180.
8. Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 249-253.
9. Cohen, P., Cohen, J., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10. Epstein, S. (1998). Cognitive-experiential self-theory. In D. F. Barone, M. Hersen, & V. B. Van Hasselt (Eds.), Advanced personality (pp. 211-238). New York: Plenum Press.
11. Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1987). The effects of decision framing on choice of risky vs. certain options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 264-277.
12. Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1997). Framing effects and arenas of choice: your money or your life? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 355-373.
13. Fischhoff, B. (1983). Predicting frames. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 103-116.
14. Highhouse, S., & Paese, P. W. (1996). Problem domain and prospect frame: choice under opportunity versus threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 124-132.
15. Huber, O., & Seiser, G. (2001). Accounting and convincing: the effect of two types of justification on the decision process. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 69-85.
16. Jou, J., Shanteau, J., & Harris, R. J. (1996). An information processing view of framing effects: the role of causal schemas in decision making. Memory & Cognition, 24, 1-15.
17. Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23-55.
18. Kranzler, J. H., & Pajares, F. (1997). An exploratory factor analysis of the Mathematics Self-efficacy Scale - Revised. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29, 215-228.
19. LeBoeuf, R. A., & Shafir, E. (2003). Deep thoughts and shallow frames: on the susceptibility to framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 77-92.
20. Leone, C., & Dalton, C. H. (1988). Some effects of the need for cognition on course grades. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 67, 175-178.
21. Levin, I. P. (1999). Why do you and I make different decisions? Tracking individual differences in decision making. Presidential Address, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Los Angeles, CA.
22. Levin, I. P., Gaeth, G. J., Schreiber, J., & Lauriola, M. (2002). A new look at framing effects: distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 411-429.
23. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149-188.
24. Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 361-367.
25. McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C., Jr., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 306, 1259-1262.
26. Miller, P. M., & Fagley, N. S. (1991). The effects of framing, problem variations, and providing rationale on choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 517-522.
27. Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. (1996). Exploratory factor analysis of the Mathematics Anxiety Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 29, 35-47.
28. Roszkowski, M. J., & Snelbecker, G. E. (1990). Effects of "framing" on measures of risk tolerance: financial planners are not immune. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19, 237-246.
29. Sadowski, C. J., & Gulgoz, S. (1992). Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the need for cognition scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 74, 610.
30. Schneider, S. L. (1992). Framing and conflict: aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice. Journal of Experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1040-1057.
31. Shiloh, S., Salton, E., & Sharabi, D. (2002). Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking styles as predictors of heuristic responses and framing effects. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 415-429.
32. Sieck, W., & Yates, J. F. (1997). Exposition effects on decision making: choice and confidence in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 207-219.
33. Smith, S. M., & Levin, I. P. (1996). Need for cognition and choice framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 283-290.
34. Stanovich, K. E., (1999). Who is rational? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998a). Individual differences in framing and conjuction effects. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 289-317.
36. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998b). Individual differences in rational thought. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 161-188.
37. Takemura, K. (1993). The effect of decision frame and decision justification on risky choice. Japanese Psychological Research, 35, 36-40.
38. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
39. Wang, X. T., Simons, F., & Bredart, S. (2001). Social cues and verbal framing in risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 1-15.
40. Wurm-Schaar, M. (1995, November). Framing and response consistency: The effects of gender and quantitative skills. Poster presented at the Society for Judgment and Decision Making, Los Angeles, CA.
41. Zhang, Y. (1996). Responses to humorous advertising: the moderating effect of need for cognition. Journal of Advertising, 25, 1, 15-32.
42. Zhang, Y., & Buda, R. (1999). Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to positively versus negatively trained advertising messages. Journal of Advertising, 28, 1-15.