On undesirable consequences of thinking: Framing effects as a function of substantive processing

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 125-142

  Igou, Eric R ^a   Bless, Herbert ^b  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bias; Decision making; Framing effects; Social cognition

Indexed keywords

EID: 34147218189     PISSN: 08943257     EISSN: 10990771     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bdm.543     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Bless, H., Betsch, T., & Franzen, A. (1998). Framing the framing effect: The impact of context cues on solutions to the 'Asian disease' problem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 287-291.
2. Bruner, J. S. (1957). Going beyond the information given. In H. E. Gruber, K. R. Hammond, & R. Jessor (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to cognition (pp. 41-69). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116-131.
4. Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
5. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
6. Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39-66.
7. Forgas, J. P. (2001). The affect infusion model (AIM): An integrative theory of mood effects on cognition and judgments. In L. L. Martin & G. L. Clore (Eds.), Theories of mood and cognition, A user's guidebook (pp. 99-134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
9. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York: Guilford.
10. Higgins, E. T., & Brendl, C. M. (1995). Accessibility and applicability: Some 'activation rules' influencing judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 218-243.
11. 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.
12. Igou, E. R., & Bless, H. (2005). The conversational basis for the dilution effect. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 25-35.
13. Igou, E. R., Bless, H., & Schwarz, N. (2002). Making sense of standardized survey questions: The influence of reference periods and their repetition. Communication Monographs, 69, 179-187.
14. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
15. Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., & Spiegel, S. (1999). Separate or equal? Bimodal notions of persuasion and a single-process 'unimodel'. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
16. Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decision: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23-55.
17. Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Pemer, J. (1999). The effect of probabilities and payoff on framing: A meta-analysis and an empirical test. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 204-231.
18. Larrick, R. P. (1993). Motivational factors in decision theories: The role of self-protection. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 440-450.
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. Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255-275.
21. 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.
22. Maule, A. J. (1989). Positive and negative decision frames: A verbal protocol analysis of the Asian disease problem of Tversky & Kahneman. In H. Montegomery & O. Svenson (Eds.), Process and human structure in human decision making (pp. 163-180). Chichester: Wiley.
23. McElroy, T., & Seta, J. J. (2003). Framing effects: An analytic-holistic perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 610-617.
24. McElroy, T., & Seta, J. J. (2004). On the other hand am I rational? Hemispheric activation and the framing effect. Brain and Cognition, 55, 572-580.
25. Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136-164.
26. Ornstein, R. E. (1997). The right mind: Making sense of hemispheres. New York: Harcourt Brace.
27. Pelham, B. W., & Neter, E. (1995). The effect of motivation on judgment depends on the difficulty of the judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 581-594.
28. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). New York: Academic Press.
29. Schwarz, N. (1994). Judgments in a social context: Biases, shortcomings, and the logic of conversation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 123-162). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
30. 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.
31. Simon, A. F., Fagley, N. S., & Halleran, J. G. (2004). Decision framing: Moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 77-93.
32. Simonson, I. (1989). Choice based on reason: The case of attraction and compromise effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 158-174.
33. Simonson, I., & Nye, P. (1992). The effects of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 51, 416-446.
34. Smith, S. M., & Levin, I. P. (1996). Need for cognition and choice framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 283-290.
35. Strack, F., & Mussweiler, T. (1997). Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 437-446.
36. Svenson, O., & Benson, L., III. (1993). Framing and time pressure in decision making. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maule (Eds.), Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 133-144). New York: Plenum.
37. Takemura, K. (1992). Effect of decision time on framing of decision: A case of risky choice behavior. Psychologia, 35, 180-185.
38. Takemura, K. (1994). Influence of elaboration on the framing of decision. Journal of Psychology, 128, 33-39.
39. Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 74-83.
40. Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 227-236.
41. Tetlock, P. E., & Boettger, R. (1989). Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 388-398.
42. Tetlock, P. E., & Kim, J. J. (1987). Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 700-709.
43. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 30, 453-458.
44. von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45. van Schie, E. C. M., & van der Pligt, J. (1995). Influencing risk preference in decision making: The effects of framing and salience. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 63, 264-275.
46. Wilson, T. D., & Schooler, J. W. (1991). Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 181-192.
47. Wilson, T. D., Lisle, D., Schooler, J., Hodges, S. D., Klaaren, K. J., & LaFleur, S. J. (1993). Introspecting about reasons can reduce post-choice satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 331-339.