Explaining outcome type interactions with frame: Aspiration level and the value function

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 838-848

  Bloomfield, Amber N ^a  

^a DEPAUL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO LIFE; BEAR; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PARAMETER; PSYCHODYNAMICS; RISK ASSESSMENT;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; PSYCHOLOGY; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 46449103023     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/MC.36.4.838     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. BLOOMFIELD, A. (2005). [Aspiration levels for framed scenarios]. Unpublished raw data.
2. BLOOMFIELD, A. (2006). Group size and the framing effect: Threats to human beings and animals. Memory & Cognition, 34, 929-937.
3. FAGLEY, N. S., & MILLER, P. M. (1997). Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life? Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 71, 355-373.
4. KAHNEMAN, D., & TVERSKY, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-292.
5. KAHNEMAN, D., & TVERSKY, A. (1984). Choice, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
6. LEVIN, I. P., & CHAPMAN, D. P. (1990). Risk taking, frame of reference, and characterization of victim groups in AIDS treatment decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 421-434.
7. LOPES, L. L. (1987). Between hope and fear: The psychology of risk. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 255-295). San Diego: Academic Press.
8. 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, & Cognition, 18, 1040-1057.
9. SMIDTS, A. (1997). The relationship between risk attitude and strength of preference: A test of intrinsic risk attitude. Management Science, 43, 357-370.
10. STEVENS, S. S. (1961). To honor Fechner and repeal his law: A power function, not a log function, describes the operating characteristic of a sensory system. Science, 133, 80-86.
11. TORGERSON, W. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley.
12. TVERSKY, A., & KAHNEMAN, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
13. WANG, X. T. (1996). Domain-specific rationality in human choices: Violations of utility axioms and social contexts. Cognition, 60, 31-63.
14. WANG, X. T., & JOHNSTON, V. S. (1995). Perceived social context and risk preference: A re-examination of framing effects in a life-death decision problem. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8, 279-293.
15. WANG, X. T., SIMONS, F., & BREDART, S. (2001). Social cues and verbal framing in risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 1-15.