Speakers' choice of frame in binary choice: Effects of recommendation mode and option attractiveness

Judgment and Decision Making

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 51-63

  Buiten, Van Marc ^b   Keren, Gideon ^a  

^a TILBURG UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Framing; Positivity bias; Recommendation mode; Valence

Indexed keywords

EID: 70350142794     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19302975     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The evolution of cooperation. Science, 211, 1390-1396.
2. Battistella, E. L. (1996). The logic of markedness. NY, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3. Bonaccio, S., & Dalal, R. S. (2006). Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 127-151.
4. Crowley, A. E., & Hoyer W. D. (1994) An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer research, 20, 561-574.
5. Dawes, R. M. (1999). A message from psychologists to economists: Mere predictability doesn't matter like it should (without a good story appended to it). Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 39, 29-40.
6. Druckman, J. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225-256.
7. Fraenkel, T., & Schul, Y. (2007). The meaning of negated adjectives. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University.
8. Ganzach, Y. (1995). Attribute scatter and decision outcome: Judgment versus choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 113-122.
9. Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46, 107-119.
10. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. C. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic press.
11. Heller, D., Levin, I. P., & Goransson, M. (2002). Selection of strategies for narrowing choice options: Antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 1194-1213.
12. Hsee, C. K., Loewenstein, G. F., Blount, S., & Bazerman, M. H. (1999). Preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of options: a review and theoretical analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 576-590.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. Meloy, M. G., & Russo, J. E. (2004). Binary choice under instructions to select versus reject. Organizational Be havior and Human Decision Processes, 93, 114-128.
16. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 33-60.
18. Sally, D. (2002). 'What an ugly baby!' Risk dominance, sympathy, and the coordination of meaning. Rationality and Society, 14, 78-108.
19. Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Shafir, E. (1995). Compatibility in cognition and decision. In J. R. Busemeyer, R. Hastie, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), Decision making from the perspective of cognitive psychology (The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 32) (pp. 247-274). New York: Academic Press.
21. Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory and Cognition, 21, 546-556.
22. Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101, 467-494.
23. Soman, D. (2004). Framing, loss aversion, and mental accounting. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (pp. 379-398). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
24. Teigen, K. H., & Brun, W. (1999). The directionality of verbal probability expressions: Effects on decisions, predictions, and probabilistic reasoning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 80, 155-190.
25. Teigen, K. H., Halberg, A.-M., & Fostervold, K. I. (2007). Single-limit interval estimates as reference points. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 383-406.
26. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
27. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59, S251-S278.
28. Van Buiten, M., & Keren, G. (2007). The impact of message framing on breast self-examination: A re- Examination. Unpublished manuscript, Eindhoven University of Technology.
29. Van Buiten, M., & Keren, G. (2009). Speaker-listener incompatibility: joint and separate processing in risky choice framing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 106-115.
30. Wedell, D. H. (1997). Another look at reasons for choosing and rejecting. Memory and Cognition, 25, 873- 887.
31. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In G. Ward & L. Horn (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607-632). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
32. Yaniv, I., Schul, Y., Raphaelli-Hirsch, R., & Maoz, I. (2002). Inclusive and exclusive modes of thinking: Studies of prediction, preference and social perception during parliamentary elections. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 352-367.