Good things don't come easy (to mind): Explaining framing effects in judgments of truth

Experimental Psychology

Volumn 59, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 38-46

  Hilbig, Benjamin E ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANNHEIM   (Germany)

^b MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON COLLECTIVE GOODS   (Germany)

Author keywords

Ease of processing; Elaboration; Fluency; Framing; Positive negative asymmetry; Truth judgments

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; REACTION TIME; SEMANTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84857316321     PISSN: 16183169     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000124     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219-235.
2. Bar-Hillel, M., Budescu, D. V., & Amar, M. (2008). Predicting World Cup results: Do goals seem more likely when they pay off? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 278-283.
3. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323-370. (Pubitemid 33680154)
4. Begg, I. M., Anas, A., & Farinacci, S. (1992). Dissociation of processes in belief: Source recollection, statement familiarity, and the illusion of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 446-458.
5. Bohner, G., Bless, H., Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1988). What triggers causal attributions? The impact of valence and subjective probability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 335-345.
6. Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., &Wänke, M. (2010). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 238-257.
7. Dijksterhuis, A., & Aarts, H. (2003). On wildebeests and humans: The preferential detection of negative stimuli. Psychological Science, 14, 14-18. (Pubitemid 37283110)
8. Greifeneder, R., & Bless, H. (2007). Relying on accessible content versus accessibility experiences: The case of processing capacity. Social Cognition, 25, 853-881.
9. Greifeneder, R., & Bless, H. (2008). Depression and reliance on ease-of-retrieval experiences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 213-230.
10. Greifeneder, R., Bless, H., & Pham, M. T. (2011). When do people rely on affective and cognitive feelings in judgment? A review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 107-141.
11. Harris, A. J. L., Corner, A., & Hahn, U. (2009). Estimating the probability of negative events. Cognition, 110, 51-64.
12. Hertwig, R., Herzog, S. M., Schooler, L. J., & Reimer, T. (2008). Fluency heuristic: A model of how the mind exploits a byproduct of information retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,Memory, andCognition, 34, 1191-1206.
13. Hilbig, B. E. (2009). Sad, thus true: Negativity bias in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 983-986.
14. Hilbig, B. E. (2011). When the glass is half full (or more) versus half empty (or less): An alternative account of framing effects in truth judgments? Unpublished manuscript.
15. Hilbig, B. E., Erdfelder, E., & Pohl, R. F. (2011). Fluent, fast, and frugal? A formal model evaluation of the interplay between memory, fluency, and comparative judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 827-839.
16. Hilbig, B. E., & Glöckner, A. (2011). Yes, they can! Appropriate weighting of small probabilities as a function of information acquisition. Manuscript submitted for publication.
17. Hilbig, B. E., & Pohl, R. F. (2009). Ignorance- versus evidencebased decision making: A decision time analysis of the recognition heuristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 1296-1305.
18. Hilbig, B. E., Scholl, S. G., & Pohl, R. F. (2010). Think or blink - is the recognition heuristic an ''intuitive'' strategy? Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 300-309.
19. Horstmann, N., Hausmann, D., & Ryf, S. (2010). Methods for inducing intuitive and deliberate processing modes. In A. Glöckner & C. L. Witteman (Eds.), Tracing intuition: Recent methods in measuring intuitive and deliberate processes in decision making (pp. 219-237). London: Psychology Press.
20. Igou, E. R., & Bless, H. (2007). On undesirable consequences of thinking: Framing effects as a function of substantive processing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 125-142.
21. Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1998). Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 887-900.
22. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
23. Kisley, M. A., Wood, S., & Burrows, C. L. (2007). Looking at the sunny side of life: Age-related change in an event-related potential measure of the negativity bias. Psychological Science, 18, 838-843.
24. Klayman, J., & Ha, Y.-W. (1987). Confirmation, disconfirmation, and information in hypothesis testing. Psychological Review, 94, 211-228.
25. Lewicka, M. (1997). Is hate wiser than love? Cognitive and emotional utilities in decision making. In R. Ranyard, W. R. Crozier, & O. Svenson (Eds.), Decision making: Cognitive models and explanations (pp. 90-108). London: Routledge.
26. McGlone, M. S., & Tofighbakhsh, J. (2000). Birds of a feather flock conjointly (?): Rhyme as reason in aphorisms. Psychological Science, 11, 424-428.
27. Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational effects. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 33-60). New York, NY: Wiley.
28. Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2008). Persuasion: From single to multiple to metacognitive processes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 137-147.
29. Pratto, F., & John, O. P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 380-391.
30. Ratcliff, R. (1987). More on the speed and accuracy of positive and negative responses. Psychological Review, 94, 277-280.
31. Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20, 873-922.
32. Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 8, 338-342.
33. Risen, J. L., & Gilovich, T. (2007). Another look at why people are reluctant to exchange lottery tickets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 12-22.
34. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296-320.
35. Sanna, L. J., Kennedy, L. A., Chang, E. C., & Miceli, P. M. (2009). When thoughts don't feel like they used to: Changing feelings of subjective ease in judgments of the past. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 940-946.
36. Schwarz, N. (1998). Accessible content and accessibility experiences: The interplay of declarative and experiential information in judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 87-99.
37. Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 332-348. (Pubitemid 39583451)
38. Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer- Schatka, H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information: Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 195-202.
39. Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2007). Easy does it: The role of fluency in cue weighting. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 371-379.
40. Shah, A. K., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). The path of least resistance: Using easy-to-access information. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 232-236.
41. Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events - the mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67-85.
42. Topolinski, S., & Reber, R. (2010). Immediate truth - temporal contiguity between a cognitive problem and its solution determines experienced veracity of the solution. Cognition, 114, 117-122.
43. Topolinski, S., & Strack, F. (2010). False fame prevented: Avoiding fluency effects without judgmental correction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 721-733.
44. Tormala, Z. L., Brinol, P., & Petty, R. E. (2007). Multiple roles for source credibility under high elaboration: It's all in the timing. Social Cognition, 25, 536-552.
45. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
46. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.
47. Unkelbach, C. (2007). Reversing the truth effect: Learning the interpretation of processing fluency in judgments of truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 219-230.
48. Unkelbach, C., Fiedler, K., Bayer, M., Stegmü ller, M., & Danner, D. (2008). Why positive information is processed faster: The density hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 36-49.
49. Vaish, A., Grossmann, T., & Woodward, A. (2008). Not all emotions are created equal: The negativity bias in socialemotional development. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 383-403.
50. Voss, A., Rothermund, K., & Voss, J. (2004). Interpreting the parameters of the diffusion model: An empirical validation. Memory & Cognition, 32, 1206-1220. (Pubitemid 40344330)