How can group experience influence the cue priority? A re-examination of the ambiguity-ambivalence hypothesis

Frontiers in Psychology

Volumn 2, Issue OCT, 2011, Pages

  Shimizu, Kazumi ^a   Udagawa, Daisuke ^b  

^a WASEDA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^b Tomakomai Komazawa University   (Japan)

Author keywords

Cue priority; Experience; Framing effect; Group size

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867138503     PISSN: None     EISSN: 16641078     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00265     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
2. Bloomfield, A. N. (2006). Group size and the framing effect: threats to human beings and animals. Mem. Cognit. 34, 929-937.
3. Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychol. Bull. 86, 307-324.
4. Burton, S., and Babin, L. A. (1989). Decision-framing helps make the sale. J Consum. Mark. 6, 15-24.
5. Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J. (1989). Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture: part II. A computation theory of social exchange. Ethol. Sociobiol. 10, 51-97.
6. Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J. (2000). "Toward mapping the evolved functional organization of mind and brain," in The New Cognitive Neurosciences, 2nd Edn, ed. M. S. Gazzaniga (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 1167-1178.
7. de Waal, F. (1996). Good Natured: The Origin of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
8. Dunber, R. I. M. (1995). Neocortex size and group size in primates: a test of the hypothesis. J. Hum. Evol. 28, 287-296.
9. Fagley, N. S., and Miller, P. M. (1987). The effects of decision framing on choice of risky vs certain options. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 39, 264-277.
10. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect. 19, 24-42.
11. Hardin, G. (1988). Common failing. New Sci. 102, 76.
12. Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47, 313-327.
13. Kramer, R. M. (1989). Windows of vulnerability or cognitive illusions? Cognitive processes and the nuclear arms race. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 25, 79-100.
14. Levin, I. P., and Chapman, D. P. (1990). Risk taking, frame of reference, and characterization of victim groups in AIDS treatment decisions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 26, 421-434.
15. Levin, I. P., and Chapman, D. P. (1993). Risky decision making and allocation of resources for leukemia and AIDS programs. Health Psychol. 12, 110-117.
16. Mange, A., and Mange, E. (1980). Genetics: Human Aspects. Philadelphia: Saunders.
17. Marlowe, F. W. (2007). Hunting and gathering:the human sexual division of foraging labor. Cross Cult. Res. 41, 170-195.
18. McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C. Jr., and Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. N.Engl.J.Med.306, 1259-1262.
19. Miller, P. M., and Fagley, N. S. (1991). The effects of framing, problem variations, and providing rationale on choice. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 17, 517-522.
20. Olivola, C. Y., and Sagara, N. (2009). Distributions of observed death tolls govern sensitivity to human fatalities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 22151-22156.
21. Peters, E., and Levin, I. P. (2008). Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: numeracy as an individualdifference factor in weighting risky and riskless options. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 3, 435-448.
22. Roszkowski, M. J., and Snelbecker, G. E. (1990). Effects of "framing" on measures of risk tolerance: financial planners are not immune. J. Behav. Econ. 19, 237-246.
23. Rothman, A. J., and Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. Psychol. Bull. 121, 3-19.
24. Schneider, S. L. (1992). Framing and conflict: aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 18, 1040-1057.
25. Shimizu, K., and Udagawa, D. (2011). A re-examination of the effect of contextual group size on people's attitude to risk. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 6, 156-162.
26. Shoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., Douglas, C. A., and Hetrick, C. T. (1994). Escalation of commitment and the framing effect: an empirical investigation. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 24, 509-528.
27. Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Sci. Am. 223, 96-102.
28. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Takemura, K. (2001). "Contingent decision making in the social world," in Decision Making: Social and Creative Dimensions, eds C. M. Allwood and M. Selart (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic), 153-173.
30. Travis, C. B., Phillippi, R. H., and Tonn, B. E. (1989). Judgment heuristics and medical decisions. Patient Educ. Couns. 13, 211-220.
31. Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211, 452-458.
32. Wang, X. T. (1996a). Evolutionary hypotheses of risk-sensitive choice: age differences and perspective change. Ethol. Sociobiol. 17, 1-15.
33. Wang, X. T. (1996b). Framing effects: dynamics and task domains. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 68, 145-157.
34. Wang, X. T. (1996c). Domain-specific rationality in human choices: violations of utility axioms and social contexts. Cognition 60, 31-63.
35. Wang, X. T. (2008). Risk communication and risky choice in context ambiguity and ambivalence hypothesis. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1128, 78-89.
36. Wang, X. T., and Johnston, V. S. (1995). Perceived social context and risk preference: a re-examination of framing effects in a life-death decision problem. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 8, 279-293.
37. Wang, X. T., Simons, F., and Bredart, S. (2001). Social cues and verbal framing in risky choice. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 14, 1-15.
38. Zhang, Y., and Miao, D. (2008). Social cues and framing effects in risky decisions among Chinese military students. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 11, 241-246.