Graph-Framing Effects in Decision Making

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 491-501

  Sun, Yan ^a   Li, Shu ^a   Bonini, Nicolao ^b   Su, Yin ^a,c  

^a INSTITUTE OF PSYCHOLOGY   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (China)

Author keywords

Attribute substitution; Decision making; Framing effect; Graph

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867660561     PISSN: 08943257     EISSN: 10990771     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bdm.749     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2. Bonini, N., Tentori, K., & Rumiati, R. (2004). Contingent application of the cancellation editing operation: The role of semantic relatedness between risky outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 139-152.
3. Dehaene, S. (1989). The psychophysics of numerical comparison: A reexamination of apparently incompatible data. Perception & Psychophysics, 45, 557-566.
4. Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1997). Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 355-373.
5. Fias, W., Lammertyn, J., Reynvoet, B., Dupont, P., & Orban, G. A. (2003). Parietal representation of symbolic and nonsymbolic magnitude. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 47-56.
6. Gamliel, E., & Peer, E. (2010). Attribute framing affects the perceived fairness of health care allocation principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 11-20.
7. Hamilton, R., Hong, J. W., & Chernev, A. (2007). Perceptual focus effects in choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 187-199.
8. Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1998). Even swaps: A rational method for making trade-offs. Harvard Business Review, 76, 137-149.
9. Hammond, J. S., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1999). Smart choices: A practical guide to making better decisions. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
10. Huff, D. (1954). How to lie with statistics. New York: Norton.
11. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697-720.
12. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive thought (pp. 49-81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
14. Krider, R. E., Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (2001). Pizzas: Pi or squared? Psychophysical biases in area comparisons. Marketing Science, 20, 405-25.
15. Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23-55.
16. Kühberger, A., & Tanner, C. (2010). Risky choice framing: Task versions and a comparison of prospect theory and fuzzy-trace theory. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23, 314-329.
17. Leland, J. W. (1994). Generalized similarity judgments: An alternative explanation for choice anomalies. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 9, 151-172.
18. Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 374-378.
19. Levin, I. P. (1987). Associative effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25, 85-86.
20. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S., & 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.
21. Li, S. (2001). Equate-to-differentiate: The role of shared and unique features in the judgment process. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53, 109-118.
22. Li, S. (2003). Violations of conjoint independence in binary choices: The equate-to-differentiate interpretation. European Journal of Operational Research, 148, 65-79.
23. Li, S. (2004). A behavioral choice model when computational ability matters. Applied Intelligence, 20, 147-163.
24. Li, S., Su, Y., & Sun, Y. (2010). The effect of pseudo-immediacy on intertemporal choices. Journal of Risk Research, 13, 781-787.
25. Marteau, T. M. (1989). Framing of information: Its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 89-94.
26. McElroy, T., & Seta, J. J. (2003). Framing effects: An analytic-holistic perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 610-617.
27. McGettigan, P., Sly, K., O'Connell, D., Hill, S., & Henry, D. (1999). The effects of information framing on the practices of physicians. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14, 633-642.
28. Piaget, J. (1968). Quantification, conservation and nativism. Science, 162, 976-79.
29. Pinel, P., Piazza, M., Le Bihan, D., & Dehaene, S. (2004). Distributed and overlapping cerebral representations of number, size, and luminance during comparative judgments. Neuron, 41, 983-993.
30. Raghubir, P., & Krishna, A. (1999). Vital dimensions: Biases in volume estimates. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 313-26.
31. Ranyard, R. (1995). Reversals of preference between compound and simple risks: The role of editing heuristics. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 11, 159-175.
32. Rubinstein, A. (2003). Economics and psychology? The case of hyperbolic discounting. International Economic Review, 44, 1207-1216.
33. Schneider, S. L. (1992). Framing and conflict: Aspiration level contigency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1040-1057.
34. Schwarz, N., Knäuper, B., Hippler, H. J., Noelle-Neumann, E., & Clark, F. (1991). Rating scales: Numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 570-582.
35. Seron, X., & Fias, W. (2006). How images of the brain can constrain cognitive theory: The case of numerical cognition. Cortex, 42, 406-410.
36. Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1992). Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 281-295.
37. Sun, Y., Li, S., & Bonini, N. (2010). Attribute salience in graphical representations affects evaluation. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 151-158.
38. Sun, Y., Li, S., & Li, Y. M. (2008). Re-examining the role of the description of problem texts in the disjunction effect. Journal of Psychology, 142, 261-265.
39. Svenson, O. (1992). Differentiation and consolidation theory of human decision making: A frame of reference for the study of pre- and post-decision processes. Acta Psychologica, 80, 143-168.
40. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
41. 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.
42. Wang, X. T. (2004). Self-framing of risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 1-16.
43. Wang, X. T., Simons, F., & Bredart, S. (2001). Social cues and verbal framing in risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 1-15.