Beyond gains and losses: The effect of need on risky choice in framed decisions

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Volumn 102, Issue 6, 2012, Pages 1136-1147

  Mishra, Sandeep ^a   Fiddick, Laurence ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

^b LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Asian disease problem; Aspiration levels; Decision making; Framing effects; Minimal requirements; Need; Prospect theory; Risk sensitivity theory

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HIGH RISK BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; MALE; MOTIVATION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MOTIVATION; RISK-TAKING; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84868656775     PISSN: 00223514     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0027855     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Aktipis, C. A., & Kurzban, R. (2004). Is Homo economicus extinct? Vernon Smith, Daniel Kahneman and the evolutionary perspective. In R. Koppl (Ed.), Advances in Austrian economics (Vol. 7, pp. 135-153). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
2. Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l'homme rationnel devant le risque: Critique des postulats et axiomes de l'école Américaine [The so-called Allais paradox and rational decisions under uncertainty]. Econometrica, 21, 503-546.
3. Allais, M., & Hagen, O. (1979). The so-called Allais paradox and rational decisions under uncertainty. In O. H. M. Allais (Ed.), Expected utility hypothesis and the Allais paradox (pp. 437-681). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.
4. Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
5. Barrett, H. C., & Fiddick, L. (1999). Evolution and risky decisions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 251-252.
6. Bickel, W. K., Giordano, L. A., & Badger, G. J. (2004). Risk-sensitive foraging theory elucidates risky choices made by heroin addicts. Addiction, 99, 855-861.
7. Caraco, T., Martindale, S., & Whittam, T. S. (1980). An empirical demonstration of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. Animal Behavior, 28, 820-830.
8. Deditius-Island, H. K., Szalda-Petree, A. D., & Kucera, S. C. (2007). Sex differences in risk sensitivity under positive and negative budgets and predictors of choice. The Journal of General Psychology, 134, 435-452.
9. Druckman, J. N. (2001). Using credible advice to overcome framing effects. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 17, 62-82.
10. Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75, 643-669.
11. Erb, H., Bioy, A., & Hilton, D. J. (2002). Choice preferences without inferences: Subconscious priming of risk attitudes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 251-262.
12. Ermer, E., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2008). Relative status regulates risky decision-making about resources in men: Evidence for the co-evolution of motivation and cognition. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 106-118.
13. Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1948). The utility analysis of choice involving risk. Journal of Political Economy, 56, 279-304.
14. Friedman, M., & Savage, L. J. (1952). The expected-utility hypothesis and the measurability of utility. Journal of Political Economy, 60, 463-474.
15. Heath, C., Larrick, R. P., & Wu, G. (1999). Goals as reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 79-109.
16. Kacelnik, A., & Bateson, M. (1996). Risky theories-The effects of variance on foraging decisions. American Zoologist, 36, 402-434.
17. Kacelnik, A., & Bateson, M. (1997). Risk-sensitivity: Crossroads for theories of decision-making. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1, 304-309.
18. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-292.
19. Koszegi, B., & Rabin, M. (2006). A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121, 1133-1166.
20. Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23-55.
21. Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1996). Why do bad moods increase self-defeating behavior? Emotion, risk-taking, and self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1250-1267.
22. Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255-275.
23. Levin, I. P., Gaeth, G. J., Schreiber, J., & Lauriola, M. (2002). A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of events. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 411-429.
24. 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.
25. Levin, I. P., Schnittjer, S. K., & Thee, S. L. (1988). Information framing effects in social and personal decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 520-529.
26. Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267-286.
27. Lopes, L. L., & Oden, G. C. (1999). The role of aspiration level in risky choice: A comparison of cumulative prospect theory and SP/A theory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 43, 286-313.
28. March, J. G., & Shapira, Z. (1992). Variable risk preferences and the focus of attention. Psychological Review, 99, 172-183.
29. McKenzie, C. R. M. (2003). Rational models as theories-not standards-of behavior. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 403-406.
30. McKenzie, C. R. M., & Nelson, J. D. (2003). What a speaker's choice of frame reveals: Reference points, frame selection, and framing effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 596-602.
31. Mishra, S. (2012). Towards a general theory of decision-making under risk: Integrating interdisciplinary perspectives. Manuscript submitted for publication.
32. Mishra, S., Gregson, M., & Lalumière, M. L. (2012). Framing effects and risk-sensitive decision-making. British Journal of Psychology, 103, 83-97.
33. Mishra, S., & Lalumière, M. L. (2008). Risk taking, antisocial behavior, and life histories. In J. Duntley & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Evolutionary forensic psychology: Darwinian foundations of crime and law (pp. 139-159). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
34. Mishra, S., & Lalumière, M. L. (2010). You can't always get what you want: The motivational effect of need on risk-sensitive decision-making. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 605-611.
35. Mittal, V., & Ross, W. T. (1998). The impact of positive and negative affect and issue framing on issue interpretation and risk taking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 298-324.
36. Nygren, T. E. (1998). Reacting to perceived highand low-risk win-lose opportunities in a risky decision-making task: Is it framing or affect or both? Motivation and Emotion, 22, 73-98.
37. Pietras, C. J., & Hackenberg, T. D. (2001). Risk-sensitive choice in humans as a function of an earnings budget. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76, 1-19.
38. Pietras, C. J., Locey, M. L., & Hackenberg, T. D. (2003). Human risky choice under temporal constraints: Tests of an energy-budget model. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 80, 59-75.
39. Rode, C., Cosmides, L., Hell, W., & Tooby, J. (1999). When and why do people avoid unknown probabilities in decisions under uncertainty? Testing some predictions from optimal foraging theory. Cognition, 72, 269-304.
40. Rode, C., & Wang, X. T. (2000). Risk-sensitive decision-making examined within an evolutionary framework. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 926-939.
41. Searcy, G. D., & Pietras, C. J. (2011). Optimal risky choice in humans: Effects of amount of variability. Behavioral Processes, 87, 88-99.
42. Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101, 467-494.
43. Sickar, M. J., & Highhouse, S. (1998). Looking closer at the effects of framing on risky choice: An item response theory analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 75-91.
44. Stephens, D. W. (1981). The logic of risk-sensitive foraging preferences. Animal Behavior, 29, 628-629.
45. Stephens, D. W., & Krebs, J. R. (1986). Foraging theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46. Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36, 643-660.
47. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981, January 30). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
48. Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49. Wang, X. T. (1996a). Domain-specific rationality in human choices: Violations of utility axioms and social contexts. Cognition, 60, 31-63.
50. Wang, X. T. (1996b). Framing effects: Dynamics and task domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 145-157.
51. Wang, X. T. (2001). Bounded rationality of economic man: New frontiers in evolutionary psychology and bioeconomics. Journal of Bioeconomics, 3, 83-89.
52. Wang, X. T. (2002). Risk as reproductive variance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 35-57.
53. Weber, E. U., Shafir, S., & Blais, A. (2004). Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: Risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychological Review, 111, 430-445.
54. Xie, X., & Wang, X. T. (2003). Risk perception and risky choice: Situational, informational and dispositional effects. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 117-132.
55. Yaniv, I., & Schul, Y. (1997). Elimination and inclusion procedures in judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 211-220.
56. Yaniv, I., & Schul, Y. (2000). Acceptance and elimination procedures in choice: Noncomplementarity and the role of implied status quo. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 293-313.