Do framing effects reveal irrational choice?

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Volumn 143, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 1185-1198

  Mandel, David R ^a,b  

^a DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CANADA   (Canada)

^b YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Decision making; Framing effects; Numeric quantifiers; Rationality

Indexed keywords

ADULT; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; RANDOMIZATION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDGMENT; MALE; RANDOM ALLOCATION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84893419738     PISSN: 00963445     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0034207     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Arrow, K. J. (1982). Risk perception in psychology and economics. Economic Inquiry, 20, 1-9. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.1982.tb01138.x
2. Austin, J. L. (1979). The meaning of a word. In J. O. Urmson & G. J. Warnock (Eds.), Philosophical papers (3rd ed., pp. 55-75). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019283021X.003.0003
3. Berkeley, D., & Humphreys, P. (1982). Structuring decision problems and the "bias heuristic". Acta Psychologica, 50, 201-252. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(82)90042-7
4. Bless, H., Betsch, T., & Franzen, A. (1998). Framing the framing effect: The impact of context cues on solutions to the 'Asian disease' problem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 287-291. doi:10.1002/ (SICI)1099-0992(199803/04)28:2287::AID-EJSP8613.3.CO;2-U
5. Breheny, R. (2008). A new look at the semantics and pragmatics of numerically quantified noun phrases. Journal of Semantics, 25, 93-139. doi:10.1093/jos/ffm016
6. Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 938-956. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938
7. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
8. Carston, R. (1998). Informativeness, relevance and scalar implicature. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications (pp. 179-236). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Benjamins.
9. Dawes, R. M. (1988). Rational choice in an uncertain world. San Diego, CA: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
10. Fagley, N. S. (1993). A note concerning reflection effects versus framing effects. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 451-452. doi:10.1037/0033-2909 .113.3.451
11. Fiedler, K. (2008). Language: A toolbox for sharing and influencing social reality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 38-47. doi:10.1111/ j.1745-6916.2008.00060.x
12. Geurts, B. (2006). Take "five": The meaning and use of a number word. In S. Vogeleer & L. Tasmowski (Eds.), Non-definiteness and plurality (pp. 311-329). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.
13. Geurts, B. (2013). Alternatives in framing and decision making. Mind & Language, 28, 1-19. doi:10.1111/mila.12005
14. Geurts, B., Katsos, N., Cummins, C., Moons, J., & Noordman, L. (2010). Scalar quantifiers: Logic, acquisition, and processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 130-148. doi:10.1080/01690960902955010
15. Gold, N., & List, C. (2004). Framing as path dependence. Economics and Philosophy, 20, 253-277. doi:10.1017/S0266267104000203
16. Goode, E. (2002, November 5). A conversation with Daniel Kahneman: On profit, loss, and the mysteries of the mind. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
17. Halberg, A.-M., & Teigen, K. H. (2009). Framing of imprecise quantities: When are lower interval bounds preferred to upper bounds? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 22, 490-509. doi:10.1002/bdm.635
18. Hammond, K. R. (2000). Coherence and correspondence theories in judgment and decision making. In T. Connolly, H. R. Arkes, & K. R. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (2nd ed., pp. 53-65). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
19. Hardisty, D. J., Johnson, E. J., & Weber, E. U. (2010). A dirty word or a dirty world? Attribute framing, political affiliation, and query theory. Psychological Science, 21, 86-92. doi:10.1177/0956797609355572
20. Henle, M. (1962). On the relation between logic and thinking. Psychological Review, 69, 366-378. doi:10.1037/h0042043
21. Hilton, D. J. (1995). The social context of reasoning: Conversational inference and rational judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 248-271. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.118.2.248
22. Horn, L. R. (1989). A natural history of negation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
23. Horn, L. R. (1992). The said and the unsaid. In C. Barker & D. Dowty (Eds.), Salt II: Proceedings from the second conference on semantics and linguistic theory (pp. 163-192). Columbus: Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics.
24. James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology: Volumes 1 and 2. New York, NY: Dover. (Original work published 1890)
25. Jou, J., Shantau, J., & Harris, R. J. (1996). An information processing view of framing effects: The role of causal schemas in decision making. Memory & Cognition, 24, 1-15. doi:10.3758/BF03197268
26. Jungermann, H. (1983). The two camps on rationality. In R. W. Scholz (Ed.), Decision making under uncertainty (pp. 63-86). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
27. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291. doi:10.2307/1914185
28. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
29. Knight, F. H. (1964). Risk, uncertainty, and profit. New York, NY: Sentry Press. (Original work published 1921)
30. Kühberger, A. (1995). The framing of decisions: A new look at old problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 230-240. doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1046
31. Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Perner, J. (1999). The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 204-231. doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2830
32. 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. doi:10.1002/bdm.656
33. Kuhn, T. S. (2000). The road since structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
34. LeBoeuf, R. A., & Shafir, E. (2003). Deep thoughts and shallow frames: On the susceptibility to framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 77-92. doi:10.1002/bdm.433
35. 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. doi:10.1086/209174
36. 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 effects. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 411-429. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2983
37. 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. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804
38. Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Macdonald, R. R. (1986). Credible conceptions and implausible probabilities. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 39, 15-27. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.1986.tb00842.x
40. Mandel, D. R. (2001). Gain-loss framing and choice: Separating outcome formulations from descriptor formulations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 56-76. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000 .2932
41. Mandel, D. R. (2003). Judgment dissociation theory: An analysis of differences in causal, counterfactual, and covariational reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 419-434. doi:10.1037/ 0096-3445.132.3.419
42. Mandel, D. R. (2005). Are risk assessments of a terrorist attack coherent? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 11, 277-288. doi: 10.1037/1076-898X.11.4.277
43. Mandel, D. R. (2008). Violations of coherence in subjective probability: A representational and assessment processes account. Cognition, 106, 130-156. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.001
44. Mandel, D. R., & Vartanian, O. (2011). Frames, brains, and content domains: Neural and behavioral effects of descriptive content on preferential choice. In O. Vartanian & D. R. Mandel (Eds.), Neuroscience of decision making (pp. 45-70). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
45. McKenzie, C. R. M. (2004). Framing effects in inference tasks-And why they are normatively defensible. Memory & Cognition, 32, 874-885. doi:10.3758/BF03196866
46. 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. doi:10.3758/ BF03196520
47. Moxey, L. M., & Sanford, A. J. (2000). Communicating quantities: A review of psycholinguistic evidence of how expressions determine perspectives. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 237-255. doi:10.1002/ (SICI)1099-0720(200005/06)14:3237::AID-ACP641 3.0.CO;2-R
48. Musolino, J. (2004). The semantics and acquisition of number words: Integrating linguistic and developmental perspectives. Cognition, 93, 1-41. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.002
49. Noveck, I. A., & Reboul, A. (2008). Experimental pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 425-431. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2008.07.009
50. Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867-872. doi:10.1016/ j.jesp.2009.03.009
51. Peters, E., & Levin, I. P. (2008). Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 435-448.
52. Phillips, L. D. (1983). A theoretical perspective on heuristics and biases in probabilistic thinking. In P. C. Humphries, O. Svenson, & A. Vari (Eds.), Analyzing and aiding decision processes (pp. 525-543). doi: 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62256-6
53. Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1991). Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 249-262. doi:10.1002/bdm .3960040403
54. Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3-19. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3
55. Schneider, S. L. (1992). Framing and conflict: Aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1040-1057. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.1040
56. Schwarz, N. (1996). Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
57. Shafir, E., & LeBoeuf, R. A. (2002). Rationality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 491-517. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901 .135213
58. Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101, 467-494. doi:10.1016/j.cognition .2005.11.001
59. Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2008). Framing effects and rationality. In N. Chater & M. Oaksford (Eds.), The probabilistic mind: Prospects for Bayesian cognitive science (pp. 79-96). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/ 9780199216093.003.0004
60. Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2011). Levels of information: A framing hierarchy. In G. Keren (Ed.), Perspectives on framing (pp. 35-63). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
61. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects. Thinking & Reasoning, 4, 289-317. doi: 10.1080/135467898394094
62. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645-665. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00003435
63. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2008). On the relative independence of thinking biases and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 672-695. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.672
64. Teigen, K. H. (2011). When frames meet realities: On the perceived correctness of inaccurate estimates. In G. Keren (Ed.), Perspectives on framing (pp. 197-217). London, England: Psychology Press.
65. Teigen, K. H., & Nikolaisen, M. I. (2009). Incorrect estimates and false reports: How framing modifies truth. Thinking & Reasoning, 15, 268-293. doi:10.1080/13546780903020999
66. Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4, 199-214. doi:10.1287/mksc.4.3.199
67. Tombu, M., & Mandel, D. R. (2013). When does framing influence preferences, risk perceptions, and risk attitudes?. The role of valence. Manuscript submitted for publication.
68. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981, January 30). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458. doi: 10.1126/science.7455683
69. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59, S251-S278. doi:10.1086/296365
70. van Buiten, M., & Keren, G. (2009). Speaker-listener incompatability: Joint and separate processing in risky choice framing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 106-115. doi:10.1016/ j.obhdp.2008.03.002
71. West, R. F., Toplak, M. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2008). Heuristics and biases as measures of critical thinking: Associations with cognitive ability and thinking dispositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 930-941. doi:10.1037/a0012842
72. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford, England: Blackwell.