Choice in politics: Equivalency framing in economic policy decisions and the influence of expertise

European Journal of Political Economy

Volumn 40, Issue , 2015, Pages 360-374

  Kuehnhanss, Colin R ^a   Heyndels, Bruno ^a   Hilken, Katharina ^a  

^a VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Economic policy; Equivalency framing; Expertise; Political decision making

Indexed keywords

EID: 84937604443     PISSN: 01762680     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2015.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Afonso A. Policy change and the politics of expertise: economic ideas and immigration control reforms in Switzerland. Swiss Polit. Sci. Rev. 2007, 13:1-38.
2. Bazerman M. The relevance of Kahneman and Tversky's concept of framing to organizational behavior. J. Manag. 1984, 10:333-343.
3. Bendor J. Bounded Rationality and Politics 2010, vol. 6. University of California Press, Berkley.
4. Bless H., Betsch T., Franzen A. Framing the framing effect: the impact of context cues on solutions to the 'Asian disease' problem. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 28:287-291.
5. Boettcher W. The prospects for prospect theory: an empirical evaluation of international relations applications of framing and loss aversion. Polit. Psychol. 2004, 25:331-362.
6. Bohm P., Lind H. A note on the robustness of a classical framing result. J. Econ. Psychol. 1992, 13:355-361.
7. Boswell C. The political functions of expert knowledge: knowledge and legitimation in European Union immigration policy. J. Eur. Public Policy 2008, 15:471-488.
8. Bütler M., Maréchal M. Framing effects in political decision making: evidence from a natural voting experiment. Working Paper No. 1940 2007, CESifo, Munich, (URL http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/25985/1/538080965.PDF).
9. Byrnes J., Miller D., Schafer W. Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 1999, 125:367-383.
10. Caplan B. What makes people think like economists? Evidence on economic cognition from the "Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy". J. Law Econ. 2001, 44:395-426.
11. Christensen J. Recruitment and expertise in the European Commission. West Eur. Polit. 2015, 38:649-678.
12. Cooper J., Kovacic W. Behavioral economics: implications for regulatory behavior. J. Regul. Econ. 2012, 41:41-58.
13. Druckman J. Evaluating framing effects. J. Econ. Psychol. 2001, 22:91-101.
14. Druckman J., McDermott R. Emotion and the framing of risky choice. Polit. Behav. 2008, 30:297-321.
15. Eckel C., Grossman P. Men, women and risk aversion: experimental evidence. Handb. Exp. Econ. Results 2008, 1:1061-1073.
16. Emler N., Frazer E. Politics: the education effect. Oxf. Rev. Educ. 1999, 25:251-273.
17. European Commission Gender equality in the European Commission URL, (November). http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/women%20onboards/factsheet-general-4_en.pdf.
18. European Commission Permanent officials URL, (August). http://ec.europa.eu/civil_service/job/official/index_en.htm.
19. European Parliament Women In The European Parliament URL, (March). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/publications/2014/0001/P7_PUB(2014)0001_EN.pdf.
20. Fagley N., Miller P. The effects of decision framing on choice of risky vs certain options. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1987, 39:264-277.
21. Fagley N., Miller P. The effect of framing on choice interactions with risk-taking propensity, cognitive style, and sex. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 16:496-510.
22. Fellner G., Maciejovsky B. Risk attitude and market behavior: evidence from experimental asset markets. J. Econ. Psychol. 2007, 28:338-350.
23. Fiske S., Kinder D., Larter W. The novice and the expert: knowledge-based strategies in political cognition. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1983, 19:381-400.
24. Frisch D. Reasons for framing effects. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1993, 54:399-429.
25. Green D., Shapiro I. Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science 1994, Yale University Press, New Haven.
26. Harstad R., Selten R. Diminished-dimensional political economy. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 2015, (in this issue).
27. Henrich J., Heine S., Norenzayan A. The weirdest people in the world?. Behav. Brain Sci. 2010, 33:61-135.
28. Igou E., Bless H. On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function of substantive processing. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2007, 20:125-142.
29. Kahan D., Dawson E., Peters E., Slovic P. Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Working Paper No. 116 2013, Yale Law School - The Cultural Cognition Project, New Haven, (URL http://www.cogsci.bme.hu/ktkuser/KURZUSOK/BMETE47MC15/2013_2014_1/kahanEtAl2013.pdf).
30. Kahneman D. Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1992, 51:296-312.
31. Kahneman D. Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 2003, 93:1449-1475.
32. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 1979, 47:263-291.
33. Kahneman D., Tversky A. Choices, Values, and Frames 2000, Cambridge University Press, New York.
34. Kam C., Simas E. Risk orientations and policy frames. J. Polit. 2010, 72:381-396.
35. Kassim H., Peterson J., Bauer M., Connolly S., Dehousse R., Hooghe L., Thompson A. The European Commission of The Twenty-First Century 2013, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
36. Kirchgässner G. (Why) are economists different?. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 2005, 21:543-562.
37. Köszegi B., Rabin M. A model of reference-dependent preferences. Q. J. Econ. 2006, 121:1133-1165.
38. Köszegi B., Rabin M. Reference-dependent risk attitudes. Am. Econ. Rev. 2007, 97:1047-1073.
39. Krosnick J. Expertise and political psychology. Soc. Cogn. 1990, 8:1-8.
40. Kühberger A. The influence of framing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1998, 75:23-55.
41. Kühberger A., Tanner C. Risky choice framing: task versions and a comparison of prospect theory and fuzzy-trace theory. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2010, 23:314-329.
42. Kühberger A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck M., Perner J. The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1999, 78:204-231.
43. Lawrence E. What Americans know and why it matters for politics. Annual Meeting Of The Midwest Political Science Association 2010, (April, URL http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/cces/files/Lawrence-_What_Americans_Know.pdf).
44. LeBoeuf R., Shafir E. Deep thoughts and shallow frames: on the susceptibility to framing effects. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2003, 16:77-92.
45. Levin I., Snyder M., Chapman D. The interaction of experiential and situational factors and gender in a simulated risky decision-making task. J. Psychol. 1988, 122:173-181.
46. Levin I., Gaeth G., Schreiber J. A new look at framing effects: distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2002, 88:411-429.
47. Levy J. Prospect theory, rational choice, and international relations. Int. Stud. Q. 1997, 41:87-112.
48. Levy J. Applications of prospect theory to political science. Synthese 2003, 135:215-241.
49. Linde J., Vis B. Do behavioral theories like prospect theory apply to political actors? An experimental test on a sample of Dutch parliamentarians and students. Dutch/Flemish Politicologenetmaal 2014, Maastricht, The Netherlands, (June).
50. List J. Neoclassical theory versus prospect theory: evidence from the marketplace. Econometrica 2004, 72:615-625.
51. Loewen P., Sheffer L., Soroka S., Walgrave S., Shaefer T. Expertise and efficacy in elite political decision making. Behavioral Models of Politics Conference 2014, Duke University, (October, URL http://sites.duke.edu/2014bmp/files/2014/10/Loewen_et_al.pdf).
52. Mayhorn C., Fisk A., Whittle J. Decisions, decisions: analysis of age, cohort, and time of testing on framing of risky decision options. Hum. Factors 2002, 44:515-521.
53. McDermott R. Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy 1998, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
54. McDermott R. Prospect theory in political science: gains and losses from the first decade. Polit. Psychol. 2004, 25:289-312.
55. Mercer J. Prospect theory and political science. Ann. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2005, 8:1-21.
56. Meza D., Webb D. Incentive design under loss aversion. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 2007, 5:66-92.
57. Nordstokke D., Zumbo B., Cairns S., Saklofske D. The operating characteristics of the nonparametric Levene test for equal variances with assessment and evaluation data. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2011, 16:1-8.
58. Nullmeier F. Knowledge and decision-making. Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making 2005, 123-134. Springer, Dordrecht. S. Maasen, P. Weingart (Eds.).
59. Peters B. Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism 2005, Continuum, London. 2nd edition.
60. Peters E., Levin I. Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options. Judgment Decis. Mak. 2008, 3:435-448.
61. Peters E., Västfjäll D., Slovic P., Mertz C., Mazzocco K., Dickert S. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 17:407-413.
62. Pollack M. Rational choice and EU politics. Handbook of European Union Politics 2006, 31-55. Sage, London. K. Jørgensen, M. Pollack, B. Rosamond (Eds.).
63. Powell M., Ansic D. Gender differences in risk behaviour in financial decision-making: an experimental analysis. J. Econ. Psychol. 1997, 18:605-628.
64. Quattrone G., Tversky A. Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 1988, 82:719-736.
65. Radaelli C. The public policy of the European Union: whither politics of expertise?. J. Eur. Public Policy 1999, 6:757-774.
66. Rayner S. Democracy in the age of assessment: reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making. Sci. Public Policy 2003, 30:163-170.
67. Rönnlund M., Karlsson E., Laggnäs E., Larsson L., Lindström T. Risky decision making across three arenas of choice: are younger and older adults differently susceptible to framing effects?. J. Gen. Psychol. 2005, 132:81-93.
68. Schmidt U., Starmer C., Sugden R. Third-generation prospect theory. J. Risk Uncertain. 2008, 36:203-223.
69. Schnellenbach J., Schubert C. Behavioral political economy: a survey. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 2015, 40:395-417. (in this issue).
70. Shiloh S., Salton E., Sharabi D. Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking styles as predictors of heuristic responses and framing effects. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2002, 32:415-429.
71. Simon H. Rationality in political behavior. Polit. Psychol. 1995, 16:45-61.
72. Simon A., Fagley N., Halleran J. Decision framing: moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2004, 17:77-93.
73. Strøm K. Delegation and accountability in parliamentary democracies. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 2000, 37:261-290.
74. Tversky A., Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981, 211:453-458.
75. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. J. Bus. 1986, 59:S251-S278.
76. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: cumulative representation of uncertainty. J. Risk Uncertain. 1992, 5:297-323.
77. von Neumann J., Morgenstern O. The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior 1947, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
78. Wang X. Framing effects: dynamics and task domains. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1996, 68:145-157.
79. Wiseman D., Levin I. Comparing risky decision making under conditions of real and hypothetical consequences. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1996, 66:241-250.