Framing effects in inference tasks—and why they are normatively defensible

Framing effects occur when logically equivalent redescriptions of objects or outcomes lead to different behaviors, and, traditionally, such effects have been seen as irrational. However, recent evidence has shown that a speaker’s choice among logically equivalent attribute frames can implicitly convey (or “leak”) normatively relevant information about the speaker’s reference point, among other things. In a reinterpretion of data published elsewhere, in this article it is shown that some common effects in inference tasks (covariation assessment and hypothesis testing) can also be seen as framing effects, thereby expanding the domain of framing. It is also shown that these framing effects are normatively defensible because normatively relevant information aboutevent rarity is leaked through the description of data and through the phrasing of hypotheses, thereby broadening the information leakage approach to explaining framing effects. Information leakage can also explain why framing effects in such inference tasks disappear under certain conditions.

[1]  Journal of business , 2022 .

[2]  J. Klayman Varieties of Confirmation Bias , 1995 .

[3]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[4]  C. Mckenzie,et al.  The psychological side of Hempel’s paradox of confirmation , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[5]  T. Marteau,et al.  Framing of information: its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. , 1989, The British journal of social psychology.

[6]  Hal R. Arkes,et al.  Estimates of contingency between two dichotomous variables. , 1983 .

[7]  L. Allan Human contingency judgments: rule based or associative? , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  John R. Anderson The Adaptive Character of Thought , 1990 .

[9]  C. Mckenzie,et al.  When wrong predictions provide more support than right ones , 2002, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[10]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Hypothesis Evaluation from a Bayesian Perspective. , 1983 .

[11]  D. Noelle,et al.  Relation between confidence in yes-no and forced-choice tasks. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[12]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Hypothesis Testing from a Bayesian Perspective. , 1982 .

[13]  J. Piaget,et al.  The Growth Of Logical Thinking From Childhood To Adolescence: An Essay On The Construction Of Formal Operational Structures , 1958 .

[14]  Anthony J. Sanford,et al.  Communicating quantities: a review of psycholinguistic evidence of how expressions determine perspectives , 2000 .

[15]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

[16]  Raymond J. Bandlow Theories of Learning, 4th Edition. By Ernest R. Hilgard and Gordon H. Bower. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975 , 1976 .

[17]  N. Chater,et al.  Optimal data selection in the reduced array selection task (RAST) , 1997 .

[18]  Jonathan D. Nelson,et al.  What a speaker’s choice of frame reveals: Reference points, frame selection, and framing effects , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[19]  M. Lipe A Lens model analysis of covariation research , 1990 .

[20]  C. Mckenzie (Non)Complementary updating of belief in two hypotheses , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[21]  Schneiderman Framing of Decisions and Selections of Alternatives " in Hea l th Care , 2004 .

[22]  J. Smedslund THE CONCEPT OF CORRELATION IN ADULTS , 1963 .

[23]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. , 1987, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[24]  John H. Holland,et al.  Induction: Processes of Inference, Learning, and Discovery , 1987, IEEE Expert.

[25]  Victor S. Ferreira,et al.  Do Conditional Hypotheses Target Rare Events? , 2001, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[26]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Probabilistic mental models: a Brunswikian theory of confidence. , 1991, Psychological review.

[27]  N. Chater,et al.  RATIONAL EXPLANATION OF THE SELECTION TASK , 1996 .

[28]  H. Simon,et al.  Why are some problems hard? Evidence from Tower of Hanoi , 1985, Cognitive Psychology.

[29]  Jonathan S. Evans,et al.  Bias in human reasoning , 1990 .

[30]  I. Levin,et al.  How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product , 1988 .

[31]  J. Klayman,et al.  Confirmation, Disconfirmation, and Informa-tion in Hypothesis Testing , 1987 .

[32]  R. Nickerson Hempel's Paradox and Wason's Selection Task: Logical and Psychological Puzzles of Confirmation , 1996 .

[33]  E. Wasserman,et al.  Multiple Methods for Examining Biased Information Use in Contingency Judgments , 1993 .

[34]  J. Mackie,et al.  The cement of the universe : a study of causation , 1977 .

[35]  Jennifer Crocker,et al.  Judgment of Covariation by Social Perceivers , 1981 .

[36]  Craig R. M. McKenzie,et al.  Taking into Account the Strength of an Alternative Hypothesis , 2001 .

[37]  J. Crocker Biased Questions in Judgment of Covariation Studies , 1982 .

[38]  Nick Chater,et al.  A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. , 1994 .

[39]  R. Nickerson Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises , 1998 .

[40]  R. Sternberg,et al.  Evaluation of evidence in causal inference. , 1981 .

[41]  A. Meta-analysis,et al.  The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions , 1998 .

[42]  D. Hilton THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF REASONING : CONVERSATIONAL INFERENCE AND RATIONAL JUDGMENT , 1995 .

[43]  P. Johnson-Laird The choice of the passive voice in a communicative task. , 1968, British journal of psychology.

[44]  A. Tenbrunsel,et al.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 2013 .

[45]  A. Stewart,et al.  Perspective in Statements of Quantity, with Implications for Consumer Psychology , 2002, Psychological science.

[46]  D. R. Lehman,et al.  Integration of contingency information in judgments of cause, covariation, and probability. , 1998 .

[47]  E. Hilgard,et al.  Theories of Learning , 1981 .

[48]  P. Johnson-Laird The interpretation of the passive voice. , 1968, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[49]  Clifford R. Mynatt,et al.  Confirmation Bias in a Simulated Research Environment: An Experimental Study of Scientific Inference , 1977 .

[50]  P. Cheng From covariation to causation: A causal power theory. , 1997 .

[51]  E. Wasserman,et al.  Assessment of an information integration account of contingency judgment with examination of subjective cell importance and method of information presentation. , 1993 .

[52]  P. Horwich Probability and Evidence , 1972 .

[53]  E A Wasserman,et al.  Contributions of specific cell information to judgments of interevent contingency. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[54]  P. Cheng,et al.  A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction. , 1990, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[55]  S. Tipper,et al.  Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 1948, Nature.

[56]  G. Gigerenzer How to Make Cognitive Illusions Disappear: Beyond “Heuristics and Biases” , 1991 .

[57]  L. Allan A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks , 1980 .

[58]  Schneider,et al.  All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[59]  L. Good,et al.  THE PARADOX OF CONFIRMATION* , 1960, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[60]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Categories and concepts , 1984 .

[61]  Mark Gluck,et al.  Memory and cognition , 2000, Clinical Neurophysiology.

[62]  Craig R. M. McKenzie,et al.  Information leakage from logically equivalent frames , 2006, Cognition.

[63]  P. Wason On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task , 1960 .

[64]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[65]  H. Shaklee,et al.  A rule analysis of judgments of covariation between events , 1980, Memory & cognition.

[66]  Carol Harding COGNITION AND COMMUNICATION: JUDGMENTAL BIASES, RESEARCH METHODS, AND THE LOGIC OF CONVERSATION. Norbert Schwarz. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1996. Pp. vii + 112. $22.50 paper. , 1998 .

[67]  P. Cheng,et al.  Covariation in natural causal induction. , 1992, Psychological review.

[68]  N. Chater,et al.  Probabilistic effects in data selection , 1999 .

[69]  Philip N. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Shorter Articles and Notes the Interpretation of the Passive Voice Shorter Articles and Notes the Interpretation of the Passive Voice , 2022 .

[70]  Nick Chater,et al.  Revision, review, and reevaluation , 2003 .

[71]  W. Swann,et al.  Hypothesis-Testing Processes in Social Interaction , 1978 .

[72]  John R. Anderson,et al.  Causal inferences as perceptual judgments , 1995, Memory & cognition.

[73]  C. Mckenzie The Accuracy of Intuitive Judgment Strategies: Covariation Assessment and Bayesian Inference , 1994, Cognitive Psychology.

[74]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Judging probable cause. , 1986 .

[75]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  JUDGMENT OF CONTINGENCY BETWEEN RESPONSES AND OUTCOMES. , 1965, Psychological monographs.

[76]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  Information framing effects in social and personal decisions , 1988 .

[77]  H. M. Jenkins,et al.  The display of information and the judgment of contingency. , 1965, Canadian journal of psychology.

[78]  A. Kühberger,et al.  The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[79]  Mark Snyder,et al.  Seek, and ye shall find: Testing hypotheses about other people: The Ontario Symposium , 1981 .