A Study on Outcome Framing and Risk Attitude in Engineering Decisions Under Uncertainty

Decision making is a central activity in the design of an engineered system and has a significant impact on project outcomes. Although much research exists on engineering decision making, relatively little addresses behavioral aspects of how engineers make decisions. This is a potentially significant gap, as factors such as the way in which information is communicated and presented to engineers can matter greatly. For example, cognitive psychology has demonstrated that the choices people make can be strongly influenced by how the options are framed even when the different framings are mathematically equivalent. This paper explores the impact of framing on the types of decisions engineers face. Given engineers' intense mathematical training, it is possible that they are less susceptible to framing effects. Thus, there is motivation to determine whether relevant findings can be replicated in an engineering context. This paper presents a set of positively and negatively framed design scenarios. Consistent with prior experiments, engineers in the positive (gain) framed scenarios were more likely to choose the less risky option for three of the four scenarios. One of the scenarios did not show this bias but did include a longer time horizon which likely explains the difference. Engineers were risk neutral when the scenarios were presented negatively (loss) framed, which is in contrast to prior experiments on nonengineering populations. These results motivate the future research into the impact of framing on engineering decision making and effective guidelines on how to create engineering processes and tools that leverage or avoid inducing cognitive biases.

[1]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[2]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  A formal method for subjective design evaluation with multiple attributes , 1991 .

[3]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[4]  D. Kumaran,et al.  Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain , 2006, Science.

[5]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design With Utility Analysis , 2001 .

[6]  L. Hasher,et al.  Framing effects in younger and older adults. , 2005, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[7]  N. S. Fagley,et al.  Framing Effects and Arenas of Choice: Your Money or Your Life? , 1997 .

[8]  J. Shanteau,et al.  An information processing view of framing effects: The role of causal schemas in decision making , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[9]  J. Neumann,et al.  Theory of games and economic behavior , 1945, 100 Years of Math Milestones.

[10]  George A. Hazelrigg,et al.  A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design , 1998 .

[11]  Hans Lind,et al.  A note on the robustness of a classical framing result , 1992 .

[12]  D. Read,et al.  Prospect theory and the “forgotten” fourfold pattern of risk preferences , 2014 .

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

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

[15]  A. Tversky,et al.  Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty , 1992 .

[16]  P. Miller,et al.  The Effect of Framing on Choice , 1990 .

[17]  A. Tversky,et al.  Rational choice and the framing of decisions , 1990 .

[18]  W. Ross Morrow,et al.  Numerically Stable Design Optimization With Price Competition , 2014 .

[19]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  Multiattribute utility analysis in design management , 1990 .

[20]  Ali E. Abbas,et al.  Normative target-based decision making , 2005 .

[21]  N. S. Fagley,et al.  The Effects of Framing, Problem Variations, and Providing Rationale on Choice , 1991 .

[22]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  Warnings of Adverse Side Effects Can Backfire Over Time , 2013, Psychological science.

[23]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Numeracy and Decision Making , 2022 .

[24]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  Time-dependent gambling: odds now, money later. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[25]  J. Pratt RISK AVERSION IN THE SMALL AND IN THE LARGE11This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant NSF-G24035). Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for any purpose of the United States Government. , 1964 .

[26]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs , 1976 .

[27]  Ali E. Abbas,et al.  Normative perspectives on engineering systems design , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon).

[28]  Y. Trope,et al.  The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. , 1998 .

[29]  An experimental test of prospect theory for predicting choice under ambiguity , 2014 .

[30]  William T. Ross,et al.  The Impact of Positive and Negative Affect and Issue Framing on Issue Interpretation and Risk Taking , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.