Looking Closer at the Effects of Framing on Risky Choice: An Item Response Theory Analysis.

Item response theory (IRT) methodology allowed an in-depth examination of several issues that would be difficult to explore using traditional methodology. IRT models were estimated for 4 risky-choice items, answered by students under either a gain or loss frame. Results supported the typical framing finding of risk-aversion for gains and risk-seeking for losses but also suggested that a latent construct we label preference for risk was influential in predicting risky choice. Also, the Asian Disease item, most often used in framing research, was found to have anomalous statistical properties when compared to other framing items. Copyright 1998 Academic Press.

[1]  F. Lord.  Applications of Item Response Theory To Practical Testing Problems , 1980 .

[2]  Sandra L. Schneider,et al.  Reflection in preferences under risk: Who and when may suggest why , 1986 .

[3]  L. Shepard,et al.  Methods for Identifying Biased Test Items , 1994 .

[4]  Sarah Lichtenstein,et al.  Islanders and hostages: Deep and surface structures of decision problems☆ , 1988 .

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

[6]  Scott Highhouse,et al.  Perspectives, Perceptions, and Risk-Taking Behavior , 1996 .

[7]  Anton Kühberger,et al.  The Framing of Decisions: A New Look at Old Problems , 1995 .

[8]  T. C. Monson,et al.  Specifying when personality traits can and cannot predict behavior: An alternative to abandoning the attempt to predict single-act criteria. , 1982 .

[9]  Lola L. Lopes,et al.  [Advances in Experimental Social Psychology] Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Volume 20 Volume 20 || Between Hope and Fear: The Psychology of Risk , 1987 .

[10]  Max H. Bazerman,et al.  The Relevance of Kahneman and Tversky's Concept of Framing to Organizational Behavior , 1984 .

[11]  N. S. Fagley,et al.  The effects of decision framing on choice of risky vs certain options , 1987 .

[12]  L. Kirisci,et al.  Fitting a two-parameter logistic item response model to clarify the psychometric properties of the Drug Use Screening Inventory for adolescent alcohol and drug abusers. , 1994, Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research.

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

[14]  V. Reyna,et al.  Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion , 1991 .

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

[16]  M. Wallach,et al.  Risk Taking: A Study in Cognition and Personality , 1965 .

[17]  G. Shure,et al.  A personality-attitude schedule for use in experimental bargaining studies. , 1967, The Journal of psychology.

[18]  Shawn P. Curley,et al.  Individual differences in risk taking. , 1992 .

[19]  D. Kahneman.  Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings. , 1992 .

[20]  David Thissen,et al.  Data analysis using item response theory. , 1988 .

[21]  S. Reise,et al.  Fitting the Two-Parameter Model to Personality Data , 1990 .

[22]  D. Frisch.  Reasons for framing effects. , 1993 .

[23]  S. Schneider,et al.  Framing and conflict: aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[24]  F. Drasgow.  An Evaluation of Marginal Maximum Likelihood Estimation for the Two-Parameter Logistic Model , 1989 .

[25]  Fritz Drasgow,et al.  Detecting Faking on a Personality Instrument Using Appropriateness Measurement , 1996 .

[26]  Christopher P. Puto,et al.  Do Consumers' Reference Points Affect Their Buying Decisions? , 1987 .

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

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

[29]  R. Brennan,et al.  Test equating : methods and practices , 1995 .

[30]  M. Roznowski,et al.  Examination of the measurement properties of the job descriptive index with experimental items , 1989 .

[31]  Glen Whyte,et al.  Decision failures: why they occur and how to prevent them , 1991 .

[32]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  The Framing of Decisions and the Rationality of Choice. , 1980 .

[33]  Wim J. van der Linden,et al.  IRT-Based Internal Measures of Differential Functioning of Items and Tests , 1995 .

[34]  R. Tryon.  BASIC UNPREDICTABILITY OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES TO DISCRETE STIMULUS PRESENTATIONS. , 1973, Multivariate behavioral research.

[35]  E. Olsen,et al.  Uranus: Variability of the Microwave Spectrum , 1982, Science.

[36]  Wang.  Framing Effects: Dynamics and Task Domains , 1996, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[37]  C. Parsons,et al.  Application of Unidimensional Item Response Theory Models to Multidimensional Data , 1983 .

[38]  Scott Highhouse,et al.  Problem Domain and Prospect Frame: Choice under Opportunity versus Threat , 1996 .

[39]  Catherine S. Elliott,et al.  Subjective framing and attitudes towards risk , 1989 .

[40]  M. Statman,et al.  The disposition to sell winners too early and ride losers too long , 1985 .