Framing Effects Influence Interface Feature Decisions

Studies in psychology have shown that framing effects, where the positive or negative attributes of logically equivalent choices are emphasised, influence people's decisions. When outcomes are uncertain, framing effects also induce patterns of choice reversal, where decisions tend to be risk averse when gains are emphasised and risk seeking when losses are emphasised. Studies of these effects typically use potent framing stimuli, such as the mortality of people suffering from diseases or personal financial standing. We examine whether these effects arise in users' decisions about interface features, which typically have less visceral consequences, using a crowd-sourced study based on snap-to-grid drag-and-drop tasks (n = 842). The study examined several framing conditions: those similar to prior psychological research, and those similar to typical interaction choices (enabling/disabling features). Results indicate that attribute framing strongly influences users' decisions, that these decisions conform to patterns of risk seeking for losses, and that patterns of choice reversal occur.

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

[2]  Juho Hamari,et al.  Do Persuasive Technologies Persuade? - A Review of Empirical Studies , 2014, PERSUASIVE.

[3]  CenaFederica,et al.  Choice Architecture for Human-Computer Interaction , 2014 .

[4]  Eldar Shafir,et al.  Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[5]  Richard M. Harris Answering questions containing marked and unmarked adjectives and adverbs. , 1973 .

[6]  Antonella De Angeli,et al.  Investigating attractiveness in web user interfaces , 2007, CHI.

[7]  Jeroen G. W. Raaijmakers,et al.  On between-subjects versus within-subjects comparisons in testing utility theory , 1988 .

[8]  D. Jackson,et al.  Acquiescence and the factorial interpretation of the MMPI. , 1960, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  Katharina Reinecke,et al.  Choice Architecture for Human-Computer Interaction , 2014, Found. Trends Hum. Comput. Interact..

[10]  Antonella De Angeli,et al.  Framing the user experience: information biases on website quality judgement , 2008, CHI.

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

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

[13]  Tovi Grossman,et al.  CommunityCommands: command recommendations for software applications , 2009, UIST '09.

[14]  Antti Oulasvirta,et al.  Too good to be bad: Favorable product expectations boost subjective usability ratings , 2011, Interact. Comput..

[15]  Jesper Kjeldskov,et al.  Understanding Individual Differences for Tailored Smoking Cessation Apps , 2015, CHI.

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

[17]  John Riedl,et al.  Is seeing believing?: how recommender system interfaces affect users' opinions , 2003, CHI '03.

[18]  Andy Cockburn,et al.  When Bad Feels Good: Assistance Failures and Interface Preferences , 2016, CHI.

[19]  Elizabeth F Loftus,et al.  Leading questions and the eyewitness report , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  Bongshin Lee,et al.  TimeAware: Leveraging Framing Effects to Enhance Personal Productivity , 2016, CHI.

[21]  Bongshin Lee,et al.  Nudging People Away from Privacy-Invasive Mobile Apps through Visual Framing , 2013, INTERACT.

[22]  Moyen Mohammad Mustaquim,et al.  Managing framing effects in persuasive design for sustainability , 2015, MindTrek.

[23]  Harri Oinas-Kukkonen,et al.  Persuasive system design: state of the art and future directions , 2009, Persuasive '09.

[24]  Katrien Verbert,et al.  HCI for Recommender Systems: the Past, the Present and the Future , 2016, RecSys.

[25]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Don't forget your pill!: designing effective medication reminder apps that support users' daily routines , 2014, CHI.

[26]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  Associative effects of information framing , 1987 .

[27]  K. Vohs,et al.  Case Western Reserve University , 1990 .

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

[29]  Lena Mamykina,et al.  Monster Appetite: Effects of Subversive Framing on Nutritional Choices in a Digital Game Environment , 2017, CHI.

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

[31]  Antonella De Angeli,et al.  Towards a theory of user judgment of aesthetics and user interface quality , 2008, TCHI.

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

[33]  N. Lazar,et al.  Moving to a World Beyond “p < 0.05” , 2019, The American Statistician.