Gain-Loss Framing and Choice: Separating Outcome Formulations from Descriptor Formulations.

This article reexamines the assumptions underlying the disease problem used by Tversky and Kahneman (1981) to illustrate gain-loss formulation effects. It is argued that their reported effect may have been due to asymmetries in the ambiguity of the sure and risky prospects and to the entanglement of two distinct types of formulation manipulations: one having to do with the expected outcomes that are made explicit (positive vs negative) and the other having to do with the descriptors used to convey the relevant expected outcomes (lives saved/not saved vs lives lost/not lost). Two experiments using a formally equivalent problem in which these confounds were eliminated revealed no significant predictive effect of either descriptor or outcomes frames on choice, although a marginally significant framing effect was obtained in Experiment 1 when the signs of the two framing manipulations were congruent. Implications for prospect theory are discussed. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.

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

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

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

[4]  P. Tetlock.  The Impact of Accountability on Judgment and Choice: Toward A Social Contingency Model , 1992 .

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

[6]  Victor S. Johnston,et al.  Perceived social context and risk preference: A re‐examination of framing effects in a life‐death decision problem , 1995 .

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

[8]  William M. Goldstein,et al.  Judgments of Relative Importance in Decision Making: The Importance of Interpretation and the Interpretation of Importance , 1991 .

[9]  Dale T. Miller,et al.  The framing of relative performance feedback: Seeing the glass as half empty or half full. , 1994 .

[10]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[11]  Michael L. Geis,et al.  Syntax and Semantics. Volume 3 : Speech Acts , 1976 .

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

[13]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: the mobilization-minimization hypothesis. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  Alexander J. Rothman,et al.  The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. , 1995, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

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

[16]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. , 1982, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  Alexander J. Rothman,et al.  Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. , 1997, Psychological bulletin.

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

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

[20]  N. S. Fagley,et al.  A note concerning reflection effects versus framing effects , 1993 .

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

[22]  Shu Li,et al.  Is There Something More Important behind Framing , 1995 .

[23]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  Framing effects in judgment tasks with varying amounts of information , 1985 .

[24]  Ebenbach,et al.  Incomplete Information, Inferences, and Individual Differences: The Case of Environmental Judgments. , 2000, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[25]  G. Peeters,et al.  Positive-Negative Asymmetry in Evaluations: The Distinction Between Affective and Informational Negativity Effects , 1990 .

[26]  Irwin P. Levin,et al.  Framing effects in decisions with completely and incompletely described alternatives , 1986 .

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

[28]  Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck,et al.  The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[29]  Tilmann Betsch,et al.  Framing the framing effect: the impact of context cues on solutions to the ‘Asian disease’ problem , 1998 .

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

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

[32]  Kenneth J. Dunegan.  Framing, cognitive modes, and image theory: Toward an understanding of a glass half full. , 1993 .

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

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

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

[36]  H. Montgomery,et al.  Process and structure in human decision making , 1992 .

[37]  Michael E. Doherty,et al.  The assessment of self-insight in judgment policies , 1992 .

[38]  W. Mcguire,et al.  Cognitive-versus-affective positivity asymmetries in thought systems , 1992 .

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

[40]  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.

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

[42]  Anton Kühberger,et al.  Decision Making with Mission Information: A Verbal Protocol Study , 1998 .

[43]  L. Ross,et al.  Psychological Barriers to Dispute Resolution , 1995 .

[44]  Michael E. Doherty,et al.  A note on the assessment of self-insight in judgment research , 1989 .

[45]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Behavioral Decision Theory , 1977 .

[46]  D. Berkeley,et al.  Structuring decision problems and the ‘bias heuristic’ , 1982 .

[47]  P. C. Wason,et al.  The Processing of Positive and Negative Information , 1959 .

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

[49]  W. Goldstein.  Judgments of relative importance in decision making: Global vs local interpretations of subjective weight , 1990 .

[50]  R R Macdonald,et al.  Credible conceptions and implausible probabilities. , 1986, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[51]  Clyde H. Coombs,et al.  Frontiers of mathematical psychology : essays in honor of Clyde Coombs , 1992 .