Framing effects in the evaluation of multiple risk reduction

We studied how evaluation of changes in low-probability risks are affected by reference points and framing effects. Subjects considered hypothetical situations with one or two low-probability risks. Different frames were used to describe changes in risk levels. In the first experiment, subjects chose between risk-reduction options that achieved the same overall risk reduction: large reduction of one risk vs. equal (smaller) reduction of two risks. When the risks were described as losses relative to the no-risk ideal, more subjects were indifferent between the options than when the same options were described as gains relative to the status quo. In the latter case subjects preferred equal reduction of both risks, unless one risk could be reduced to zero. In a related experiment, subjects were less willing to pay any price for a commodity that carried small increases in two risks than for a commodity carrying a comparable large increase in one risk. In other experiments, subjects evaluated single changes in risks rather than comparing or evaluating pairs of changes. Subjects again placed particularly high value on reducing any risks to zero, and they were even more inclined to do so when some other risk would also be reduced to zero. In a final experiment, elimination of risk was found to be less highly valued if its source was not fully eliminated, and a status-quo effect was found. The findings are interpreted in terms of reference theories of choice.     

Prudence and extensionality in theories of preference and value

Luce's axiom governing probabilities of choice is formulated as a principle governing metalinguistic probabilities. IfX, Y, W are sets of options, and δ(X), δ(Y), δ(W) are sentences asserting that choice is made from these sets, then the axiom is $$\begin{gathered} If \pi [\delta (X)] \ne 0 and \pi [\delta (X \cap Y)] \ne 0, then \hfill \\ \pi _{\delta (X)} [\delta (Y \cap W)] = \pi _{\delta (X \cap Y)} [\delta (W)]\pi _{\delta (X)} [\delta (Y)] \hfill \\ \end{gathered} $$ where π is a probability on sentences. The axiom is then entailed by extensionality of the probability π in company with a simple condition on probabilities of truth-functions. Conditions are also given under which the probability π is uniquely represented by a probability on the sets of options. What look to be logical constraints on the metalanguage entail a normative or prudential constraint. Debreu's well-known counterinstance to the axiom as a principle governing probability of choice is examined and a novel and consistent interpretation of the axiom is proposed.     

Stakeholder Consultation as Social Mobilization: Framing Scottish Mental Health Policy

Public and stakeholder consultation is increasingly important in the policy process, both in the UK and elsewhere. Social scientists have considered consultation primarily in terms of how it relates to decision‐making – either as a means of involving a wider constituency of actors in the decision‐making process, or as a means of legitimizing the decisions taken by policymakers. This article shows that consultation can also serve a rather different role in relation to policy: as, in effect, the first stage in policy implementation. Based on direct observation of a stakeholder consultation on Scottish mental health policy that took place during late 2007 and early 2008, it draws on elements of social movement theory to show how that consultation served as a means of enrolling, orienting and mobilizing stakeholders to implement a largely pre‐existing set of policy aims.     

Framing the tendency to betray one's good intentions. Akrasia as a dialogical dynamic

Akrasia, otherwise known as ‘weakness of will’, is a state of mind whereby people act deliberately against their better judgment. This paper aims to provide a conceptual framework for understanding akrasia from psychosocial perspectives that assume the self is multiple and strongly interconnected with the relational flow of which it is a part. Drawing on key ideas from Dialogical Self Theory, we analyze the main dialogical dynamics that can generate akratic episodes with reference to how individuals organize their personal position repertoire, and to the relational and socio-cultural setting in which the actions are taken. The discussion enables us to identify some indicators to frame the tendency to betray one's good intentions, and to offer some suggestions on how to reduce the occurrence of the various forms of akrasia analyzed.     

Framing,Switching and Preference Reversals

An explicitly frame related interpretation of a very general more for less result is used to establish a correspondingly general class of frame related switching results. These are used in turn to show how preference reversals of kinds found by Allais and others may not only be essentially non-paradoxical in character, but can be expected to be frequently observed, even under conditions of certainty and of complete information.     

One-reason decision-making: Modeling violations of expected utility theory

People violate expected utility theory and this has been traditionally modeled by augmenting its weight-and-add framework by nonlinear transformations of values and probabilities. Yet individuals often use one-reason decision-making when making court decisions or choosing cellular phones, and institutions do the same when creating rules for traffic safety or fair play in sports. We analyze a model of one-reason decision-making, the priority heuristic, and show that it simultaneously implies common consequence effects, common ratio effects, reflection effects, and the fourfold pattern of risk attitude. The preferences represented by the priority heuristic satisfy some standard axioms. This work may provide the basis for a new look at bounded rationality.

Everybody is doing it: the effects of base rate information on correspondent inferences from violations of perfect and imperfect duties

Three experiments examined the extent to which people’s correspondent inferences from immoral behaviors are influenced by the base rates of those behaviors. Supporting a theory by Trafimow and Trafimow (1999), when immoral behaviors violated what Kant termed imperfect duties (duties that people only sometimes have to perform to be moral), then base rates strongly influenced whether correspondent inferences were made. However, if the immoral behaviors violated what Kant termed perfect duties (duties that people always have to perform to be moral), then base rates were significantly less relevant.     

Conflicting violations of transitivity and where they may lead us

The literature contains evidence from some studies of asymmetric patterns of choice cycles in the direction consistent with regret theory, and evidence from other studies of asymmetries in the opposite direction. This article reports an experiment showing that both patterns occur within the same sample of respondents operating in the same experimental environment. We discuss the implications for modelling behaviour in such environments.     

Framing perceptions of oil development and social disruption

This paper examines the perceived relationship between the presence and growth of the offshore oil industry in Louisiana and patterns of social disruption, particularly crime. Interview data were obtained from long-time residents in the coastal region of Louisiana, and a social constructionist perspective was used to frame the perceptions of these individuals (N = 94). Much previous research on the effects offshore oil development and its cyclical expansion and contraction has been premised on a boom/bust social impact model reflecting the experience of resource extraction in communities in the Western United States. In contrast to this literature, we found our subjects perceived far less in the way of disorganizing effects of oil development, and for the most part suggested the impacts to be either benign or positive. There was little support for a boom/bust model of community disruption, and thus we suggest research in this area consider alternative paradigms of interpretation of social impact.     

An experimental investigation of violations of transitivity in choice under uncertainty

Several models of decision-making imply systematic violations of transitivity of preference. Our experiments explored whether people show patterns of intransitivity predicted by regret theory and majority rule. To distinguish “true” violations from those produced by “error,” a model was fit in which each choice can have a different error rate and each person can have a different pattern of true preferences that need not be transitive. Error rate for a choice is estimated from preference reversals between repeated presentations of that same choice. Our results showed that very few people repeated intransitive patterns. We can retain the hypothesis that transitivity best describes the data of the vast majority of participants.

Framing,probability distortions,and insurance decisions

A series of studies examines whether certain biases in probability assessments and perceptions of loss, previously found in experimental studies, affect consumers' decisions about insurance. Framing manipulations lead the consumers studied here to make hypothetical insurance-purchase choices that violate basic laws of probability and value. Subjects exhibit distortions in their perception of risk and framing effects in evaluating premiums and benefits. Illustrations from insurance markets suggest that the same effects occur when consumers make actual insurance purchases.Presented at the Conference onMaking Decisions about Liability and Insurance, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 6–7 December, 1991. This research is supported by National Science Foundation Grant SES88-09299. The authors thank Jon Baron, Colin Camerer, Neil Doherty, Paul Kleindorfer, Amos Tversky, and two anonymous referees for many helpful comments. We particularly acknowledge the efforts of Matthew Robinson and Penny Pollister for their help with data analysis.     

Framing same-sex marriage: Media constructions of California's Proposition 8

Legislation regarding the legalization of same-sex marriages has been advocated for and opposed across distinct states in the United States. Claims makers on either side of the issue have attempted to have their voices heard in local and national newspapers. Newspaper personnel determine how to frame the issue, deciding which meanings associated with same-sex marriage will be highlighted and which will go unrepresented. This paper analyzes the media framing of Proposition 8 in California, a voter initiative prohibiting same-sex marriage, comparing frames across three newspapers: one local to California, the San Francisco Chronicle, and two national, the New York Times and the Washington Post. The paper illustrates shifts in frames from May 2008 to August 2010, a time period extending from the vote on the initiative through two court challenges. Overall, the results indicate that these newspapers more frequently frame same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue and that those attempting to block same-sex marriage do so as a function of discrimination. Less frequently, they frame same-sex marriage as a threat to heterosexual marriage. The findings show that the frequency with which the frames appear shift across newspapers as well as the time period of study.     

Incorporating Framing into Prospect Theory Modeling: A Mixture-Model Approach

This paper illustrates the use of a statistical technique, finite mixture models, to fit the parameters in cumulative prospect theory. For a given decision, some individuals may adopt a gain frame, while others may adopt a loss frame. By using finite mixture models, the best fitting parameters can be obtained for the two subgroups, even though the information about subjective frames was not available. Our application uses two health insurance survey datasets collected by Rand and Chinese State Natural Science Foundation, respectively. The results are compared with previous studies on framing effects and parameterizations of prospect theory.     

An Experimental Test of the Effects of Fictional Framing on Attitudes*

Objectives. Most studies of media effects in political communication focus on news media. A smaller body of work extends theories of news media effects to fictional entertainment media. Just as news media engage in priming and agenda setting, these studies suggest that fictional media do as well. In this study, we deal with fictional media's framing of issues. No research has sought to test the effects of framing in explicitly fictional media on political opinions. We develop the outlines of a theory we call “fictional framing” and test it in an experiment. Methods. Participants in our treatment group watched the film Cider House Rules. The movie frames the issue of abortion in the case of incest in a pro‐choice way, and frames morality in terms of following one's own conscience. Results. The film influenced opinions in ways consistent with the framing of these issues. Conclusions. Since abortion opinions and moral values tend to be entrenched, we consider this a strong first test of the effects of fictional framing.     

On gender role violations and judgments made about euthanasia: a research note

The impact of perceived gender role violations on the willingness of evaluators to label a deadly act to "end suffering" as euthanasia was explored in two studies. It was predicted that "killing" (even mercy killing) would be perceived as more role contradictory for a female actor than for a male actor. Therefore, it was expected that the deadly actions of a female actor would be judged as less justified (i.e., less likely to be labeled as euthanasia) than the same action committed by a male actor. A total of 486 undergraduates participated in one of two studies. It was found that although perceptions of justification for a deadly act were clearly influenced by whether or not the method of action taken was direct and proactive (commission) vs. indirect and passive (omission), the gender of the actor did not impact differently on the judgments of the participants. Possible explanations and future research directions are discussed.     

Backtracking and the Ethics of Framing: Lessons from Voles and Vasopressin

When communicating scientific information, experts often face difficult choices about how to promote public understanding while also maintaining an appropriate level of objectivity. We argue that one way for scientists and others involved in communicating scientific information to alleviate these tensions is to pay closer attention to the major frames employed in the contexts in which they work. By doing so, they can ideally employ useful frames while also enabling the recipients of information to “backtrack” to relatively uncontroversial facts and recognize how these frames relate to their own values and perspectives. Important strategies for promoting this sort of backtracking include identifying the weaknesses of particular frames, preventing misunderstanding of them, differentiating well-supported findings from more speculative claims, and acknowledging major alternative frames.