Verbal probabilities: a question of frame?

Verbal expressions of probability and uncertainty are of two kinds: positive (‘probable’, ‘possible’) and negative (‘not certain’, ‘doubtful’). Choice of term has implications for predictions and decisions. The present studies show that positive phrases are rated to be more optimistic (when the target outcome is positive), and more correct, when the target outcome actually occurs, even in cases where positive and negative phrases are perceived to convey the same probabilities (Experiments 1 and 2). Selection of phrase can be determined by linguistic frame. Positive quantifiers (‘some’, ‘several’) support positive probability phrases, whereas negative quantifiers (‘not all’) suggest negative phrases (Experiment 3). Positive frames induced by numeric frequencies (e.g. the number of students to be admitted) imply positive probability phrases, whereas negative frames (e.g. the number of students to be rejected) call for negative probability phrases (Experiment 4). It is concluded that choice of verbal phrase is based not only on level of probability, but also on situational and linguistic cues. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

阈下特征框架效应心理机制初探

特征框架效应是指当分别以积极框架和消极框架来描述给定情景中的某一事物或事件的关键特征时,一般情况下人们更偏好以积极框架来描述其关键特征的事物或事件的现象.本研究通过2个实验验证了阈下特征框架效应的存在及其产生机制.实验一发现,阈下特征框架效应只在有时间压力下才会产生.实验二发现,被试对与框架类型一致的词汇判断的反应时比对与框架类型不一致的词汇判断的反应时更快,这在一定程度上说明特征框架效应的产生是因为框架激活了与框架一致性的信息,起到了语义启动的作用,从而导致被试判断任务的评定值偏向该框架类型.     

Thinking about product attributes: Investigating the role of unconscious valence processing in attribute framing

In the present investigation we conducted three studies to examine how unconscious valence processing influences participants' quality judgments in an attribute-framing task. In Studies 1 and 2 we observed how individuals who had depleted cognitive resources, through distraction (Study 2) and time constraint (Study 3), differed in their responses to an attribute-framing task. In Study 3 we subliminally primed participants with attribute frames and then presented them with a frameless decision task. Our results revealed that attribute framing arises from unconscious valence processing and conscious processing may only play a role when the frame is especially salient.     

框架效应的应用研究及其应用技巧

个体的决策及偏好常会因信息的表达方式而变, 研究者将这种违背期望效用理论不变性的现象称之为“框架效应”。框架效应体现了人类非理性决策的普遍性, 也为合理利用人类的决策特点以干预其决策行为提供了重要契机。本文总结了框架效应在健康行为、市场营销及环保领域中的应用研究, 着重分析了数量信息的表达技巧, 如风险信息的呈现、数量单位的选择以及图形的物理属性设计, 旨在探讨如何在实践过程中通过变化信息呈现方式以实现对人类决策行为的重要影响。     

记忆编码中目标与背景的情绪一致性对记忆提取的影响

摘 要 本研究将经典情绪启动范式和学习-再认范式相结合,探讨学习时启动与目标的情绪一致性对目标再认的影响。在记忆编码阶段,以情绪面孔图片为启动刺激、一般情绪图片为目标刺激,要求被试对目标图片的效价进行判断;在提取阶段向被试呈现一般情绪图片,要求被试判断是否在前一阶段见过。结果表明,编码阶段的加工背景对记忆提取产生了显著影响。一致启动促进了认知加工与记忆编码,提高了再认正确率。ERP结果也表明,在目标刺激呈现后300-500ms,编码时的情绪一致性对再认阶段消极目标诱发的ERP产生了显著影响。     

What causes failure to apply the Pigeonhole Principle in simple reasoning problems?

The Pigeonhole Principle states that if n items are sorted into m categories and if n > m, then at least one category must contain more than one item. For instance, if 22 pigeons are put into 17 pigeonholes, at least one pigeonhole must contain more than one pigeon. This principle seems intuitive, yet when told about a city with 220,000 inhabitants none of whom has more than 170,000 hairs on their head, many people think that it is merely likely that two inhabitants have the exact same number of hair. This failure to apply the Pigeonhole Principle might be due to the large numbers used, or to the cardinal rather than nominal presentation of these numbers. We show that performance improved both when the numbers are presented nominally, and when they are small, albeit less so. We discuss potential interpretations of these results in terms of intuition and reasoning.     

红色及图形表征对健康行为的助推作用

本研究旨在通过3个实验从信息凸显的角度探讨红色图形对健康行为的助推作用。实验一和实验二分别采用星号图和直条图,通过操纵图形颜色或装有实验材料的信封颜色,以探讨数量信息表征方式（图形 vs. 数字）及颜色（红色 vs. 蓝色、黑色或白色）对健康风险回避行为的影响。实验三将针对宫颈癌疫苗接种这一健康行为,采用更加形象的人物杆形图进一步考察在不同决策框架下（损失/收益）红色图形能否有效助推个体的健康行为意愿。结果发现,在损失及收益情景下,红色图形均能稳定助推个体的健康行为,但当用信封颜色操纵颜色背景时,红色的影响力会降低。结果支持：红色图形可有效助推个体的健康行为。     

Attribute Framing and Goal Framing Effects in Health Decisions

Levin, Schneider, and Gaeth (LSG, 1998) have distinguished among three types of framing—risky choice, attribute, and goal framing—to reconcile conflicting findings in the literature. In the research reported here, we focus on attribute and goal framing. LSG propose that positive frames should be more effective than negative frames in the context of attribute framing, and negative frames should be more effective than positive frames in the context of goal framing. We test this framework by manipulating frame valence (positive vs negative) and frame type (attribute vs goal) in a unified context with common procedures. We also argue that the nature of effects in a goal-framing context may depend on the extent to which the research topic has “intrinsic self-relevance” to the population. In the context of medical decision making, we operationalize low intrinsic self-relevance by using student subjects and high intrinsic self-relevance by using patients. As expected, we find complete support for the LSG framework under low intrinsic self-relevance and modified support for the LSG framework under high intrinsic self-relevance. Overall, our research appears to confirm and extend the LSG framework.     

特征框架效应的心理机制与影响因素

特征框架效应是指当分别以积极框架和消极框架来描述给定情境中某一事物或事件的关键特征时, 一般情况下人们更偏好以积极框架来描述其关键特征的事物或事件的现象。特征框架效应广泛的存在于消费、医学及政治等领域。目前, 它的解释机制主要包括效价加工的认知机制、参照依赖、查询理论以及认知神经机制。它的影响因素主要包括经验、人格特质、计算能力以及认知闭合需要等。未来的研究应该从深入探索特征框架效应的产生根源和影响因素, 拓展其应用研究, 深入探索偏好消极框架下的特征框架效应以及探讨该现象与其它现象之间的关系等五方面展开。     

情绪、边框影响决策认知过程的实验研究

借用问题空间,通过实验探讨情绪、边框对决策认知过程的影响,以进一步考察边框效应的本质特点。结果如下：情绪、边框均独立对决策认知过程产生影响;积极、消极信息导致不同的加工方式;积极信息既利于节省认知资源,又利于作出符合当前环境的决策。     

Effects of valence and framing in decision making II: Estimating subjective weighting1

Abstract: In comparison between choice options, judgments of “How much better is a preferred option?” and “How much worse is a less preferred option?” may differ in their magnitudes. Such discrepancies are called “valence effects.” Previously, Yamagishi and Miyamoto (1996) observed systematic positive valence effects (“Better” exceeding “Worse”) in the domain of gains and systematic negative valence effects (“Worse” exceeding “Better”) in the domain of losses. The current experiment used the directions of valence effects as a tool to assess the decision maker's interpretation of choice tasks under the “framing effect” ( Tversky & Kahneman, 1986 ). Preferences under the framing effect switch from certain options in the domain of gains to uncertain options in the domain of losses. This study examined whether preferences for certain options were associated with positive valence effects, whereas preferences for uncertain options were associated with negative valence effects. Moreover, conditions under which preference reversals under the framing manipulations ceased to occur were examined. The effects of valence showed that framing effects ceased to occur when decision makers maintained consistent task interpretations as pertaining to gains or to losses. Most importantly, the pattern of subjective weighting under the valence effects was consistent with previous explanation of valence effects ( Yamagishi & Miyamoto, 1996 ). Possibilities for extending the current findings to understanding related psychological phenomena are discussed.