Effects of Goat Framing in Job Advertisements on Organizational Attractiveness1

Two experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of goal framing in job advertisements on organizational attractiveness. Job ads were created that emphasized the potential costs or losses of not applying (i.e., loss frame) or the potential gains or benefits of applying (i.e., gain frame). The first experiment (N= 70) found that participants were more attracted to the company in the gain‐framed ad than in the loss‐framed ad. The second experiment (N= 100) attempted to determine the reason for the greater attractiveness of the gain‐framed ad compared to the loss‐framed ad. Two possible explanations— valence‐based encoding and regulatory focus—were examined. Results suggest that both valence‐based encoding and regulatory focus mediated the relationship between framing and organizational attractiveness.     

A new spin on losses looming larger than gains: asymmetric implicit associations from slot machine experience

Kahneman and Tversky's prospect theory states, among other things, that losses loom larger than gains. As much research as this simple idea has generated, key questions remain. How fundamental is the losses‐looming‐larger effect: will it emerge under more minimal circumstances than previously tested and will it manifest in implicit associations? And how does the actual experience of predominant losses or gains affect the losses‐looming‐larger effect? In two experiments employing non‐traditional methods, participants experienced slot machine spins in which symbols were paired with gain, loss, and neutral outcomes. After experiencing these pairings, participants took Implicit Association Tests (IATs). In Experiment 1, implicit associations formed by the minimal experience of the slot machine were lopsided: negative associations with the loss symbol were stronger than positive associations with the gain symbol. In addition, it was found that the extent to which losses loomed larger depended on the context of the slot machine experience, with losses looming implicitly larger than gains most when they were fewer in number (participants experienced a net‐gain) and least when they were the predominant outcome (participants experienced a net‐loss). Finally, in Experiment 2, a potential artifact was ruled out and a replication obtained by showing that slot machine losses implicitly loom larger whether conceptualized from the perspective of a casino player or a casino owner. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Self‐Control Moderates Decision‐Making Behavior When Minimizing Losses versus Maximizing Gains

We examined (1) whether people would be more responsive to the delayed consequences of their decisions when attempting to minimize losses than when attempting to maximize gains in a history‐dependent decision‐making task and (2) how trait self‐control would moderate such an effect. In two experiments, participants performed a dynamic decision‐making task where they chose one of two options on each trial. The increasing option always gave a smaller immediate reward but caused future rewards for both options to increase. The decreasing option always gave a larger immediate reward but caused future rewards for both options to decrease. In Experiment 1 where the two options had equivalent expected value in the long run, participants were more prone to select the increasing option, which yielded larger benefits on future trials, in the loss‐minimization condition than in the gain‐maximization condition. Trait self‐control moderated the effect of losses by enhancing the effect for low self‐control participants while attenuating it for high self‐control participants. In Experiment 2 where selecting the increasing option was suboptimal, low self‐control participants still attempted to reduce losses on future trials by selecting the increasing option more often than high self‐control participants. These results suggest that decision makers value delayed consequences of their actions more in a losses domain relative to a gains domain and low self‐control individuals are more susceptible to such an effect. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effects of managerial regulatory fit priming on reactions to explanations

We investigated the interactive effects of regulatory focus priming and message framing on the perceived fairness of unfavorable events. We hypothesized that individuals’ perceptions of fairness are higher when they receive a regulatory focus prime (promotion versus prevention) that is congruent with the framing of an explanation (gain versus loss), as opposed to one that is incongruent. We also hypothesized that these effects are mediated by counterfactual thinking. Three studies revealed that primed regulatory fit (promotion/gain or prevention/loss) led to higher levels of justice perceptions than regulatory misfit (promotion/loss or prevention/gain). Additionally, “could” and “should” counterfactuals partially mediated the relationship between regulatory fit and interactional justice (Study 3).     

得失程数的变化: 损失规避现象的新视点

损失规避是预期理论的核心部分之一, 指等量的损失和获得产生的心理效用并不相同, 前者大于后者。大量研究从生理、认知、情感等角度探讨损失规避的内在机制和规律, 以期认识、预测并控制损失规避导致的偏差。本研究假设损失规避与获得或损失的“程数”(route)有关, 以往研究发现了损失规避现象, 是由于其采用的“双程损失-单程获得”典型情境中, 损失程数多于获得程数。为检验该假设, 本研究设计了不同于传统范式的“获得和损失程数相等”的镜像情境、“单程损失－双程获得”及“三程获得”三种不同的得失情境。研究结果支持本假设: 当损失的程数等于或少于获得的程数时, 损失规避现象消失; 获得或损失的程数越多, 个体对其的心理感受强度趋于越高。建议未来研究进一步检验心理感受强度在程数和损失规避行为之间的中介作用。     

On the Counterfactual Nature of Gambling Near‐misses: An Experimental Study

Research on gambling near‐misses has shown that objectively equivalent outcomes can yield divergent emotional and motivational responses. The subjective processing of gambling outcomes is affected substantially by close but non‐obtained outcomes (i.e. counterfactuals). In the current paper, we investigate how different types of near‐misses influence self‐perceived luck and subsequent betting behavior in a wheel‐of‐fortune task. We investigate the counterfactual mechanism of these effects by testing the relationship with a second task measuring regret/relief processing. Across two experiments (Experiment 1, n = 51; Experiment 2, n = 104), we demonstrate that near‐wins (neutral outcomes that are close to a jackpot) decreased self‐perceived luck, whereas near‐losses (neutral outcomes that are close to a major penalty) increased luck ratings. The effects of near‐misses varied by near‐miss position (i.e. whether the spinner stopped just short of, or passed through, the counterfactual outcome), consistent with established distinctions between upward versus downward, and additive versus subtractive, counterfactual thinking. In Experiment 1, individuals who showed stronger counterfactual processing on the regret/relief task were more responsive to near‐wins and near‐losses on the wheel‐of‐fortune task. The effect of near‐miss position was attenuated when the anticipatory phase (i.e. the spin and deceleration) was removed in Experiment 2. Further differences were observed within the objective gains and losses, between “clear” and “narrow” outcomes. Taken together, these results help substantiate the counterfactual mechanism of near‐misses. © 2017 The Authors Journal of Behavioral Decision Making Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

Cheating: One common morality for gains and losses but two components of morality itself

Previous studies show that decision makers (DMs) lie more to avoid a loss than achieve a gain. Two compelling mechanisms might explain this observation. One assumes that lying is a risky activity and relates to the shape of the monetary value function described by prospect theory, which assumes (a) increased risk taking for loss frames and (b) an asymmetry between the perceived values of losses and gains. The other relates to the importance of self-esteem functions as expressed in self-concept maintenance models, self-esteem issues being weighed against monetary issues. This alternative explanation assumes that a loss frame serves as a factor lowering moral considerations. We report an experimental study presenting sets of lotteries to DMs, once in a moral context and once in a traditional probabilistic context. The results show that DMs take less risk when lotteries are presented in a moral context. It is also shown that DMs take more risk for losses than gains, this holding for both the moral and probabilistic contexts. This latter result suggests that loss/gain asymmetry can be completely explained by prospect theory factors, and framing makes no difference to the valuing of moral considerations.     

Gain or non‐loss: The message matching effect of regulatory focus on moral judgements of other‐orientation lies

Previous studies found that individuals with promotion focus are more likely to be persuaded by messages framed in terms of gain‐related words; individuals with prevention focus are more likely to be persuaded by messages framed in terms of loss‐related words. This is known as the message matching effect of regulatory focus. The present study extended this effect into the field of moral judgement of other‐orientation lies. Two experiments were conducted, revealing that (a) individuals with promotion focus judged gain‐framed other‐orientation lies to be more moral, while individuals with prevention focus judged non‐loss‐framed other‐orientation lies to be more moral; and (b) the subjective processing fluency had a partial mediating role in the message matching effect. Theoretical implications and future research directions were discussed.     

Costs and satisfaction in close relationships: The role of loss–gain framing

Two studies were conducted to clarify the pattern of mixed results found in past research regarding the association between costs and satisfaction in close relationships. Insights from Prospect Theory (D. Kahneman & A. Tversky, 1979, 2000) suggested the importance of gain–loss framing in understanding costs. When costs are attached to valued outcomes, they are perceived as gains or investments; otherwise they are perceived as losses. Appreciation by one's partner for communal behaviors and family chores provided the basis for exploring costs as gains versus losses. We hypothesized that when costs were appreciated, the greater the costs, the greater the relationship satisfaction; whereas when they were not appreciated, the greater the costs, the lower the relationship satisfaction. Further, we expected appreciation to be associated with perceived motives for incurring the costs: positively with “want” perceptions and negatively with “should” perceptions. These hypotheses were supported in research with both dating couples and women in long‐term marital or cohabiting relationships and using two types of communal behaviors: Partner Favors and more tedious Family Chores. In general, the greater the number of communal behaviors and family chores, the greater the relationship satisfaction when appreciated; the greater the number, the lower the satisfaction when relatively unappreciated.     

Regulatory Framing and Collective Action: The Interplay of Individual Self‐Regulation and Group Behavior

Two studies examined the relations between regulatory focus and collective action. In Study 1, undergraduate women expressed stronger action intentions when they were primed to consider prevention (ought‐self) self‐discrepancies than promotion (ideal‐self) self‐discrepancies, suggesting that collective action is more likely to occur when individuals are prevention‐ rather than promotion‐focused. In Study 2, however, prevention‐focused women expressed stronger action intentions in response to security framing, whereas promotion‐focused women expressed stronger action intentions in response to achievement framing. This suggests that the relative disinterest in collective action among promotion‐focused individuals can be overcome with the appropriate promotion‐focused framing. Implications for analyses of both collective action and regulatory focus are discussed.     

Individual Differences in Applicant Reactions: A Job‐Search Perspective

This study used three variables from a self‐regulatory job‐search framework to investigate individual differences in the relationship between applicants' perceived procedural fairness of selection tests and job‐pursuit intentions. Employment commitment, job‐search self‐efficacy, and motivational control were hypothesized to moderate the procedural fairness – job‐pursuit intentions relationship while controlling for pretest attitudes and perceived performance. Applicants (N=291) for entry‐level clerical jobs with large federal agencies completed pretest and posttest surveys. Results suggested that only job‐search self‐efficacy and motivational control moderated the relationship between perceived procedural fairness and job‐pursuit intentions. The relationship was stronger for applicants with higher levels of job‐search self‐efficacy and lower levels of motivational control.     

Effects of valence and framing in decision-making: Assessing decision-makers' perceived domains of choice

Abstract: In comparison between choice alternatives, 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 experiments used the directions of valence effects as a tool to assess decision‐maker's interpretation of choice tasks under “framing effects” ( 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. Two experiments showed that preferences for certain options were associated with positive valence effects, whereas preferences for uncertain options were associated with negative valence effects. Moreover, conditions wherein the framing manipulations lose the effectiveness were examined. Valence effects showed that framing effects ceased to occur when decision‐makers maintained consistent domain perceptions as pertaining to gains or to losses, across the domains of gains and losses. Implications are discussed.     

Motivational Effects of the Perceived Image of Non‐governmental Organisations

The motivational effect of the perceived image of non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) was analysed in two studies. Results from the first study, comprising two samples (N = 314 and N = 220), point to three dimensions of the perceived image of NGOs (solidarity, misleading and instrumentality). These dimensions have different effects on intention to collaborate and to recommend others to collaborate. In the second study, with a sample of N = 485, confirmatory analysis confirmed the three‐factor solution as appropriate. The misleading image emerged as a source of reactance to NGO campaigns. Results suggest the importance of promoting the image of solidarity as a motivational strategy. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The impact of regulatory focus on affective responses to social discrimination

The impact of individuals' regulatory focus and the domain of outcomes (non‐gains vs. losses) on the target's affective responses to social discrimination were tested. Based on regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997 ), it was predicted that a prevention focus would lead to more anger and agitation after social discrimination, because experiencing social discrimination is similar to experiencing failure. This pattern was predicted to be more pronounced when social discrimination was based on losses than when social discrimination was based on non‐gains (i.e., when the in‐group was evaluated more negatively vs. less positively compared to the out‐group). The results of three studies using chronic and situationally induced regulatory focus confirmed these predictions. No effect was found for the promotion focus. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Predicting the intensity of losses vs. non-gains and non-losses vs. gains in judging fairness and value: A test of the loss aversion explanation

Three studies examined the predictions that in the context of evaluation of fairness and concessions in negotiations, losses would be perceived as more intensely negative than non-gains, and that non-losses would be perceived as more positive than gains. Extant studies tested only the first of these predictions. These predictions derive from the principle of loss aversion (LA), according to which losses are experienced more intensely than gains of similar objective magnitude. In this view, losses and non-losses are measured against the steep loss part of the value curve, whereas gains and non-gains are measured against the shallow part of the value curve. Our studies replicated extant studies in confirming the first prediction but failed to confirm the second prediction. Specifically, opposite to the prediction of LA, gains were perceived as more intensely positive than non-losses. It seems, therefore, that LA is not a sufficient explanation of why losses are perceived as more averse than gains. Feature positive and regulatory focus effects are discussed as additional potential contributors to the phenomenon.     

Regulatory focus and message framing: A test of three accounts

A review of previous literature shows that there are at least three ways in which regulatory focus may be related to message framing. Specifically, persuasion might be enhanced when there is a match between a person’s regulatory focus and (a) the outcome focus of the message (i.e., gain vs. loss anchor); (b) the overall valence of the message (i.e., positive vs. negative valence); and (c) the type of benefit or harm emphasized (i.e., achievement vs. security). In an effort to explicitly compare and contrast these three possibilities, and to determine whether the results depend on the way regulatory focus is measured, we used a 2 (outcome focus) by 2 (overall valence) by 2 (type of benefit or harm emphasized) within-subjects factorial design and three commonly employed measures of regulatory focus to test the three accounts. The findings were most consistent with the hypothesis that the perceived persuasiveness of a message is increased when there is a match between a person’s chronic regulatory focus and the overall valence of the message.     

The influence of self‐efficacy on the effects of framed health messages

Health promoting messages can be framed in terms of the gains that are associated with healthy behaviour, or the losses that are associated with unhealthy behaviour. In this study, we examined the influence of self‐efficacy to quit smoking on the effects of gain framed and loss framed anti‐smoking messages in a randomized controlled trial among 539 adult smokers. Participants with a high self‐efficacy to quit smoking reported higher levels of motivation to quit smoking after receiving a loss framed message than after receiving a gain framed message or no message. For these participants receiving a gain framed message did not result in a higher motivation to quit smoking than receiving no message. For participants with a low self‐efficacy to quit smoking there were no differences in motivation to quit smoking between the gain framed message condition, loss framed message condition and control condition. Our results suggest that self‐efficacy can moderate the effects of message framing on persuasion. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An information processing view of framing effects: The role of causal schemas in decision making

People prefer a sure gain to a probable larger gain when the two choices are presented from a gain perspective, but a probable larger loss to a sure loss when the objectively identical choices are presented from a loss perspective. Such reversals of preference due to the context of the problem are known asframing effects. In the present study, schema activation and subjects’ interpretations of the problems were examined as sources of the framing effects. Results showed that such effects could be eliminated by introducing into a problem a causal schema that provided a rationale for the reciprocal relationship between the gains and the losses. Moreover, when subjects were freed from framing they were consistently risk seeking in decisions about human life, but risk averse in decisions about property. Irrationality in choice behaviors and the ecological implication of framing effects are discussed.     

Distinct pathways to persuasion: The role of affect in message‐framing effects

Health‐promoting messages can be framed in terms of the gains that are associated with healthy behaviour (gain frame) or the losses that are associated with unhealthy behaviour (loss frame). In the present research, we examined the role of positive and negative affect in the persuasive effects of gain‐ and loss‐framed health‐promoting information. Experiment 1 (N = 98) showed that gain‐framed information resulted in higher levels of information acceptance than loss‐framed information and that this effect was mediated by positive affect. The results of Experiment 2 (N = 129) showed that gain‐framed information resulted in higher levels of information acceptance and attitude, an effect that was again mediated by positive affect. In addition, loss‐framed information resulted in more negative affect than gain‐framed information and negative affect increased participants' intention to engage in the healthy behaviour. These results suggest that affect may be of great importance in the persuasion process and may be particularly helpful to explain the underlying mechanisms of message framing effects. The findings also suggest that gain‐ and loss‐framed messages offer distinct pathways to persuasion. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The construction of risk in relationships: The role of framing in decisions about intimate relationships

Two studies examined the applicability of Kahneman and Tversky's (1979) notion of “framing” to decision making in romantic relationships. Using scenarios about hypothetical relationships, the results of Study 1 demonstrated that framing objectively identical alternatives in terms of losses versus gains affected participants' preferences for risky versus cautious actions. Furthermore, adult attachment style was found to moderate the impact of this framing effect. Study 2 examined individual differences in people's spontaneous tendencies to frame their feelings about their actual relationships in terms of losses or gains. Consistent with the findings of Study 1, attachment style was reliably associated with spontaneous framing. Secure individuals were most likely to represent their feelings in terms of a “gains frame” whereas fearful individuals were most likely to represent their feelings in terms of a “loss frame.”