Effects of problem frame and gender on principals’ decision making

Research indicates people’s decisions can sometimes be influenced by seemingly trivial differences in the framing (i.e., wording) of alternative options. The tendency to prefer risk averse options when framed positively and risky options when framed negatively is known as the framing effect. The current study examined the susceptibility of school principals to the framing effect. Additionally, analytical and intuitive decision styles, the degree to which one’s typical goal is to maximize (rather than satisfice), gender, and years of experience as a principal were measured to assess whether they are predictive of principals’ choices, and to test whether they moderate the effects of framing on choice. Seventy-one principals completed six decision problems (framed either positively or negatively) and instruments assessing decision style, typical decision goal, gender, and experience. Analyses demonstrated that principals are influenced by framing. Although the positively and negatively framed versions of the decision problems were objectively identical, negative framing resulted in more risky choices. Additionally, regardless of frame, men made more risky choices than women. There was no evidence that experience, decision style, or the degree to which one’s typical decision goal was to maximize, decreased framing effects. Several potential debiasing strategies are described, and limitations are noted.     

When the glass is half‐empty: Framing effects and evaluations of a romantic partner's attributes

Two studies examined how the framing of information influences evaluations of hypothetical relationships. Studies 1 (n= 183) and 2 (n= 247) examined how the framing of a hypothetical partner's attributes in gains or loss terms influences (a) impressions of the future success of the relationship and (b) the perceived importance of the partner's attributes. Generally, participants were less pessimistic about a relationship's future success when the partner's attributes were framed in gains terms than when framed in loss terms, even though the attributes were objectively identical in each case. Participants also attached significantly more importance to intelligence when it was missing among a partner's strengths than when it was present, particularly when the attribute was presented in a loss frame. This research has important implications for the integration of the decision‐making and relationship cognition literatures.     

Lies and bullshit: The negative effects of misinformation grow stronger over time

In a world where exposure to untrustworthy communicators is common, trust has become more important than ever for effective marketing. Nevertheless, we know very little about the long-term consequences of exposure to untrustworthy sources, such bullshitters. This research examines how untrustworthy sources—liars and bullshitters—influence consumer attitudes toward a product. Frankfurt's (1986) insidious bullshit hypothesis (i.e., bullshitting is evaluated less negatively than lying but bullshit can be more harmful than are lies) is examined within a traditional sleeper effect—a persuasive influence that increases, rather than decays over time. We obtained a sleeper effect after participants learned that the source of the message was either a liar or a bullshitter. However, compared to the liar source condition, the same message from a bullshitter resulted in more extreme immediate and delayed attitudes that were in line with an otherwise discounted persuasive message (i.e., an advertisement). Interestingly, attitudes returned to control condition levels when a bullshitter was the source of the message, suggesting that knowing an initially discounted message may be potentially accurate/inaccurate (as is true with bullshit, but not lies) does not result in the long-term discounting of that message. We discuss implications for marketing and other contexts of persuasion.     

Commonalities and Differences Among Frames: A Unification Model

We provide a review and a theoretically unifying model of framing effects. Beginning with a review of findings that prospect theory, fuzzy‐trace theory, and traditional dual process models do and do not explain, we develop a model of framing based partly on Bless and Schwarz's (2010) inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast. Our model is the first of its kind to be applied to all three valence framing manipulations and presents common mechanisms explaining findings in the framing literature that were previously difficult to conceptualize within a single theory (e.g., matching effects and cognitive effort). The model also accounts for why all three framing manipulations are influenced by differences between holistic/contextual versus analytic processing as well as the presence, absence, and direction of effects produced by different versions of framing manipulations. It also predicts contrast effects (Implications and Future Directions section) and applies to manipulations involving a frame and judgmental target. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

不同建议来源和关系亲疏下突发事件决策中的框架效应

从建议来源和关系亲疏两个方面对突发事件下的决策框架效应进行探讨。采用2（建议来源：来自普通群众／消防人员）×2（关系亲疏：关系亲密／关系疏远）×2（任务框架：正面框架／负面框架）完全被试间实验设计。实验材料以突发事件为背景,根据Kahneman（1981）研究的经典“亚洲疾病问题”改编。采用集体施测的方法,240名来自济南和重庆的大学生参加了实验。结果发现：①建议来源影响被试的决策反应,尤其是当建议来自专业人士（如消防人员）时,决策者表现出偏好于风险的单向框架效应;②关系亲疏导致不同的框架效应,在拯救包括亲属在内的受灾人群（关系亲密）时,框架效应非常明显;但当拯救陌生人（关系疏远）时,决策者表现出偏好于风险的单向框架效应;③当建议来源和关系亲疏共同作用于被试决策时,凡涉及关系亲密条件时决策者不管建议来源都表现出明显的框架效应;而当关系疏远时不同的建议来源导致决策者的决策框架不同。这说明,不同的建议来源和关系亲疏对突发事件下的决策框架效应产生了影响。     

The Role of Inference in Attribute Framing Effects

Previous research has shown that a speaker's choice between logically equivalent frames is influenced by reference point information, and that listeners draw accurate inferences based on the frame. Less clear, however, is whether these inferences play a causal role in generating attribute framing effects. Two experiments are reported, which suggest that frame‐dependent inferences are sufficient to generate attribute framing effects, and that blocking such inferences may block framing effects. Experiment 1 decomposed the typical framing design into two parts: One group of participants saw a target described in one of two attribute frames and reported their estimates (inferences) of the typical attribute value. These estimates were then given to a second group of yoked participants, who evaluated the target. Although this latter group was not exposed to different attribute frames, they nevertheless exhibited a “framing effect” as a result of receiving systematically different inferences. In contrast, Experiment 2 shows that experts—who are familiar with an attribute's distribution and are therefore less likely to draw strong frame‐based inferences—exhibit a diminished framing effect. Together, these findings underscore the role of inferences in the generation and attenuation of attribute framing effects. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Multiple Framing: Verbal,Facial, and Vocal Cues in Risky Choice

Verbal framing effects have been widely studied, but little is known about how people react to multiple framing cues in risk communication, where verbal messages are often accompanied by facial and vocal cues. We examined joint and differential effects of verbal, facial, and vocal framing on risk preference in hypothetical monetary and life–death situations. In the multiple framing condition with the factorial design (2 verbal frames × 2 vocal tones × 4 basic facial expressions × 2 task domains), each scenario was presented auditorily with a written message on a photo of the messenger's face. Compared with verbal framing effects resulting in preference reversal, multiple frames made risky choice more consistent and shifted risk preference without reversal. Moreover, a positive tone of voice increased risk‐seeking preference in women. When the valence of facial and vocal cues was incongruent with verbal frame, verbal framing effects were significant. In contrast, when the affect cues were congruent with verbal frame, framing effects disappeared. These results suggest that verbal framing is given higher priority when other affect cues are incongruent. Further analysis revealed that participants were more risk‐averse when positive affect cues (positive tone or facial expressions) were congruently paired with a positive verbal frame whereas participants were more risk‐seeking when positive affect cues were incongruent with the verbal frame. In contrast, for negative affect cues, congruency promoted risk‐seeking tendency whereas incongruency increased risk‐aversion. Overall, the results show that facial and vocal cues interact with verbal framing and significantly affect risk communication. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Biased assimilation: the role of source position

Biased assimilation is the tendency to evaluate belief‐consistent information more positively than belief‐inconsistent information. Previous research has demonstrated that biased assimilation is due to an inconsistency between an argument and the recipient's position toward this argument. The present research revealed that an inconsistency between a source's position (independently of the argument) and the recipient's position is also responsible for biased assimilation. In two studies, participants evaluated arguments stated by a politician. Party affiliation of the politician was correctly labeled, incorrectly labeled, or not labeled. The politicians' arguments were evaluated more favorably by their respective voters when party affiliation was correctly labeled. This biased evaluation diminished when party affiliation was not labeled and even slightly reversed when party affiliation was incorrectly labeled. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Exploring the Valence‐Framing Effect: Negative Framing Enhances Attitude Strength

In his now‐classic research on inoculation theory, McGuire (1964 ) demonstrated that exposing people to an initial weak counterattitudinal message could lead to enhanced resistance to a subsequent stronger counterattitudinal message. More recently, research on the valence‐framing effect ( Bizer & Petty, 2005 ) demonstrated an alternative way to make attitudes more resistant. Simply framing a person's attitude negatively (i.e., in terms of a rejected position such as anti‐Democrat) led to more resistance to an attack on that attitude than did framing the same attitude positively (i.e., in terms of a preferred position such as pro‐Republican). Using an election context, the current research tested whether valence framing influences attitude resistance specifically or attitude strength more generally, providing insight into the effect's mechanism and generalizability. In two experiments, attitude valence was manipulated by framing a position either negatively or positively. Experiment 1 showed that negatively framed attitudes were held with more certainty than were positively framed attitudes. In Experiment 2, conducted among a representative sample of residents of two U.S. states during political campaigns, negatively framed attitudes demonstrated higher levels of attitude certainty and attitude‐consistent behavioral intentions than did attitudes that were framed positively. Furthermore, the effect of valence framing on behavioral intentions was mediated by attitude certainty. Valence framing thus appears to be a relatively low‐effort way to impact multiple features associated with strong attitudes.     

Exploring Message Framing Outcomes When Systematic,Heuristic, or Both Types of Processing Occur

Mixed findings have emerged in message framing studies, even when such studies employ the same general type of framing, such as goal framing. This article attempts to show that by extending the heuristic–systematic model‐based explanation of message framing effects to incorporate conditions that may prompt both systematic and heuristic processing, this theory may accommodate some of the aberrant findings. The research reported shows that by varying a message issue's risky implications and its personal relevance, 2 factors that potentially influence the type of processing people employ, systematic, heuristic, or concurrently both types of processing were evoked and influenced people's judgments, causing alternative patterns of message framing effects to occur. The results offer insight into how each of these types of processing can affect message framing outcomes, and they imply that certain seemingly aberrant findings in the literature can be reconciled with this extended theory.     

Effects of attribute framing on cognitive processing and evaluation

Whereas there is extensive documentation that attribute framing influences the content of people’s thought, we generally know less about how it affects the processes assumed to precede those thoughts. While existing explanations for attribute framing effects rely completely on valence-based associative processing, the results obtained in the present study are also consistent with the notion that negative framing stimulates more effortful and thorough information processing than positive framing. Specifically, results from a simulated business decision-making experiment showed that decision makers receiving negatively framed information had significantly better recall than those receiving positively framed information. Furthermore, decision makers in the negative framing condition were less confident than decision makers in the positively framed condition. Finally, compared to a no-framing condition, decision makers receiving positive framing deviated significantly more in evaluation than decision makers receiving negative framing did.     

Assimilation ideology and situational well-being among ethnic minority members

Two experimental questionnaire studies were conducted to test whether assimilation ideology affects the relationship between ethnic self-esteem and situational well-being of Turkish-Dutch participants. Social identity theory argues that ethnic identity can buffer the effects of group identity threat on well-being, and self-esteem research suggests that a positively evaluated self-aspect can form an important source of well-being. Results show that in an assimilation context, ethnic self-esteem is positively related to feelings of global self-worth and general life-satisfaction. The findings suggest that ethnic self-esteem is an important factor for well-being in an assimilation context that undermines minority group members ability to live their ethnic identity and threatens their group’s positive distinctiveness.     

Are highly numerate individuals invulnerable to attribute framing bias? Comparing numerically and graphically represented attribute framing

Judgments and decisions are frequently biased by attribute framing, presenting either positive or negative attributes of an object. This paper focused on two factors previously shown to moderate the attribute‐framing bias: mode of presentation and participants' numeric ability. Whereas many studies demonstrated that graphical display reduced the bias, recent findings suggest that graphical manipulation can nevertheless elicit significant framing bias. Numeracy has been shown to moderate attribute‐framing bias when the quantitative information was represented by numbers. The present study examined to what extent numeracy would still moderate the framing bias when it is graphically elicited. The results showed a significant framing bias for graphically as well as for numerically represented framing scenarios. Critically, whereas numeracy moderated the framing bias in numerically represented scenarios, it did not have a similar moderating effect when the quantitative information in the scenario was graphically represented. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.     

Choice,Rating, and Ranking: Framing Effects with Different Response Modes

In a typical risky choice framing task, people have to choose among two options, which are either positively or negatively framed. Choices in the two framing conditions are then compared. However, different preferences between the conditions can be due to changes in the evaluation of the single constituent options or due to specific processes triggered by the choice task. In order to clarify the source of the framing effect, we investigate the effect with different response modes: choice, rating, and ranking. The rating and ranking findings indicate that what is commonly called a risky choice framing effect is actually a framing effect that changes the evaluation of only the riskless option, although there is little or no effect on the risky option. According to these findings, risky choice framing might be construed as a process of attribute framing, which is independent of risk preference in choice contexts. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Context effects in political judgement: assimilation and contrast as a function of categorization processes

Two experiments demonstrate that thinking about a given politician may result in assimilation as well as contrast effects in evolutions of the politician's party. In two experiments, assimilation effects were observed when an experimental categorization task elicited the inclusion of a highly respected politician in the representation formed of his party, whereas contrast effects were observed when the categorization task elicited his exclusion from the representation, with the control group falling in between. Hence, the same information may elicit assimilation as well as contrast effects, depending on its use in mental construal. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

To Accept or to Reject: The Effect of Framing on Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action1

Two experiments examined the effect of framing on attitudes toward an affirmative‐action program of preferential treatment. Participants' attitudes were consistently more favorable toward the affirmative‐action program presented in a positive frame—preferring a target group's applicant over a majority group's applicant—than when the very same program was presented in a negative frame—rejecting the majority group's applicant in favor of the target group's applicant. Similar effects were evident for 3 target groups in the context of higher education selection and personnel selection. Two theoretical explanations for the effect of framing on attitudes toward affirmative‐action programs are suggested. The implications of this effect are discussed, and the challenges facing future research of this phenomenon are outlined.     

GENERALITY AND SIDE EFFECTS OF OVERCORRECTION1

The effects and side effects of overcorrection for self-stimulatory behaviors of two children in a specialized day-care program were evaluated. For one child, a “hand” overcorrection procedure involving arm and hand exercises was introduced contingent upon inappropriate hand movements and later contingent upon inappropriate foot movements. After “hand” overcorrection was withdrawn for inappropriate foot movements, a “foot” overcorrection procedure involving foot and leg exercises was introduced contingent upon inappropriate foot movements. For a second child, the “hand” overcorrection procedure was introduced contingent upon inappropriate hand movements during a free-play period, and later contingent upon inappropriate vocalizations at naptime. “Hand” overcorrection was withdrawn and then re-introduced sequentially for both behaviors. Several concurrent behaviors were measured to assess multiple effects of treatment. Results for both children indicated the “hand” overcorrection procedure suppressed inappropriate hand movements and inappropriate behaviors that were topographically dissimilar. In addition, inverse relationships were observed between the second child's inappropriate hand movements and appropriate toy usage during free play and between his inappropriate vocalizations and inappropriate foot movements during naptime. Results suggest that overcorrection procedures that are effective for one behavior can be used to reduce the frequency of topographically different behaviors. This finding is discussed in terms of its practical implications for therapists.     

Self-Discrepancies and Involvement Moderate the Effects of Positive and Negative Message Framing in Persuasive Communication

One individual difference that is conceptually closely related to the positive and negative framing of outcomes in persuasive communications is the person's self-discrepancy. It was expected that a match between a person's self-discrepancy and framing will lead to more persuasion, under the condition that the information is processed centrally (high involvement). Two experiments were conducted to test this expectation, one through the Internet among obese people and one in the laboratory among students. Both experiments showed that only among those with high involvement—assessed as an individual difference—participants with an ideal-discrepancy were persuaded the most by the positively framed information, whereas participants with an ought-discrepancy were persuaded the most by the negatively framed information.     

Impact of mood,framing, and need for cognition on decision makers' recall and confidence

This study examined the impact of mood, information framing, and need for cognition on participants' amount of recall and level of confidence in a simulated business‐decision‐making setting. No main effect was obtained for either positive or negative mood. However, in support of the congruity–incongruity hypothesis, participants who received mood‐congruent framing information (positive mood/positive framing and negative mood/negative framing) showed significantly better recall and were significantly less overconfident than those who received mood‐incongruent framing information (positive mood/negative framing and negative mood/positive framing). Yet, congruity–incongruity effects were moderated by decision makers' need for cognition and were obtained only among participants' with a lower cognitive processing requirement. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.