Decision framing: moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing

Abstract

Two studies examined the effect of an individual difference variable, need for cognition (NC), and processing of the options on the occurrence of risky choice framing effects. In Study 1 (N ¼ 206), frame interacted with NC and math skill such that no framing effect was observed among those high in both NC and math skill. No effect was found for the processing manipulation of requesting a reason for one's choices. Study 2 (N ¼ 257) enhanced the processing of the problems by asking participants to write out the options as they would describe them to a friend. Results showed that frame interacted with NC and depth of processing such that no framing effect was observed among those high in NC who were in the deep processing condition. These findings suggest that NC and depth of processing need to be considered in concert in order to understand their moderating effects on framing.

Take It or Leave It: How Choosing versus Rejecting Alternatives Affects Information Processing

“…Taken together with prior findings on the moderating role of deliberative processing in framing effects (Gonzalez et al 2003;Simon et al 2004), this result provides preliminary evidence that participants' decisions are more deliberative in rejection compared to choice.…”

“…We then compare the magnitude of these biases across choice and rejection decisions. In studies 1A-C, we first replicate the robust finding that framing options as gains versus losses affects decisions in choice tasks (De Martino et al 2006;Simon, Fagley, and Halleran 2004;Tversky and Kahneman 1981). We then show that such gain versus loss framing changes decisions to a significantly lesser extent in rejection tasksconsistent with more deliberative processing.…”

Take It or Leave It: How Choosing versus Rejecting Alternatives Affects Information Processing

“…Taken together with prior findings on the moderating role of deliberative processing in framing effects (Gonzalez et al 2003;Simon et al 2004), this result provides preliminary evidence that participants' decisions are more deliberative in rejection compared to choice.…”

“…We then compare the magnitude of these biases across choice and rejection decisions. In studies 1A-C, we first replicate the robust finding that framing options as gains versus losses affects decisions in choice tasks (De Martino et al 2006;Simon, Fagley, and Halleran 2004;Tversky and Kahneman 1981). We then show that such gain versus loss framing changes decisions to a significantly lesser extent in rejection tasksconsistent with more deliberative processing.…”

Effective communication of risks to young adults: Using message framing and visual aids to increase condom use and STD screening.

“…These positive attitudes strongly influenced participants' behavioral intentions, which in turn affected their reported behaviors. In line with research examining debiasing of framing effects (e.g., Almashat, Ayotte, Edelstein, & Margrett, 2008;Simon, Fagley, & Halleran, 2004), we hypothesize that 5 Our results are not due to differences in perceptions of the quality of the health message as participants' perceptions were similar in all experimental conditions. Similarly, our results cannot be explained by a misunderstanding of the framing manipulation because participants evaluated the gain-framed message as emphasizing the benefits afforded by adopting the health behavior, whereas they evaluated the loss-framed message as focusing on the costs of failing to adopt the behavior regardless of the message format.…”

“…These positive attitudes strongly influenced participants' behavioral intentions, which in turn affected their reported behaviors. In line with research examining debiasing of framing effects (e.g., Almashat, Ayotte, Edelstein, & Margrett, 2008; Simon, Fagley, & Halleran, 2004), we hypothesize that visual aids may increase the likelihood of better or more elaborative encoding of the relevant information relating to the prevention and detection of STDs. Visual aids might lead to a more thorough encoding of potential benefits of adopting the promoted behavior and drawbacks associated with failing to adopt such behavior.…”

Working memory capacity and the risky-choice framing effect: A preregistered replication and extension of Corbin et al. ()

“…Framing problems: Internal consistency. The internal consistency of the framing problems was Cronbach's alpha = 0.87, which is higher than the values reported in our reference studies (Berthet, 2021, Study 2;Fagley et al, 2010;Simon et al, 2004). Note.…”

Take It or Leave It: How Choosing versus Rejecting Alternatives Affects Information Processing

“…Taken together with prior findings on the moderating role of deliberative processing in framing effects (Gonzalez et al 2003;Simon et al 2004), this result provides preliminary evidence that participants' decisions are more deliberative in rejection compared to choice.…”

“…We then compare the magnitude of these biases across choice and rejection decisions. In studies 1A-C, we first replicate the robust finding that framing options as gains versus losses affects decisions in choice tasks (De Martino et al 2006;Simon, Fagley, and Halleran 2004;Tversky and Kahneman 1981). We then show that such gain versus loss framing changes decisions to a significantly lesser extent in rejection tasksconsistent with more deliberative processing.…”

Effective communication of risks to young adults: Using message framing and visual aids to increase condom use and STD screening.

“…These positive attitudes strongly influenced participants' behavioral intentions, which in turn affected their reported behaviors. In line with research examining debiasing of framing effects (e.g., Almashat, Ayotte, Edelstein, & Margrett, 2008;Simon, Fagley, & Halleran, 2004), we hypothesize that 5 Our results are not due to differences in perceptions of the quality of the health message as participants' perceptions were similar in all experimental conditions. Similarly, our results cannot be explained by a misunderstanding of the framing manipulation because participants evaluated the gain-framed message as emphasizing the benefits afforded by adopting the health behavior, whereas they evaluated the loss-framed message as focusing on the costs of failing to adopt the behavior regardless of the message format.…”

“…These positive attitudes strongly influenced participants' behavioral intentions, which in turn affected their reported behaviors. In line with research examining debiasing of framing effects (e.g., Almashat, Ayotte, Edelstein, & Margrett, 2008; Simon, Fagley, & Halleran, 2004), we hypothesize that visual aids may increase the likelihood of better or more elaborative encoding of the relevant information relating to the prevention and detection of STDs. Visual aids might lead to a more thorough encoding of potential benefits of adopting the promoted behavior and drawbacks associated with failing to adopt such behavior.…”

Working memory capacity and the risky-choice framing effect: A preregistered replication and extension of Corbin et al. ()

“…Framing problems: Internal consistency. The internal consistency of the framing problems was Cronbach's alpha = 0.87, which is higher than the values reported in our reference studies (Berthet, 2021, Study 2;Fagley et al, 2010;Simon et al, 2004). Note.…”

Take It or Leave It: How Choosing versus Rejecting Alternatives Affects Information Processing

“…Taken together with prior findings on the moderating role of deliberative processing in framing effects (Gonzalez et al 2003;Simon et al 2004), this result provides preliminary evidence that participants' decisions are more deliberative in rejection compared to choice.…”

“…We then compare the magnitude of these biases across choice and rejection decisions. In studies 1A-C, we first replicate the robust finding that framing options as gains versus losses affects decisions in choice tasks (De Martino et al 2006;Simon, Fagley, and Halleran 2004;Tversky and Kahneman 1981). We then show that such gain versus loss framing changes decisions to a significantly lesser extent in rejection tasksconsistent with more deliberative processing.…”

Effective communication of risks to young adults: Using message framing and visual aids to increase condom use and STD screening.

“…These positive attitudes strongly influenced participants' behavioral intentions, which in turn affected their reported behaviors. In line with research examining debiasing of framing effects (e.g., Almashat, Ayotte, Edelstein, & Margrett, 2008;Simon, Fagley, & Halleran, 2004), we hypothesize that 5 Our results are not due to differences in perceptions of the quality of the health message as participants' perceptions were similar in all experimental conditions. Similarly, our results cannot be explained by a misunderstanding of the framing manipulation because participants evaluated the gain-framed message as emphasizing the benefits afforded by adopting the health behavior, whereas they evaluated the loss-framed message as focusing on the costs of failing to adopt the behavior regardless of the message format.…”

“…These positive attitudes strongly influenced participants' behavioral intentions, which in turn affected their reported behaviors. In line with research examining debiasing of framing effects (e.g., Almashat, Ayotte, Edelstein, & Margrett, 2008; Simon, Fagley, & Halleran, 2004), we hypothesize that visual aids may increase the likelihood of better or more elaborative encoding of the relevant information relating to the prevention and detection of STDs. Visual aids might lead to a more thorough encoding of potential benefits of adopting the promoted behavior and drawbacks associated with failing to adopt such behavior.…”

Working memory capacity and the risky-choice framing effect: A preregistered replication and extension of Corbin et al. ()

“…Framing problems: Internal consistency. The internal consistency of the framing problems was Cronbach's alpha = 0.87, which is higher than the values reported in our reference studies (Berthet, 2021, Study 2;Fagley et al, 2010;Simon et al, 2004). Note.…”