2017
DOI: 10.1002/bdm.2036
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: A long-lasting assumption about the framing effect is that if the participants discover the purpose of the experiment in a within-subject design, then this test transparency would trigger them to override their initial answer and make coherent choices. For this reason, researchers try to mask the connection between the two parts of the test by inserting filling questions or a time delay between the two parts of the test. In this research, we explored the extent to which these customarily used masking solutions… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
11
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 55 publications
2
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This is unusual for risky choice findings, although not unprecedented in studies which like ours still find a clear framing effect (e.g. Aczel, Szollosi, & Bago, 2018). According to the risk-as-feelings hypothesis, this would not lead to reduced risk-taking for others given that people's own risk preferences were not risk-seeking.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 52%
“…This is unusual for risky choice findings, although not unprecedented in studies which like ours still find a clear framing effect (e.g. Aczel, Szollosi, & Bago, 2018). According to the risk-as-feelings hypothesis, this would not lead to reduced risk-taking for others given that people's own risk preferences were not risk-seeking.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 52%
“…The low internal consistency of the scale might also be one reason why the reported correlations with other measures of rational thought and action have been relatively low (Bruine de Bruin et al, 2007; Stanovich et al, 2016). Importantly, some have used the finding that resistance to framing does not reliably predict everyday decision outcomes (Bruine de Bruin et al, 2007) to argue that resistance to framing is not a valid measure of rational behavior (Aczel et al, 2018). Our approach suggests that the low correlations might, at least in part, be due to the low reliability of the scale which should be explicitly corrected for by researchers.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Importantly, some have used the finding that resistance to framing does not reliably predict everyday decision outcomes (Bruine de Bruin et al, 2007) to argue that resistance to framing is not a valid measure of rational behavior (Aczel et al, 2018). Our approach suggests that the low correlations might, at least in part, be due to the low reliability of the scale which should be explicitly corrected for by researchers.…”
Section: Considerations Related To Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After providing informed consent and demographics, participants were presented with the positive and negative frame block, in a counterbalanced order, whereby the risky-choice subblock was always presented first within each frame block (Bruine de Bruin et al, 2007). Between the two frame blocks, participants completed the AOT and BSR, in randomized order, separating the administration of the positive and the negative frame by approximately 5 min (Aczel et al, 2018). Items of every scale and framing problems within a subblock were randomized (excluding ACTIVELY OPEN-MINDED THINKING, BULLSHIT RECEPTIVITY, AND FRAMING 13 the attention check) and forced-response.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The low internal consistency of the scale might also be one reason why the reported correlations with other measures of rational thought and action have been relatively low (Bruine de Bruin et al, 2007;Stanovich et al, 2016). Importantly, some have used the finding that resistance to framing does not reliably predict everyday decision outcomes (Bruine de Bruin et al, 2007) to argue that resistance to framing is not a valid measure of rational behavior (Aczel et al, 2018). Our approach suggests that the low correlations might, at least in part, be due to the low reliability of the scale which should be explicitly corrected for by researchers.…”
Section: Considerations Related To Measurementmentioning
confidence: 99%