The framing effect and skin conductance responses

Abstract

Individuals often rely on simple heuristics when they face complex choice situations under uncertainty. Traditionally, it has been proposed that cognitive processes are the main driver to evaluate different choice options and to finally reach a decision. Growing evidence, however, highlights a strong interrelation between judgment and decision-making (JDM) on the one hand, and emotional processes on the other hand. This also seems to apply to judgmental heuristics, i.e., decision processes that are typically considered to be fast and intuitive. In this study, participants are exposed to different probabilities of receiving an unpleasant electric shock. Information about electric shock probabilities is either positively or negatively framed. Integrated skin conductance responses (ISCRs) while waiting for electric shock realization are used as an indicator for participants' emotional arousal. This measure is compared to objective probabilities. I find evidence for a relation between emotional body reactions measured by ISCRs and the framing effect. Under negative frames, participants show significantly higher ISCRs while waiting for an electric shock to be delivered than under positive frames. This result might contribute to a better understanding of the psychological processes underlying JDM. Further studies are necessary to reveal the causality underlying this finding, i.e., whether emotional processes influence JDM or vice versa.

Oscillatory brain activity associated with skin conductance responses in the context of risk

“…We verified that our experimental task was successful in eliciting risk-sensitive SCRs as suggested by the previous literature with this particular design (Ring, 2015;Ring et al, 2018;Ring & Kaernbach, 2015). To account for the dependencies among repeated data, we used random intercept models (package lme4 in R), which allow each participant to have a unique intercept (Bagiella et al, 2000).…”

“…In previous studies, it was reported that this experimental design resulted in risksensitive SCRs during the anticipation phase, i.e., SCRs that correlated positively and significantly with the shock probability (Ring, 2015;Ring et al, 2018;Ring & Kaernbach, 2015).…”

Voluntary arousing negative experiences (VANE): Why we like to be scared.

“…Therefore, choosing to dedicate time and resources in the pursuit of “being scared” could create a positive bias toward achieving that goal (Habel, Alavi, Schmitz, Schneider, & Wieseke, 2016). Moreover, prepotent affect facilitated by agency and framing effects may further bias experienced affect (Fagley, Coleman, & Simon, 2010; Levin, Gaeth, Schreiber, & Lauriola, 2002; Ring, 2015). Voluntary engagement with negative information has also been shown to activate the same brain networks as engaging with positive information (Lindquist, Satpute, Wager, Weber, & Barrett, 2016).…”

Do Emotions Benefit Investment Decisions? Anticipatory Emotion and Investment Decisions in Non-professional Investors

“…Emotions affect susceptibility to framing effects at a conscious ( Covey, 2014 ; Lecheler et al, 2015 ) and unconscious ( Ring, 2015 ) level. Furthermore, different frames engage different decision inputs within the brain.…”