The Framing Preference for Large and Increasing Components in Static and Dynamic Descriptions

Abstract

Describing sets in terms of a two-valued variable, either value can be chosen: exam results may be referred to by pass rates or fail rates. What determines such framing choices? Building on work by McKenzie and colleagues on reference points in the production and interpretation of framed information, we investigate two determinants of frame choice. One is that speakers tend to focus on the component that has increased vis-à-vis a previous state, the other is the tendency to choose the component larger than 50%. We propose to view reference points as pointing to different kinds of communicative relevance. Hence the use of the previous state and the 50% reference points by speakers is not just a function of the information, but is co-determined by a communicative cue in the context: the question being asked about this information. This line of thought is supported by two experiments containing items offering two-sided distribution information at two points in time. Our first experiment employs a static task, requiring a description of the most recent situation. The second experiment uses a dynamic task, asking participants to describe the development between the two time points. We hypothesize that in static tasks the component size is the strongest frame choice determinant, while in dynamic tasks frame choice is mainly driven by whether a component has increased. The experiments consist of 16 different scenarios, both with symmetrical contrasts (i.e., dogs vs. cats) and with asymmetrical ones (i.e., winning vs. losing). Both experiments support the hypotheses. In the static task, the size effect is the only consistent effect; in the dynamic task, the effect of direction of change is much larger than that of size. This pattern of differences between size and change effects applies across symmetrical and asymmetrical contrasts. Our experiments shed light on cognitive and communicative regularities involved in the production of framed messages: people do tend to prefer larger and increasing components when choosing a frame, but the relative strength of both these preferences depends on the communicative task.

Speakers’ Choice of Frame Reveals Little about Their Trait Emotions but More about Their Preferences and Risk Perception

“…First, the manipulation of chances of failure and success predicted frame preference in both studies, with the preference for positive frames increasing as the chance of success increased. This is in line with studies showing that speakers select the frame that is consistent with the largest component (Pander Maat et al, 2021).…”

“…Another factor likely contributing to the predominance of positive frames is the so-called markedness differences between the failure and success frames (Pander Maat et al, 2021).…”

“…This asymmetry makes the use of a marked term like "failure" a clear negative signal, while the unmarked term "success" can be used to describe both larger and smaller chances (Pander Maat et al, 2021).…”

The Psychological Link between Decisions and Communicative Behavior Based on Verbal Probabilities

“…(2) Listeners are sensitive to this regularity; that is, listeners are capable of correctly inferring the reference point proportion from the speaker's choice of proportion frame." Various studies have supported this hypothesis 6 (Honda et al, 2018;Leong et al, 2017;Pander Maat et al, 2021;Teigen & Karevold, 2005).…”