Valence framing induces cognitive bias

Abstract

Valence framing effects refer to inconsistent choice preferences in response to positive versus negative formulation of mathematically equivalent outcomes. Here, we manipulate valence framing in a two-alternative forced choice dictator game using gains and losses as frames to investigate the cognitive mechanisms underlying valence framing. We applied a Drift-Diffusion Model (DDM) to examine whether gain (i.e., “take” money) and loss (i.e., “give” money) frames evoke a cognitive bias as previous research did not consistently reveal framing effects using reaction times and response frequency as dependent variables. DDMs allow decomposing the decision process into separate cognitive mechanisms, whereby a cognitive bias was repeatedly associated with a shift in the starting point of the model. Conducting both a laboratory (N = 62) and an online study (N = 109), female participants allocated money between themselves and another person in a prosocial or selfish way. In each study, one group was instructed to give money (give frame), the other to take money (take frame). Consistent with previous studies, no differences were found in response times and response frequencies. However, in both studies, substantial bias towards the selfish option was found in the take frame groups, captured by the starting point of the DDM. Thus, our results suggest that valence framing induces a cognitive bias in decision processing in women, even when no behavioral differences are present.

Can monetary incentives overturn fairness-based decisions?

“…Based on previous studies employing a comparable task [ 51 , 63 , 73 ], participants have a slight bias towards making decisions in favour of the other. This bias, however, was smaller in online participants [ 63 ].…”

“…Based on previous studies employing a comparable task [ 51 , 63 , 73 ], participants have a slight bias towards making decisions in favour of the other. This bias, however, was smaller in online participants [ 63 ]. That is, in the online setting, participants chose the option in favour of the other in about 65% of the trials.…”

“…To estimate the sample size, we used the 'simstudy' package [58] in Rstudio [59] to simulate data and 'simR' [60] to compute power calculations. The simulations (code openly available at https://osf.io/ bgka8) were based on our hypothesized effects informed by previous studies [51,[61][62][63]. We thus set the expected probabilities for decisions in favour of the other at 65% in the two compensation groups and at 45% in the two punishment groups.…”

Empathy incites a stable prosocial decision bias

“…White, Ratcliff, Vasey, & McKoon, 2009;Zhao, Diederich, Trueblood, & Bhatia, 2019). Previous evidence suggests that DDM can identify response biases that went unnoticed when examining average reaction times or response frequencies separately (Iotzov, Weiß, Windmann, & Hein, 2022;Zajkowski, Bielecki, & Marszał-Wiśniewska, 2022;Zhao et al, 2019). In each trial, participants chose between a prosocial and an egoistic option of dividing points between themselves (light gray and point values) and the respective partner (here dark gray and point values).…”

Adult Age Differences in the Integration of Values for Self and Other

“…To explicitly test the factors underlying potential age-related differences in (pro)social decision-making, drift-diffusion models (DDMs; Ratcliff, 1978;Ratcliff et al, 2016) are a promising tool to computationally describe trade-offs like the decision to help someone at one's own cost (e.g., Iotzov, Saulin, et al, 2022;Iotzov, Weiß, et al, 2022;Saulin et al, 2022;Weiß et al, 2023). That is, DDMs provide a quantitative framework to delineate cognitive subcomponents involved in cost-benefit calculations.…”