This study examines how individuals perceive gains and losses through message framing and reference anchoring, focusing on social problems from the prospect theory perspective. The results indicate that message framing has a significant effect on agreement. In terms of framing the outcome, loss-framing messages are more effective than gain-framing messages in influencing agreement on the Korea–U.S. FTA (Free Trade Agreement). Furthermore, with respect to experimenter-provided and self-generated anchor inducements, the participants with experimenter-provided anchor values are more likely to agree with suggestions in messages than those with self-generated anchor values. The results have several practical implications.
BergerB. (2001). Private issues and public policy: Locating the corporate agenda in agenda-setting theory. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(2), 91-126.
2.
BestJ. (1995). Images of issues. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
3.
BlumerH. (1971). Social problems as collective behavior. Social Problems, 18, 298-306.
4.
CarlsonB. W. (1990). Anchoring and adjustment in judgments under risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 635-676.
5.
CBS. (2008, May30). Opposing opinions on ratifying the Korea-US FTA increased to 55.4%.
6.
CervoneD.PeakeP. K. (1986). Anchoring, efficacy, and action: The influence of judgmental heuristics on self-efficacy judgments and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 492-501.
7.
ChapmanG. B.JohnsonE. J. (1999). Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 79(2), 115-153.
8.
EpleyN.GilovichT. (2001). Putting adjustment back in the anchoring and adjustment heuristic: Differential processing of self-generated and experimenter-provided anchors. Psychological Science, 12(5), 391-396.
9.
EpleyN.GilovichT. (2004). Are adjustments insufficient?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 447-460.
10.
EpleyN.GilovichT. (2005). When effortful thinking influences judgmental anchoring: Differential effects of forewarning and incentives on self-generated and externally-provided anchors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18,199-212.
11.
EpleyN.GilovichT. (2006). The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic: Why the adjustments are insufficient. Psychological Science, 17(4), 311-318.
GanzachY.KarsahiN. (1995). Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment. Journal of Business Research, 32, 11-17.
14.
GigerenzerG. (1991). How to make cognitive illusions disappear: Beyond “heuristics and biases.” In StroebeW.HewstoneM. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 83-115). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
15.
HallahanK. (2001). The dynamics of issues activation and response: An issues process model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 27-59.
16.
HilgartnerS.BoskC. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 53-78.
17.
HogarthR. (1981). Beyond discrete biases: Functional and dysfunctional aspects of judgmental heuristics. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 197-217.
18.
JacowitzK. R.KahnemanD. (1995). Measures of anchoring in estimation tasks. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1161-1166.
19.
JohnsonE. J.SchkadeD. A (1989). Bias in utility assessments: Future evidence and explanations. Management Science, 35, 406-424.
20.
JoyceE. J.BiddleG. C. (1981). Anchoring and probabilistic inference in auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 19(1), 120-145.
21.
KahnemanD. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449-1475.
22.
KahnemanD.KnetschJ.ThalerR. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the chaos theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 25-48.
23.
KahnemanD.KnetschJ.ThalerR. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193-206.
24.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory : An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
25.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1996). On the reality of cognitive illusions. Psychological Review, 103(3), 582-591.
26.
Korea Institute of International Economic Policy. (2007). Korea-US FTA economic advantages analysis. Seoul, Korea: Author.
27.
KriesbergL. (2003). Constructive conflicts: From escalation to resolution (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
28.
LG Economy Research Institute. (2006). The effects of international investment on job opportunities in Korea. Seoul, Korea: Author.
29.
LundborgP.LindgrenB. (2002). Risk perception and alcohol consumption among young people. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 25(2), 165-183.
30.
MussweilerT.StrackF. (1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A Selective Accessibility Model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136-164.
31.
MussweilerT.StrackF.PfeifferT. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1142-1150.
32.
PioreM. (2010). Discussion forum II: From bounded rationality to behavioral economics. Socio-Economic Review, 8, 383-387.
33.
PlousS. (1989). Thinking the unthinkable: The effect of anchoring on likelihood estimates of nuclear war. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 67-91.
34.
QuattroneG.TverskyA. (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 719-736.
35.
RaynerS.CantorR. (1987). How fair Is safe enough? The cultural approach to societal technology choice. Risk Anal, 7, 3-9.
36.
RussoJ. E.ShoemakerP. J. H. (1989). Decision traps. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
37.
SchoemakerP. (1982). The Expected Utility Model: Its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. Journal of Economic Literature, 20, 529-563.
38.
ShortJ. F.Jr. (1984). The social fabric of risk: Towards the social transformation of risk analysis. American Sociological Review, 49, 711-725.
39.
SiegristM. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions or risk and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20(2), 195-203.
40.
SimonH. (1979). Rational decision making in business organizations. American Economic Review, 69, 493-513.
41.
SwitzerF.SniezekJ. A. (1991). Judgement processes in motivation: Anchoring and adjustment effect on judgment and behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 49, 208-229.
42.
TeshS. N. (1999). Citizen experts in environmental risk. Policy Sciences, 32, 39-58.
43.
ThompsonM.EllisR.WildavskyA. (1990). Cultural theory. Boulder, CO: Westview.
44.
TverskyAKahnemanD. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty : Heuristic and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
45.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. New Series, 211, 453-458.
46.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependence model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039-1061.
47.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297-323.
48.
ViscuiW. (1991). Age variations in risk perceptions and smoking decisions. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(4), 577-588.
49.
WitteK. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59, 329-249.
50.
WrightW. F.AndersonU. (1989). Effects of situation familiarity and financial incentives on use of the anchoring and adjustment heuristic for probability assessment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 68-82.
51.
WuG.GonzalezR. (1996). Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Science, 42(12), 1676-1690.
