Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-6
Exploring Numerical Framing Effects: The Interaction Effects of Gain/Loss Frames and Numerical Presentation Formats on Message Comprehension,Emotion,and Perceived Issue Seriousness
Statistical information permeates media messages, but little is known about how the use of different presentation formats influences message processing. Thus, we explore numerical framing effects by examining how presentation formats interact with gain/loss frames to alter message processing and issue perceptions. We found that logically equivalent information embedded in gain/loss frames generated different levels of comprehension when it was presented in a frequency format. The gap, however, disappeared when it was displayed in a percentage format. Different comprehension levels then shaped negative emotions differently, which in turn affected perceived issue seriousness. Mediational analyses tentatively suggest that numerical framing occurred through cognitive and emotional responses. The implications are discussed.
AxelrodR. (1986). An evolutionary approach to norms. American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1095–1111. https://doi.org/10.2307/1960858
2.
BonemE. M.EllsworthP. C.GonzalezR. (2015). Age differences in risk: Perceptions, intentions and domains. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(4), 317–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1848
BraseG. L. (2002). Which statistical formats facilitate what decisions? The perception and influence of different statistical information formats. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(5), 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.421
ColeD. A.CieslaJ. A.SteigerJ. H. (2007). The insidious effects of failing to include design-driven correlated residuals in latent-variable covariance structure analysis. Psychological Methods, 12(4), 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.4.381
7.
DickertS.KleberJ.PetersE.SlovicP. (2011). Numeracy as a precursor to pro-social behavior: The impact of numeracy and presentation format on the cognitive mechanisms underlying donation decisions. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(7), 638–650.
8.
DruckmanJ. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23(3), 225–256.
9.
ForgasJ. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 39–66.
10.
GoodmanJ. K.CryderC. E.CheemaA. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(3), 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753
11.
HalpernD. F.BlackmanS.SalzmanB. (1989). Using statistical risk information to assess oral contraceptive safety. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350030305
12.
HauserD. J.SchwarzN. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 400–407.
13.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A Regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
14.
HuffC.TingleyD. (2015). “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics, July-September, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015604648
15.
JamesO.Van RyzinG. G. (2019). Rates and the judgment of government performance. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, 2(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.22.41
16.
JohnsonE. J.PayneJ. W.BettmanJ. R. (1988). Information displays and preference reversals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 42(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(88)90017-9
17.
JonasK.DiehlM.BromerP. (1997). Effects of attitudinal ambivalence on information processing and attitude-intention consistency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(2), 190–210.
18.
KühneR.WeberP.SommerK. (2015). Beyond cognitive framing processes: Anger mediates the effects of responsibility framing on the preference for punitive measures. Journal of Communication, 65(2), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12151
19.
LazarusR. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.
20.
LechelerS.SchuckA. R.de VreeseC. H. (2013). Dealing with feelings: Positive and negative discrete emotions as mediators of news framing effects. Communications, 38(2), 189–209. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2013-0011
21.
LeeB.LiuJ.ChoungH.McLeodD. M. (2019). Framing risk with numbers: The framing effects of risk assertions and number formats on emotions and risk perceptions. Mass Communication & Society, 22(3), 344–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2018.1536790
22.
LernerJ. S.KeltnerD. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300402763
LevinI. P.SchnittjerS. K.TheeS. L. (1988). Information framing effects in social and personal decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24(6), 520–529.
25.
LiuJ.ScheufeleD. A. (2016). A revisionist perspective on framing effects. In ThompsonW. R. (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.48
26.
MarteauT. M. (1989). Framing of information: Its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28(1), 89–94.
27.
McLeodD. M.ShahD. (2015). News frames and national security: Covering big brother. Cambridge University Press.
28.
MillerJ. M. (2007). Examining the mediators of agenda setting: A new experimental paradigm reveals the role of emotions. Political Psychology, 28(6), 689–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00600.x
29.
NabiR. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference?Communication Research, 30(2), 224–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250881
30.
NelsonT. E.OxleyZ. M.ClawsonR. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221–246. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024834831093
31.
OatleyK. (1992). Best laid schemes: The psychology of the emotions. Cambridge University Press.
32.
OmmundsenR.LarsenK. S.Van Der VeerK.EilertsenD.-E. (2014). Framing unauthorized immigrants: The effects of labels on evaluations. Psychological Reports, 114(2), 461–478. https://doi.org/10.2466/17.PR0.114k20w0
33.
PanZ. D.KosickiG. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10(1), 55–75.
34.
PedersenR. T. (2017). Ratio bias and policy preferences: How equivalency framing of numbers can affect attitudes. Political Psychology, 38(6), 1103–1120. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12362
35.
PedersenR. T.LarsenM. V. (2019). Putting a number on preferences: How numerical attitudes are shaped by ideology and equivalency framing. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 31(3), 528–548. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edy020
36.
PedersenR. T.MutzD. C. (2019). Attitudes toward economic inequality: The illusory agreement. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(4), 835–851. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.18
37.
PeerE.VosgerauJ.AcquistiA. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y
38.
PetersE.HibbardJ.SlovicP.DieckmannN. (2007). Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. Health Affairs, 26(3), 741–748. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.26.3.741
QuattroneG. A.TverskyA. (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82(3), 719–736. https://doi.org/10.2307/1962487
41.
RosemanI. J. (2001). A model of appraisal in the emotion system: Integrating research, theory, and applications. In SchererK. R.SchorrA.JohnstoneT. (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 68–91). Oxford University Press.
42.
RosseelY. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
43.
ScheufeleD. A.IyengarS. (2017). The state of framing research: A call for new directions. In KenskiK.JamiesonK. H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political communication theories (pp. 619–632). Oxford University Press.
44.
SchumackerR. E.LomaxR. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
45.
SchwarzN.CloreG. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–523.
46.
SlovicP. (1972). From Shakespeare to Simon: Speculations—and some evidence—about man’s ability to process information. Research Bulletin, 12(2), 1–19.
47.
SlovicP.FinucaneM. L.PetersE.MacGregorD. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006
48.
SlovicP.FischhoffB.LichtensteinS. (1981). Rating the risks. In HaimesY. Y. (Ed.), Risk/benefit analysis in water resources planning and management (pp. 193–217). Springer.
49.
SmithC.EllsworthP. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813.
50.
TankardJ. W. (2001). The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In ReeseS. D.GandyO. H.GrantA. E. (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 95–106). Lawrence Erlbaum.
WangX. T.JohnstonV. S. (1995). Perceived social context and risk preference: A reexamination of framing effects in a lifedeath decision problem. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8(4), 279–293. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960080405
WiernikB. M.OnesD. S.DilchertS. (2013). Age and environmental sustainability: A meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 28(7–8), 826–856. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2013-0221
55.
WilsonD. K.KaplanR. M.SchneidermanL. J. (1987). Framing of decisions and selections of alternatives in health care. Social Behavior, 2(1), 51–59.
