“Alive” or “not dead”: The contribution of descriptors to attribute-framing bias

Abstract

Attribute-framing bias (AFB) refers to bias in evaluating positively framed objects more favourably than the same objects framed negatively. In most AFB studies, framing is manipulated by contrasting the positive and negative outcomes, using the corresponding positive (success) or negative (failure) labels as descriptors. This study examined the unique contributions of the outcomes of the scenario and the labels describing these outcomes by manipulating them orthogonally. In three experiments, framing scenarios were presented to participants with either positive outcomes rendered with positive (65% passed) or negative (65% didn’t fail) descriptors, or negative outcomes rendered with positive (35% didn’t pass) or negative (35% failed) descriptors. All experiments revealed a strong effect for the outcome with a weaker effect for the descriptor valence, suggesting that outcomes have a stronger influence on AFB than do descriptors. We discuss the results within a theoretical framework that maps the outcome effects onto attention mechanisms and descriptor effects onto association-activation mechanisms.

Keywords

Judgment and decision making attention attribute framing framing bias descriptors

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bargh

J. A.

Chaiken

Govender

Pratto

(1992). The generality of the automatic evaluation activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 893–912. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.893

Freling

T. H.

Vincent

L. H.

Henard

D. H.

(2014). When not to accentuate the positive: Re-examining valence effects in attribute framing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124, 95–109. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.12.007

Gamliel

Kreiner

(2013). Is a picture worth a thousand words? The interaction of visual display and attribute representation in attenuating framing bias. Judgment and Decision Making, 84, 482–491.

Hayes

B. K.

Hawkins

G. E.

Newell

B. R.

(2016). Consider the alternative: The effects of causal knowledge on representing and using alternative hypotheses in judgments under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42, 723–739. doi:10.1037/xlm0000205

Kahneman

(2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Keren

(2011). On the definition and possible underpinnings of framing effects: A brief review and a critical evaluation. In Keren

(Ed.), Perspectives on framing (pp. 3–33). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Kreiner

Gamliel

(2018). The role of attention in attribute framing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31, 392–401.

Levin

I. P.

(1987). Associative effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25, 85–86. doi:10.3758/bf03330291

Levin

I. P.

Schneider

S. L.

Gaeth

G. J.

(1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149–188. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804

10.

Mandel

D. R.

(2001). Gain-loss framing and choice: Separating outcome formulations from descriptor formulations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 56–76.

11.

Mandel

D. R.

(2008). Violations of coherence in subjective probability: A representational and assessment processes account. Cognition, 106, 130–156. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.01.001

12.

Marchiori

Aharon

(2015). Toward a general theoretical framework for judgment and decision-making. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1664–1078. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00159

13.

McElroy

Conrad

(2009). Thinking about product attributes: Investigating the role of unconscious valence processing in attribute framing. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 157–161. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2009.01281.x

14.

Morewedge

C. K.

Kahneman

(2010). Associative processes in intuitive judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 435–440.

15.

Moxey

L. M.

(2006). Effects of what is expected on the focusing properties of quantifiers: A test of the presupposition-denial account. Journal of Memory and Language, 55, 422–439.

16.

Piñon

Gambara

(2005). A meta-analytic review of framing effect: Risky, attribute and goal framing. Psicothema, 17, 325–331.

17.

Sanford

A. J.

Moxey

L. M.

(2003). New perspectives on the expression of quantity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 240–243.

18.

Schul

(2011). Alive or not dead: Implications for framing from research on negations. In Keren

(Ed.), Perspectives on framing (pp. 157–176). New York, NY: Psychology Press. doi:10.4324/9780203854167.

19.

Sher

McKenzie

C. R.

(2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101, 467–494.

20.

Teigen

K. H.

(2015). Framing of numerical quantities. In Keren

(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 586–589). Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

21.

Tombu

Mandel

D. R.

(2015). When does framing influence preferences, risk perceptions, and risk attitudes? The explicated valence account. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28, 464–476.

22.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.

23.

Yechiam

Hochman

(2013). Losses as modulators of attention: Review and analysis of the unique effects of losses over gains. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 497–518. doi:10.1037/a0029383

24.

Yechiam

Hochman

(2014). Loss attention in a dual-task setting. Psychological Science, 25, 494–502. doi:10.1177/0956797613510725

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB