It is well documented that the way a static choice task is "framed" can dramatically alter choice behavior, often leading to observable preference reversals. This framing effect appears to result from perceived changes in the nature or location of a person's initial reference point, but it is not clear how framing effects might generalize to performance on dynamic decision making tasks that are characterized by high workload, time constraints, risk, or stress. A study was conducted to examine the hypothesis that framing can introduce affective components to the decision making process and can influence, either favorably (positive frame) or adversely (negative frame), the implementation and use of decision making strategies in dynamic high-workload environments. Results indicated that negative frame participants were significantly impaired in developing and employing a simple optimal decision strategy relative to a positive frame group. Discussion focuses on implications of these results for models of dynamic decision making.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ben Zur, H., & Breznitz, S. J. (1981) The effect of time pressure on risky choice behavior. Acta Psychologica, 47, 89–104.
2.
Comstock, J. R. Jr., & Arnegard, R. J. (1992). The multi-attribute task battery for human operator workload and strategic behavior research (NASA Tech. Memorandum 104174). Hampton, VA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center.
3.
Cowen, E. L. (1952) The influence of varying degrees of psychosocial stress on problem solving rigidify. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 512–519.
4.
Davies, D. R., & Parasuraman R. (1982). The psychology of vigilance.London: Academic.
5.
Edland, A., & Svenson, O. (1993). Judgment and decision making under time pressure: Studies and findings. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maule (Eds.), Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 27–40). London: Plenum.
6.
Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1987) The effects of decision framing on choice of risky vs certain options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 264–277.
7.
Frisch, D. (1993) Reasons for framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 399–429.
8.
Hockey, G. R. J. (1986). Changes in operator efficiency as a function of environmental stress, fatigue, and circadian rhythms. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (Vol. 2, pp. 44-1–44-49). New York: Wiley.
9.
Houston, B. K. (1969) Noise, task difficulty, and Stroop color-word performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82, 403–104.
10.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrika, 47, 263–291.
11.
Klein, G. (1996). The effect of acute stressors on decision making. In J. E. Driskell and E. Salas, (Eds.), Stress and human performance (pp. 49–88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
Klein, G., Orasanu, J., Calderwood, R., & Zsambok, C. E. (1993). Decision making in action: Models and methods.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
13.
Mann, L. (1992). Stress, affect and risk-taking. In J. F. Yates (Ed.), Risk-taking behavior (pp. 201–230). New York: Wiley.
14.
Molloy, R., & Parasuraman, R (1996). Monitoring an automated system for a single failure: Vigilance and task complexity effects. Human Factors, 38, 311–322.
15.
Nygren, T. E., & Fischer, U. (1996). The role of risk in pilots' perceptions of problem situations. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual Meeting (p. 1258). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
16.
Rothstein, H. G. (1986) The effects of time pressure on judgment in multiple cue probability learning. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 83–92.
17.
Schneider, S. L. & Lopes, L. L. (1986) Reflection in preferences under risk: Who and when may suggest why. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 535–548.
18.
Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1993) Determinants of risk-taking: Behavioral and economic views. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6, 49–73.
19.
Stokes, A. F. (1991). Flight management training and research using a microcomputer flight decision simulator. In R. Sadlowe (Ed.), PC Based instrument flight simulation: A first collection of papers (pp. 25–32). New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
20.
Stokes, A. F., & Kite, K. (1994). Flight stress: Stress, fatigue, and performance in aviation.Avebury, England: Avebury Aviation.
21.
Svenson, O., & Benson, L. (1993). Framing and time pressure in decision making. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maule (Eds.), Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 133–144). London: Plenum.
22.
Svenson, O., & Maule, A. J. (1993). Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making.London: Plenum.
23.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the rationality of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.
24.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1988). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In D. E. Bell, H. Raiffa, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Decision making (pp. 167–192). New York: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Wallsten, T. S. (1980). Processes and models to describe choice and inference. In T. S. Wallsten (Ed.), Cognitive processes in choice and decision behavior (pp. 215–237). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
Weltman, G., Smith, J. E., & Egstrom, G. H. (1971) Perceptual narrowing during simulated pressure-chamber exposure. Human Factors, 13, 99–107.
27.
Wright, P. (1974) The harassed decision maker: Time pressures, distractions, and the use of evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 555–561.
