Social cues and verbal framing in risky choice

被引:8
作者
Wang, XT [1 ]
Simons, F
Brédart, S
机构
[1] Univ S Dakota, Dept Psychol, Vermillion, SD 57069 USA
[2] Univ Liege, Cognitive Psychol Unit, Liege, Belgium
关键词
risky choice; framing effect; balanced framing; decision cues; social context; kinship; group homogeneity; minimum requirement; aspiration level;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
We examined how people use social and verbal cues of differing priorities in making social decisions. In Experiment 1, formally identical life-death choice problems were presented in different hypothetical group contexts and were phrased in either a positive or negative frame. The risk-seeking choice became more dominant as the number of kin in an endangered group increased. Framing effects occurred only in a heterogeneous group context where the lives at risk were a mixture of kin and strangers. No framing effect was found when the same problem was presented in the context of a homogeneous group consisting of either all kin or all strangers. We viewed the framing effects to be a sign of indecisive risk preference due to the differential effects of a kinship cue and a stranger cue on choice. In Experiment 2, we presented the life-death problem in two artificial group contexts involving either 6 billion human lives or 6 billion extraterrestrial lives. A framing effect was found only in the human context. Two pre-conditions of framing effects appear to be social unfamiliarity of a decision problem and aspiration level of a decision maker. In Experiment 3, we analyzed the direction of the framing effect by balancing the framing. The direction of the framing effect depended on the baseline level of risk preference determined by a specific decision context. Copyright (C) 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 15
页数:15
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
Brewer M.B., 1996, Intergroup relations
[2]   Thing constancy as measured by correlation coefficients [J].
Brunswik, E .
PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW, 1940, 47 :69-78
[3]   SOME NEO-DARWINIAN DECISION RULES FOR ALTRUISM - WEIGHING CUES FOR INCLUSIVE FITNESS AS A FUNCTION OF THE BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE DECISION [J].
BURNSTEIN, E ;
CRANDALL, C ;
KITAYAMA, S .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1994, 67 (05) :773-789
[4]   Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life? [J].
Fagley, NS ;
Miller, PM .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1997, 71 (03) :355-373
[5]   THE EFFECTS OF DECISION FRAMING ON CHOICE OF RISKY VS CERTAIN OPTIONS [J].
FAGLEY, NS ;
MILLER, PM .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1987, 39 (02) :264-277
[6]   REASONS FOR FRAMING EFFECTS [J].
FRISCH, D .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1993, 54 (03) :399-429
[7]   Problem domain and prospect frame: Choice under opportunity versus threat [J].
Highhouse, S ;
Paese, PW .
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN, 1996, 22 (02) :124-132
[8]   An information processing view of framing effects: The role of causal schemas in decision making [J].
Jou, JW ;
Shanteau, J ;
Harris, RJ .
MEMORY & COGNITION, 1996, 24 (01) :1-15
[9]   PROSPECT THEORY - ANALYSIS OF DECISION UNDER RISK [J].
KAHNEMAN, D ;
TVERSKY, A .
ECONOMETRICA, 1979, 47 (02) :263-291
[10]   The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis [J].
Kuhberger, A .
ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR AND HUMAN DECISION PROCESSES, 1998, 75 (01) :23-55