A Meta-Analytic Re-Appraisal of the Framing Effect

Steiger, Alexander; Kühberger, Anton

doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000321

Cited by 77 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The percentages in parentheses represent the original findings (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981), illustrating the predominance of risk-avoidant choices under the gain frame and of risk-seeking choices under the loss frame. Although the effect in the original study was rather large (Cohen's d = 1.13, Klein et al, 2014), subsequent research showed that a medium effect size (Cohen's d in the range of 0.50 to 0.71) would be a more representative estimate for the ADP in particular (Klein et al, 2014;Steiger & Kühberger, 2018). While the framing effect has been established through many other problems as well (e.g., Bruine de Bruin et al, 2007), the ADP stands out as the classic paradigm which has received the most of researchers' attention.…”

Section: (78%)mentioning

confidence: 94%

Replicating the Disease framing problem during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic: A study of stress, worry, trust, and choice under risk

Rachev¹,

Han²,

Lacko³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Asian disease problem has been widely used to demonstrate the framing effect, whereby different wording of the same options leads to predictably different choices. Notably, it is highly evocative of the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, we investigated how participants would respond to the problem as part of a large-scale international survey (Nincluded = 88,181) conducted from March to May 2020. As predicted by the appraisal-tendency framework, we found larger risk aversion and a larger framing effect than under typical circumstances. Also consistent with the appraisal-tendency framework, we found that perceived stress and concerns over coronavirus were positively associated with the framing effect, while lower levels of trust in the government’s efforts to handle the pandemic were negatively associated with the framing effect. However, the findings did not support predictions regarding the associations between distress, concerns, and trust, and risk aversion in general. Our findings showed that the framing effect is magnified under conditions of high distress and concern, and mitigated under conditions of high distrust. This work might also provide important practical implications regarding the optimal way of framing public messages involving risk, and the possible cross-national variability of the perception of these messages.

show abstract

Section: (78%)mentioning

confidence: 94%

Replicating the Disease framing problem during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic: A study of stress, worry, trust, and choice under risk

Rachev¹,

Han²,

Lacko³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Countless studies have emphasized the framing effect in the decision-making field, testifying to its robustness in this field (Kühberger et al, 1999;Steiger & Kühberger, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability of Moral Decision Making: Evidence from the Trolley Dilemma

Gosling¹,

Trémolière²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The application of framing effects in the field of moral judgment has offered a golden opportunity to assess the reliability of people’s moral judgments and decisions. To date, however, these studies are still scarce and they suffer from multiple methodological issues. Therefore, the present study aims to provide further insights into the reliability of moral judgments while fixing these methodological shortcomings. In the current study, we employed the classic trolley dilemma moral decision-making paradigm to determine the extent to which moral decisions are susceptible to framing effects. A total of 1040 participants were included in the study. The data revealed that choices of participants did not significantly differ between the two frames. Equivalence tests confirmed that the associated effect size was very small. Further exploratory analyses revealed an unplanned interaction between the framing effect and the target of the framing manipulation. This result became from marginally statistically significant to insignificant following different sensitivity analyses. The implications and limitations of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.

show abstract

“…A common framing is to present outcomes of a decision as losses versus gains for the decision maker. The effect of this difference in the framing is that people show a higher tendency to choose risky options whenever decision outcomes are framed as losses rather than gains (reviewed by Steiger & Kühberger, 2018 ).…”

Section: Empirical Partmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberation decreases the likelihood of expressing dominant responses

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deliberation is commonly assumed to be a central characteristic of humans’ higher cognitive functions, and the responses following deliberation are attributed to mechanisms that are qualitatively different from lower-level associative or affectively driven responses. In contrast to this perspective, the current article’s aim is to draw attention to potential issues with making inferences about mechanisms of deliberation based on characteristics of the observed decision outcomes. We propose that a consequence of deliberation is to simply reduce the likelihood of expressing immediately available (dominant) responses. We illustrate how this consequence of deliberation can provide a parsimonious explanation for a broad range of prior research on decision-making. Furthermore, we discuss how the present perspective on deliberation relates to the question of how the cognitive system implements nondominant responses based on associative learning and affective prioritization rather than voluntary decisions. Beyond the present article’s theoretical focus, for illustrative purposes, we provide some empirical evidence (three studies, N = 175) that is in line with our proposal. In sum, our theoretical framework, prior empirical evidence, and the present studies suggest that deliberation reduces the likelihood of expressing dominant responses. Although we do not argue that this is the only consequence or mechanism regarding deliberation, we aim to highlight that it is worthwhile considering this minimal consequence of deliberation as compared with certain higher cognitive functions in the interpretation of deliberation outcomes.

show abstract

A Meta-Analytic Re-Appraisal of the Framing Effect

Cited by 77 publications

References 38 publications

Replicating the Disease framing problem during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic: A study of stress, worry, trust, and choice under risk

Replicating the Disease framing problem during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic: A study of stress, worry, trust, and choice under risk

Reliability of Moral Decision Making: Evidence from the Trolley Dilemma

Deliberation decreases the likelihood of expressing dominant responses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About