Individual differences moderate effects in an Unusual Disease paradigm: A psychophysical data collection lab approach and an online experiment

Abstract

We report two studies investigating individual intuitive-deliberative cognitive-styles and risk-styles as moderators of the framing effect in Tversky and Kahneman's famous Unusual Disease problem setting. We examined framing effects in two ways: counting the number of frame-inconsistent choices and comparing the proportions of risky choices depending on gain-loss framing. Moreover, in addition to gain-loss frames, we systematically varied the number of affected people, probabilities of surviving/dying, type of disease, and response deadlines. Study 1 used a psychophysical data collection approach and a sample of 43 undergraduate students, each performing 480 trials. Study 2 was an online study incorporating psychophysical elements in a social science approach using a larger and more heterogeneous sample, i.e., 262 participants performed 80 trials each. In both studies, the effect of framing on risky choice proportions was moderated by risk-styles. Cognitive-styles measured on different scales moderated the framing effect only in study 2. The effects of disease type, probability of surviving/dying, and number of affected people on risky choice frequencies were also affected by cognitive-styles and risk-styles but different for both studies and to different extents. We found no relationship between the number of frame-inconsistent choices and cognitive-styles or risk-styles, respectively.

Differences in decisions affected by cognitive biases: examining human values, need for cognition, and numeracy

“…However, investigation of the relationship between the need for cognition and the framing effect has shown mixed results. While some studies indicated that the need for cognition moderates framing effects, others did not identify a significant relation (Wyszynski & Diederich, 2023).…”

“…Some researchers explored the relationship between these biases with cognitive abilities and thinking dispositions (e.g., Šrol & De Neys, 2021;Toplak & Flora, 2021;Toplak et al, 2014;West et al, 2008;Wyszynski & Diederich, 2023). At the same time, many studies on behavior, such as political behavior; on prediction of attitudinal variables, such as ethical dilemmas; on relationships with personality traits, such as conscientiousness; and health worries, such as COVID-related worries, have used human values in their investigations (e.g., Bojanowska & Urbańska, 2021;Fischer et al, 2021;Goren et al, 2022;Grosz et al, 2021;Klein & Ben Hador, 2021;Mubako et al, 2021).…”