Management Dilemmas and Decisions

McDaniel, W. Caleb; Sistrunk, Francis

doi:10.1177/0022002791035001002

Cited by 35 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another commonly used type of social dilemma relating to the environment is the "common-pool dilemma" (also known as the "take-some dilemma"). In the common-pool dilemma, individuals must decide how many resources they would like to harvest from a common pool, while restraining their desire to exploit all of the resources in order to allow resource regeneration [107,108]. The framing of the two games can have a different impact on decision-making [109]; however, the importance of cooperation maintenance does not change.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Consistent Contributors Inspire Individuals to Cooperate: The Role of Moral Elevation and Social Value Orientation

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Achieving cooperation to address social dilemmas has long been a global problem. This study examined, using an environment-focused step-level public-goods-dilemma game, the effect a consistent contributor (CC) has on group cooperation, as well as the mediating role moral elevation and the moderating role social value orientation (SVO) play in this process. A total of 196 students were recruited and classified as “pro-selfs” or “pro-socials” based on their SVOs; individuals with the same SVO characterization were randomly allocated to groups of four, and then randomly assigned to the CC condition or the control condition to play 15 rounds of public-goods-dilemma games. In the CC condition, additional computer-controlled players represented the CCs. The results showed that the CC groups cooperated and earned more than the control groups did. Multi-level mediation analysis confirmed that moral elevation partially mediates the CC effect. Although the CCs had a direct impact on both pro-socials and pro-selfs, multi-level moderated-mediation analysis demonstrated that CCs influenced pro-socials directly, but affected pro-selfs’ decision-making indirectly, through moral elevation. This study contributes to a better understanding of sustainability of cooperation in social dilemmas by showing that consistent cooperative behaviors are contagious, and that their effects differ based on an individuals’ SVO.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Consistent Contributors Inspire Individuals to Cooperate: The Role of Moral Elevation and Social Value Orientation

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the definition of the social framing effect is largely unclear in the literature. McDaniel and Sistrunk interpreted this effect as “the framing effect for social decisionmaking” or “the impact of framing on social dilemmas” [122, see also 123]. To be more specific, we define the social framing effect as a phenomenon where varying the description of a social dilemma (or social components in this dilemma) changes individual preferences for different options [124].…”

Section: Social Framing Effectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pain and social decision-making: New insights from the social framing effect

Liu

Cui

2019

Brain Science Advances

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on the social function of painful experience as revealed by recent studies on social decision-making. Observing others suffering from physical pain evokes empathic reactions that can lead to prosocial behavior (e.g., helping others at a cost to oneself), which might be regarded as the social value of pain derived from evolution. Feelings of guilt may also be elicited when one takes responsibility for another’s pain. These social emotions play a significant role in various cognitive processes and may affect behavioral preferences. In addition, the influence of others’ pain on decision-making is highly sensitive to social context. Combining neuroimaging techniques with a novel decision paradigm, we found that when asking participants to trade-off personal benefits against providing help to other people, verbally describing the causal relationship between their decision and other people’s pain (i.e., framing) significantly changed participants’ preferences. This social framing effect was associated with neural activation in the temporoparietal junction (TPJ), which is a brain area that is important in social cognition and in social emotions. Further, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on this region successfully modulated the magnitude of the social framing effect. These findings add to the knowledge about the role of perception of others’ pain in our social life.

show abstract

“…Manipulating decision frames has been found to affect choices in domains as varied as medicine (Banks et al, 1995;Levin et al, 1988b;McNeil et al, 1982McNeil et al, , 1988, negotiation Neale et al, 1987;Neale & Northcraft, 1986), labor contracts (Shafir et al, 1997), voting (Quattrone & Tversky, 1988, public goods allocation (Andreoni, 1995;McDaniel & Sistrunk, 1991), gambling (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981, consumer judgment (Levin, 1987;Levin et al, 1985), and persuasion (Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990;Meyerowitz & Chaiken, 1987;Rothman et al, 1993). , 16: 77-92 (2003) In view of the significance and persistence of framing effects, a natural question is whether they can be avoided.…”

Section: Negative Framementioning

confidence: 99%

Deep thoughts and shallow frames: on the susceptibility to framing effects

LeBoeuf

Shafir

2003

Behavioral Decision Making

200

174

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the occurrence of framing effects when more thought is given to problems. In Study 1, participants were presented with one of two frames of several decision problems. Participants' Need for Cognition (NC) scores were obtained, and half the participants were asked to justify their choices. Substantial framing effects were observed, but the amount of thought purportedly given to a problem, whether manipulated by justification elicitation or measured by NC scores, did not reduce the incidence of framing effects. In Study 2, participants responded to both frames of problems in a within-subjects design. Again, NC scores were unrelated to responses on the first frame encountered. However, high-NC, compared to low-NC, participants were more consistent across frames of a problem. More thought, as indexed here, does not reduce the proclivity to be framed, but does promote adherence to normative principles when the applicability of those principles is detectable. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. key words framing effects; decision making; choice; need for cognition; justificationprovisionThe familiar conundrum of the glass that is either half full or half empty captures a fundamental fact about perception: different mental representations of a stimulus can be formed from different perspectives and in different contexts. Thus, a line appears longer when vertical than when horizontal; the moon looks large on the horizon but small overhead; and the prospects of an operation that appears promising in light of an 80% chance of success seem more bleak given its 20% chance of failure. In decision-making situations, the dependence of mental representation on context entails that choices can sometimes be affected by immaterial changes in perspective. In particular, 'framing effects' are said to occur whenever alternative descriptions of what is essentially the same decision problem give rise to predictably different choices (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).Framing effects have been documented in dozens of studies. Because they seem to arise from shallow reactions to superficial cues, and because they violate the assumption of well-ordered preferences, it has been suggested that these effects are largely attributable to a lack of attention and would occur less frequently if people thought more carefully about their choices (e.g. Sieck & Yates, 1997;Smith, 1985;Smith & Levin, 1996). This paper attempts a systematic examination of this proposition. FRAMING EFFECTSA framing effect is said to occur whenever different descriptions of the same decision situation lead to different preferences, despite the fact that the 'acts, outcomes, and contingencies' associated with the decision remain invariant across the descriptions, as in the now-classic Asian Disease problem (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981, p. 453): Imagine that the USA is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the ex...

show abstract

Management Dilemmas and Decisions

Cited by 35 publications

References 23 publications

How Consistent Contributors Inspire Individuals to Cooperate: The Role of Moral Elevation and Social Value Orientation

How Consistent Contributors Inspire Individuals to Cooperate: The Role of Moral Elevation and Social Value Orientation

Pain and social decision-making: New insights from the social framing effect

Deep thoughts and shallow frames: on the susceptibility to framing effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About