The Effect of Framing on Choice: Interactions with Risk-Taking Propensity, Cognitive Style, and Sex
Tversky and Kahneman suggested that choice between a "sure thing" and a risky option of equal expected value is affected by option phrasing. When options for fighting an "Asian disease" were framed positively, 72% chose the sure thing; but when options were framed negatively, onl...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Personality & social psychology bulletin 1990-09, Vol.16 (3), p.496-510 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 510 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 496 |
| container_title | Personality & social psychology bulletin |
| container_volume | 16 |
| creator | Fagley, N. S. Miller, Paul M. |
| description | Tversky and Kahneman suggested that choice between a "sure thing" and a risky option of equal expected value is affected by option phrasing. When options for fighting an "Asian disease" were framed positively, 72% chose the sure thing; but when options were framed negatively, only 22% did. Decision problems like the Asian disease one, however, have produced varied results. Experiment I explored three reasons for the varied results: differences between the samples in risk-taking propensity, differences in gender composition, and use of different decision problems. A significant interaction of framing, sex, and problem was observed. Women were affected by framing, while men generally were not. Further, the size and direction of framing effects varied across the decision problems. Experiment 2 investigated risk-taking propensity and field independence as mediators of the sex by framing interaction. Only framing was significant. Neither field independence nor risk-taking propensity interacted with framing. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/0146167290163008 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_746232998</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0146167290163008</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1307164270</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-7c12e698e7cbaf2535218ebbdd7439b5513d319a84c40586b6d7b64d3707340b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kL1PAkEQxTdGExHt7bxoYXU6s593pSGgJiQ2WG929_bgCNziLhT-9y6BwpBQTfF-783MI-Qe4QVRqVdALlEqWgNKBlBdkAEKQUvFGbskg71c7vVrcpPSEgC45HRAHmYLX4zb1rttEdpiEs266-dF6IvRInTO35Kr1qySvzvOIfmejGejj3L69f45epuWjgrclsoh9bKuvHLWtFQwQbHy1jZN3l9bIZA1DGtTccdBVNLKRlnJG6ZAMQ6WDcnzIXcTw8_Op61ed8n51cr0PuySVlxSRuu6yuTjCbkMu9jn4zRFlgnOaYaezkHIQGH-XUGm4EC5GFKKvtWb2K1N_NUIet-qPm01W8qDJZm5_xd6jv8DKlBxXw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1307164270</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Effect of Framing on Choice: Interactions with Risk-Taking Propensity, Cognitive Style, and Sex</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Fagley, N. S. ; Miller, Paul M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Fagley, N. S. ; Miller, Paul M.</creatorcontrib><description>Tversky and Kahneman suggested that choice between a "sure thing" and a risky option of equal expected value is affected by option phrasing. When options for fighting an "Asian disease" were framed positively, 72% chose the sure thing; but when options were framed negatively, only 22% did. Decision problems like the Asian disease one, however, have produced varied results. Experiment I explored three reasons for the varied results: differences between the samples in risk-taking propensity, differences in gender composition, and use of different decision problems. A significant interaction of framing, sex, and problem was observed. Women were affected by framing, while men generally were not. Further, the size and direction of framing effects varied across the decision problems. Experiment 2 investigated risk-taking propensity and field independence as mediators of the sex by framing interaction. Only framing was significant. Neither field independence nor risk-taking propensity interacted with framing.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0146-1672</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-7433</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0146167290163008</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Decision making ; Sexes ; Social psychology ; Social research</subject><ispartof>Personality & social psychology bulletin, 1990-09, Vol.16 (3), p.496-510</ispartof><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. Sep 1990</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-7c12e698e7cbaf2535218ebbdd7439b5513d319a84c40586b6d7b64d3707340b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0146167290163008$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0146167290163008$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27869,27924,27925,30999,33774,43621,43622</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fagley, N. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, Paul M.</creatorcontrib><title>The Effect of Framing on Choice: Interactions with Risk-Taking Propensity, Cognitive Style, and Sex</title><title>Personality & social psychology bulletin</title><description>Tversky and Kahneman suggested that choice between a "sure thing" and a risky option of equal expected value is affected by option phrasing. When options for fighting an "Asian disease" were framed positively, 72% chose the sure thing; but when options were framed negatively, only 22% did. Decision problems like the Asian disease one, however, have produced varied results. Experiment I explored three reasons for the varied results: differences between the samples in risk-taking propensity, differences in gender composition, and use of different decision problems. A significant interaction of framing, sex, and problem was observed. Women were affected by framing, while men generally were not. Further, the size and direction of framing effects varied across the decision problems. Experiment 2 investigated risk-taking propensity and field independence as mediators of the sex by framing interaction. Only framing was significant. Neither field independence nor risk-taking propensity interacted with framing.</description><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Sexes</subject><subject>Social psychology</subject><subject>Social research</subject><issn>0146-1672</issn><issn>1552-7433</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1990</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kL1PAkEQxTdGExHt7bxoYXU6s593pSGgJiQ2WG929_bgCNziLhT-9y6BwpBQTfF-783MI-Qe4QVRqVdALlEqWgNKBlBdkAEKQUvFGbskg71c7vVrcpPSEgC45HRAHmYLX4zb1rttEdpiEs266-dF6IvRInTO35Kr1qySvzvOIfmejGejj3L69f45epuWjgrclsoh9bKuvHLWtFQwQbHy1jZN3l9bIZA1DGtTccdBVNLKRlnJG6ZAMQ6WDcnzIXcTw8_Op61ed8n51cr0PuySVlxSRuu6yuTjCbkMu9jn4zRFlgnOaYaezkHIQGH-XUGm4EC5GFKKvtWb2K1N_NUIet-qPm01W8qDJZm5_xd6jv8DKlBxXw</recordid><startdate>199009</startdate><enddate>199009</enddate><creator>Fagley, N. S.</creator><creator>Miller, Paul M.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications, Inc</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>HOKLE</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U1</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199009</creationdate><title>The Effect of Framing on Choice</title><author>Fagley, N. S. ; Miller, Paul M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c251t-7c12e698e7cbaf2535218ebbdd7439b5513d319a84c40586b6d7b64d3707340b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1990</creationdate><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Sexes</topic><topic>Social psychology</topic><topic>Social research</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fagley, N. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miller, Paul M.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 22</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Risk Abstracts</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Personality & social psychology bulletin</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fagley, N. S.</au><au>Miller, Paul M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Effect of Framing on Choice: Interactions with Risk-Taking Propensity, Cognitive Style, and Sex</atitle><jtitle>Personality & social psychology bulletin</jtitle><date>1990-09</date><risdate>1990</risdate><volume>16</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>496</spage><epage>510</epage><pages>496-510</pages><issn>0146-1672</issn><eissn>1552-7433</eissn><abstract>Tversky and Kahneman suggested that choice between a "sure thing" and a risky option of equal expected value is affected by option phrasing. When options for fighting an "Asian disease" were framed positively, 72% chose the sure thing; but when options were framed negatively, only 22% did. Decision problems like the Asian disease one, however, have produced varied results. Experiment I explored three reasons for the varied results: differences between the samples in risk-taking propensity, differences in gender composition, and use of different decision problems. A significant interaction of framing, sex, and problem was observed. Women were affected by framing, while men generally were not. Further, the size and direction of framing effects varied across the decision problems. Experiment 2 investigated risk-taking propensity and field independence as mediators of the sex by framing interaction. Only framing was significant. Neither field independence nor risk-taking propensity interacted with framing.</abstract><cop>Thousand Oaks, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0146167290163008</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0146-1672 |
| ispartof | Personality & social psychology bulletin, 1990-09, Vol.16 (3), p.496-510 |
| issn | 0146-1672 1552-7433 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_746232998 |
| source | Access via SAGE; Sociological Abstracts; Periodicals Index Online; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
| subjects | Decision making Sexes Social psychology Social research |
| title | The Effect of Framing on Choice: Interactions with Risk-Taking Propensity, Cognitive Style, and Sex |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T23%3A11%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Effect%20of%20Framing%20on%20Choice:%20Interactions%20with%20Risk-Taking%20Propensity,%20Cognitive%20Style,%20and%20Sex&rft.jtitle=Personality%20&%20social%20psychology%20bulletin&rft.au=Fagley,%20N.%20S.&rft.date=1990-09&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=496&rft.epage=510&rft.pages=496-510&rft.issn=0146-1672&rft.eissn=1552-7433&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0146167290163008&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1307164270%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1307164270&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0146167290163008&rfr_iscdi=true |