Political Behavior

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 297–321 | Cite as

Emotion and the Framing of Risky Choice

Original Paper

Abstract

One of the most noted phenomena in social and political decision-making is the occurrence of a framing effect. For example, on problems involving risky choices, individuals tend to act risk-averse when the problem is framed in terms of gains (e.g., saving lives, making money) and risk-seeking when the same problem is instead framed in terms of losses (e.g., deaths, losing money). Scholars have begun to identify the processes underlying framing effects as well as the conditions under which framing effects occur. Yet, extant work focuses nearly exclusively on cognitive processes, despite growing recognition of the importance of emotion in general decision-making tasks. In this paper, we explore the impact of emotional states on risk attitudes and framing. We find that emotions significantly influence both individuals’ tendencies to take risks and the impact of a frame on risky choices (e.g., emotions amplify or depress a frame’s impact). The precise role of emotions depends on the problem domain (e.g., a life-death or a financial decision), and the specific type of emotion under study. Moreover, in contrast to much work in political science, we show that emotions need to be distinguished beyond their positive or negative valence, as different negative emotions exert opposite effects. Our results accentuate the importance of integrating emotions into research areas traditionally dominated by more cognitive perspectives.

Keywords

Framing Emotion Decision-making Risk Experiment Public opinion 

References

  1. Abelson, R. P., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., & Fiske, S. T. (1982). Affective and semantic components in political personal perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 619–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bajtelsmit, V. L. (1999). Evidence of risk aversion in the health and retirement study. Unpublished manuscript, Colorado State University.Google Scholar
  3. Bartels, L. M. (2003). Democracy with attitudes. In M. B. MacKuen & G. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Electoral democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berkowitz, L., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2004a). Toward an understanding of the determinants of anger. Emotion, 4, 107–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berkowitz, L., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2004b). More thoughts about anger determinants. Emotion, 4, 151–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bizer, G. Y., Krosnick, J. A., Petty, R. E., Rucker, D. D., & Wheeler, S. C. (2000). Need for cognition and need to evaluate in the 1998 National Election Survey Pilot Study. National Election Studies Report.Google Scholar
  8. Bless, H., Betsch, T., & Franzen, A. (1998). Framing the framing effect: The impact of context cues on solutions to the “asian disease” problem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 287–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bodenhausen, G., Sheppard, L. A., & Kramer, G. P. (1994). Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bower, G. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36, 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Brader, T., Valentino, N. A., & Suhay, E. (2007). Feeling the immigration threat: How public discourses triggers anxiety and spurs opposition to immigration. Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  13. Brewer, P. R. (2001). Value words and lizard brains: Do citizens deliberate about appeals to their core values? Political Psychology, 22, 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bromiley, P., & Curley, S. P. (1992). Individual differences in risk taking. In J. F. Yates (Ed.), Risk-taking behavior. Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  15. Bueno de Mesquita, B., & McDermott, R. (2004). Crossing no man’s land: Cooperation from the trenches. Political Psychology, 25, 271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chang, C.-T. (2007). Interactive effects of message framing, product perceived risk and mood–the case of travel healthcare product advertising. Journal of Advertising Research March: 51–66.Google Scholar
  17. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ error. New York: Avon.Google Scholar
  19. De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan R. J. (2006). Frames, biases and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313, 684–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. DeSteno, D., Petty, R., Rucker, D., & Wegener, D. (2000). Beyond valence in the perception of likelihood: The role of emotion specificity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DeSteno, D., Petty, R., Rucker, D., Wegener, D., & Braverman, J. (2004). Discrete emotions and persuasion: The role of emotion-induced expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Druckman, J. N. (2001a). Evaluating framing effects. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22, 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Druckman, J. N. (2001b). Using credible advice to overcome framing effects. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 17, 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political preference formation. American Political Science Review, 98, 671–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1990). The effect of framing on choice: Interactions with risk-taking propensity, cognitive style, and sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 496–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1997). Framing effects and arenas of choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 355–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Finucane, M., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risk and benefits. Journal of Behavioral decision-making, 13, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frisch, D. (1993). Reasons for framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 399–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Forlani, D. (2002). Risk and rationality: The influence of decision domain and perceive outcome control on managers’ high-risk decisions. Journal of Behavioral decision-making, 15, 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gross, K. (2006). Covering crime in Washington D.C.: Examining the nature of local television news coverage of crime and its effect on emotional response. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American political science association, Philadelphia, PA, August 31-September 3.Google Scholar
  31. Gross, K., & Brewer, P. R. (2007). Sore losers: News frames, policy debates, and emotions. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12, 122–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gross, K., & D’Ambrosio, L. (2004). Framing emotional response. Political Psychology, 25, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hsee, C., & Weber, E. 1997. A fundamental prediction error: Self-other discrepancies in risk reference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 126, 45–53.Google Scholar
  34. Johnson, E., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jou, J., Shanteau, J., & Harris, R. (1996). An information processing view of framing effects: The role of causal schemas in decision making. Memory and Cognition, 24, 1–15.Google Scholar
  36. Kahneman, D. (2000). Preface. In D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (Eds.), Choices, values and frames. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kanner, M. (2004). Framing and the role of second actor: An application of Prospect Theory to Bargaining. Political Psychology, 25, 213–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kowert, P., & Hermann, M. (1997). Who takes risks? Daring and caution in foreign policy making. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41, 611–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Perner, J. (1999). The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 204–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. The Journal of Politics, 62, 790–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Larrick, R. P., Nisbett, R. E., & Morgan, J. N. (1993). Who uses the cost-benefit rules of choice? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 331–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lerner, J., Gonzalez, R., Small, D., & Fischhoff, B. (2003). Effects of fear and anger on perceived risk of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science, 14, 144–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lerner, J., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Emotion and Cognition, 14, 473–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lerner, J., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lerner, J., & Small, D. (2002). Do positive and negative emotions have opposing influence on hope? Psychological Inquiry, 13, 299–302.Google Scholar
  49. Lerner, J., Small, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2004). Heart strings and purse strings: Carryover effects of emotions on economic decisions. Psychological Science, 15, 337–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Levin, I. P., & Chapman, D. P. (1990). Risk taking, framing of references, and characterization of victim groups in AIDS treatment decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 421–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Levin, I. P., Gaeth, G. J., Schreiber, J., & Lauriola, M. (2002). A new look at framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 411–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. (1998). All frames are not created equal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Levy, J. S. (2003). Applications of prospect theory to political science. Synthese, 135, 215–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Loewenstein, G., Weber, E., Hsee, C., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lord, C.s, Ross, L., & Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., Keele, L., & Marcus, G. E. (2005). Emotion and citizenship. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Toronto, July 3–5.Google Scholar
  57. Marcus, G. E. (1988). The structure of emotional response: 1984 presidential candidates. American Political Science Review, 82, 737–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Marcus, G. E. (2003). The psychology of emotion and politics. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Marcus, G. E., Sullivan, J. L., Thiess-Morse, E., & Stevens, D. (2005). The emotional foundation of political cognition: The impact of extrinsic anxiety on the formation of political tolerance judgments. Political Psychology, 26, 949–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  61. Marteau, T. M. (1989). Framing of information: Its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 89–94.Google Scholar
  62. Mayer, J., Gaschke, Y., Braverman, D., & Evans, T. (1992). Mood-congruent judgment is a general effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McDermott, R. (1998). Risk taking in international relations: Prospect theory in American foreign policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  64. McDermott, R., Fowler, J., & Smirnov, O. (2008). On the evolutionary origin of Prospect Theory preferences. Journal of Politics.Google Scholar
  65. Mitchell, M. M., Brown, K. M., Morris-Villagran, M., & Villagran, P. D. (2001). The effects of anger, sadness and happiness on persuasive message processing: A test of the negative state relief model. Communication Monographs, 68, 347–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Moons, W. G., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Thinking straight while seeing red: The influence of anger on information processing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 706–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nabi, R. (2003). Exploring the framing effect of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking and policy preference? Communication Research, 30, 224–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  69. Quattrone, G., & A., T.versky (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82, 719–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Riker, W. H. (1995). The political psychology of rational choice theory. Political Psychology, 16, 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 206–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schwarz, N. (2000). Emotion, cognition, and decision making. Emotion and Cognition, 14, 433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. (2003). Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sieck, W., & Yates, J. F. (1997). Exposition effects on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 207–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shiv, B., Lowenstein, G., Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). Investment behavior and the negative side of emotion. Psychological Science, 16, 435–439.Google Scholar
  76. Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Analysis, 19, 689–701.Google Scholar
  77. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24, 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Slovic, P., Peters, E., Finucane, M., & MacGregor, D. (2005). Affect, risk and decision making. Health Psychology, 24, S35–S40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Smith, C., & Ellsworth, P. (1985). Patters of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 813–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 289–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Strelau, J., Zawadzki, B., Oniszczenko, W., Angleitner, A., & Riemann, R. (2002). Genetic and environmental determinants of emotions: Data based on cross-country twin studies on temperament. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 33, 5–13.Google Scholar
  82. Takemura, K. (1994). Influence of elaboration on the framing of decision. The Journal of Psychology, 128, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 819–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Thaler, R. (1980). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral decision-making, 12, 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., Sell, A., Lieberman, D., & Sznycer, D. (N.d.). Internal regulatory variables and the design of human motivation: A computational and evolutionary approach. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.) Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  86. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1987). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In R. M. Hogarth & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Rational choice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  88. Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Simmons, J. P. (2003). Distinguishing the cognitive and behavioral consequences of attitude importance and certainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 118–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wang, X. T. (1996). Framing effects: Dynamics and task domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wittman, D. (1995). The myth of democratic failure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations