Advertisement

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 185–191 | Cite as

Protected values: No omission bias and no framing effects

  • Carmen TannerEmail author
  • Douglas L. Medin
Brief Reports

Abstract

Previous studies have suggested that people holding protected values (PVs) show a bias against harmful acts, as opposed to harmful omissions (omission bias). In the present study, we (1) investigated the relationship between PVs and acts versus omissions in risky choices, using a paradigm in which act and omission biases were presented in a symmetrical manner, and (2) examined whether people holding PVs respond differently to framing manipulations. Participants were given environmental scenarios and were asked to make choices between actions and omissions. Both the framing of the outcomes (positive vs. negative) and the outcome certainty (risky vs. certain) were manipulated. In contrast to previous studies, PVs were linked to preferences for acts, rather than for omissions. PVs were more likely to be associated with moral obligations to act than with moral prohibitions against action. Strikingly, people with strong PVs were immune to framing; participants with few PVs showed robust framing effects.

Keywords

Moral Obligation Carbon Dioxide Emission Risky Choice Human Decision Process Loss Framing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

Tanner-PBR-2004.zip (13 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 340 KB.

References

  1. Axelrod, L. J. (1994). Balancing personal needs with environmental preservation: Identifying the values that guide decisions in ecological dilemmas.Journal of Social Issues,50, 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, J. (1999). Consumer attitudes about personal and political action.Journal of Consumer Psychology,8, 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, J., &Ritov, I. (1994). Reference points and omission bias.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,59, 475–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baron, J., &Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,70, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black, J. S., Stern, P. C., &Elworth, J. T. (1985). Personal and contextual influences on household energy adaptations.Journal of Applied Psychology,70, 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., &Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,58, 1015–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fiske, A. P., &Tetlock, P. E. (1997). Taboo trade-offs: Reactions to transactions that transgress spheres of justice.Political Psychology,18, 255–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haidt, J., &Baron, J. (1996). Social roles and the moral judgement of acts and omissions.European Journal of Social Psychology,26, 201–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hopper, J. R., &Nielsen, J. M. (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior: Normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling program.Environment & Behavior,23, 195–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1984). Choice, values, and frames.American Psychologist,39, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Markman, A. B., &Medin, D. L. (2002). Decision making. In H. Pashler & D. L. Medin (Eds.),Stevens’ Handbook of experimental psychology: Vol. 2. Memory and cognitive processes (3rd ed., pp. 413–466). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Patt, A., &Zeckhauser, R. (2000). Action bias and environmental decisions.Journal of Risk & Uncertainty,21, 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Reyna, V. F., &Brainerd, C. J. (1991). Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,4, 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ritov, I., &Baron, J. (1990). Reluctance to vaccinate: Omission bias and ambiguity.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,3, 263–277.Google Scholar
  15. Ritov, I., &Baron, J. (1999). Protected values and omission bias.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,79, 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., &Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern.Environment & Behavior,25, 322–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science,211, 453–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wang, X. T. (1996). Framing effects: Dynamics and task domains.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,68, 145–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social and Business PsychologyUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Northwestern UniversityEvanston

Personalised recommendations