Abstract
Past research provides conflicting evidence for the role of value in the appearance of framing effects. In this study, the effects of frame and group size were examined using scenarios about less valuable and more valuable groups (animal vs. human). In addition, two picture manipulations, intended to increase the value of the group, were presented. Choice patterns differed for the human and animal groups, with participants exhibiting greater risk seeking overall for the human scenario and showing a framing effect for humans but not animals when no pictures were presented. A small group size increased the proportion of risky choices for both the animal and human scenarios. Presenting pictures with names did lead to framing effects for animals, but providing pictures or pictures and names eliminated framing effects for the human scenario. These findings suggest that the relationship between value and framing effects is a matter of degree.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bloomfield, A. N., Sager, J. A., Bartels, D. M., & Medin, D. L. (in press). Caring about framing effects.Mind & Society.
Fagley, N. S., &Miller, P. M. (1990). The effect of framing on choice: Interactions with risk-taking propensity, cognitive style, and sex.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,16, 496–510.
Fagley, N. S., &Miller, P. M. (1997). Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life?Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,71, 355–373.
Frisch, D. (1993). Reasons for framing effects.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,54, 399–429.
Gunnthorsdottir, A. (2001). Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation.Anthrozoös,14, 204–215.
Hsee, C. K., &Rottenstreich, Y. (2004). Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,133, 23–30.
Jou, J., Shanteau, J., &Harris, R. J. (1996). An information processing view of framing effects: The role of causal schemas in decision making.Memory & Cognition,24, 1–15.
Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.Econometrica,47, 263–292.
Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,75, 23–55.
Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., &Perner, J. (1999). The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,78, 204–231.
LeBoeuf, R. A., &Shafir, E. (2003). Deep thoughts and shallow frames: On the susceptibility to framing effects.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,16, 77–92.
Levin, I. P., &Chapman, D. (1990). Risk taking, frame of reference, and characterization of victim groups in AIDS treatment decisions.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,26, 421–434.
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., &Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,76, 149–188.
Markowitz, H. (1952). The utility of wealth.Journal of Political Economy,60, 151–158.
McElroy, T., &Seta, J. J. (2003). Framing effects: An analytic— holistic perspective.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,39, 610–617.
Miller, P. M., &Fagley, N. S. (1991). The effects of framing, problem variations, and providing rationale on choice.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,17, 517–522.
Rothman, A. J., &Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing.Psychological Bulletin,121, 3–19.
Schneider, S. L. (1992). Framing and conflict: Aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 1040–1057.
Sieck, W., &Yates, J. F. (1997). Exposition effects on decision making: Choice and confidence in choice.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,70, 207–219.
Simon, A. F., Fagley, N. S., &Halleran, J. G. (2004). Decision framing: Moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,17, 77–93.
Smith, V. L. (1985). Experimental economics: Reply.American Economic Review,75, 265–272.
Tanner, C., &Medin, D. L. (2004). Protected values: No omission bias and no framing effects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 185–191.
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science,211, 453–458.
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions.Journal of Business,59, S251-S278.
Wang, X. T. (1996a). Domain-specific rationality in human choices: Violations of utility axioms and social contexts.Cognition,60, 31–63.
Wang, X. T. (1996b). Framing effects: Dynamics and task domains.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,68, 145–157.
Wang, X. T., &Johnston, V. S. (1995). Perceived social context and risk preference: A re-examination of framing effects in a life—death decision problem.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,8, 279–293.
Wang, X. T., Simons, F., &Brédart, S. (2001). Social cues and verbal framing in risky choice.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,14, 1–15.
Zickar, M., &Highhouse, S. (1998). Looking closer at the effects of framing on risky choice: An item response theory analysis.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,75, 75–91.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article is based on a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, April 30, 2004. I thank Douglas Medin, Serge Blok, Dan Bartels, and Andrea Proctor for their helpful critiques. I also thank Allegra Smith, Grace Joo, and Lee Anne Grant for their help in conducting the study.
Note—This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, when Colin M. MacLeod was Editor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bloomfield, A.N. Group size and the framing effect:. Memory & Cognition 34, 929–937 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193438
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193438