Skip to main content
Download PDF

Protected values: No omission bias and no framing effects

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review volume 11, pages 185–191 (2004)Cite this article

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.

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J. (1999). Consumer attitudes about personal and political action.Journal of Consumer Psychology,8, 261–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J., &Ritov, I. (1994). Reference points and omission bias.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,59, 475–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, J., &Spranca, M. (1997). Protected values.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,70, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, A. P., &Tetlock, P. E. (1997). Taboo trade-offs: Reactions to transactions that transgress spheres of justice.Political Psychology,18, 255–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., &Baron, J. (1996). Social roles and the moral judgement of acts and omissions.European Journal of Social Psychology,26, 201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1984). Choice, values, and frames.American Psychologist,39, 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Patt, A., &Zeckhauser, R. (2000). Action bias and environmental decisions.Journal of Risk & Uncertainty,21, 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritov, I., &Baron, J. (1990). Reluctance to vaccinate: Omission bias and ambiguity.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,3, 263–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritov, I., &Baron, J. (1999). Protected values and omission bias.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,79, 79–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., &Kalof, L. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern.Environment & Behavior,25, 322–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science,211, 453–458.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, X. T. (1996). Framing effects: Dynamics and task domains.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,68, 145–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Social and Business Psychology, University of Zurich, Rämistrasse 62, 8001, Zurich, Switzerland

    Carmen Tanner

  2. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois

    Douglas L. Medin

Authors
  1. Carmen Tanner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas L. Medin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmen Tanner.

Additional information

This research was supported by Swiss National Science Foundation Grant 8210-61241 to the first author and NSF Grant SES-9910156 to the second author.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tanner, C., Medin, D.L. Protected values: No omission bias and no framing effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11, 185–191 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206481

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206481

Keywords

  • Moral Obligation
  • Carbon Dioxide Emission
  • Risky Choice
  • Human Decision Process
  • Loss Framing