Need, frames, and time constraints in risky decision-making
Tóm tắt
In two experiments, participants had to choose between a sure and a risky option. The sure option was presented either in a gain or a loss frame. Need was defined as a minimum score the participants had to reach. Moreover, choices were made under two different time constraints and with three different levels of induced need to be reached within a fixed number of trials. The two experiments differed with respect to the specific amounts to win and the need levels. The $$2 \times 2 \times 3$$ design was a within-subject design. Data were evaluated on an overall and on a group level, the latter based on participants’ stated risk preference and on revealed preferences (choice proportions) using cluster analysis across subjects. Overall, the results showed riskier behavior when the choice options were presented as losses as compared to gains (framing effect) and when the induced need was highest. Time limits enhanced the framing effect.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Albers, W. (2001). Prominence theory as a tool to model boundedly rational decisions. In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox (pp. 297–317). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Bateman, I., Dent, S., Peters, E., Slovic, P., & Starmer, C. (2007). The affect heuristic and the attractiveness of simple gambles. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(4), 365–380. Referenz einfügen.
Deaton, A., & Muellbauer, J. (1980). Economics and consumer behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313(5787), 684–687.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137–149.
Diederich, A. (2003). Decision making under conflict: Decision time as a measure of conflict strength. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10(1), 167–176.
Diederich, A., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2006). Modeling the effects of payoff on response bias in a perceptual discrimination task: Bound-change, drift-rate-change, or two-stage-processing hypothesis. Perception and Psychophysics, 68(2), 194–207.
Diederich, A., Wyszynski, M., & Ritov, I. (2018). Moderators of framing effect in variations of the Asian Disease problem: Time constraint, need, and disease type. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(6), 529–546.
Gamliel, E., & Peer, E. (2006). Positive versus negative framing affects justice judgments. Social Justice Research, 19(3), 307–322.
Gamliel, E., & Peer, E. (2010). Attribute framing affects the perceived fairness of health care allocation principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(1), 11–20.
Geary, R. C. (1950). A note on “A constant-utility index of the cost of living”. The Review of Economic Studies, 18(1), 65–66.
Guo, L., Trueblood, J. S., & Diederich, A. (2015). A dual-process model of framing effects in risky choice. In COGSCI 2015, Pasadena.
Guo, L., Trueblood, J. S., & Diederich, A. (2017). Thinking fast increases framing effects in risky decision making. Psychological Science, 28(4), 530–543.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47, 263–291.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2000). Choices, values, and frames. In D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (Eds.), Choices, values, and frames (pp. 1–17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kittel, B., & Traub, S. (2020). Need-based distributional justice: An interdisciplinary perspective. Heidelberg: Springer.
Konow, J. (2001). Fair and square: the four sides of distributive justice. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 46(2), 137–164.
Konow, J. (2003). Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), 1188–1239.
Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 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 and Human Decision Processes, 78(3), 204–231.
Lamm, H., & Schwinger, T. (1983). Need consideration in allocation decisions: Is it just? The Journal of Social Psychology, 119(2), 205–209.
Lopes, L. (1983). Some thoughts on the psychological concept of risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9(1), 137–144.
Pashler, H., & Wagenmakers, E. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 528–530.
Core Team, R. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Sabbagh, C., & Schmitt, M. (2016). Handbook of social justice theory and research. New York: Springer.
Schwinger, T., & Lamm, H. (1981). Justice norms in allocation decisions: Need consideration as a function of resource adequacy for complete need satisfaction, recipients’ contributions, and recipients’ interpersonal attraction. Social Behavior and Personality, 9(2), 235–241.
Stone, E. R., & Allgaier, L. (2008). A social values analysis of self-other differences in decision making involving risk. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(2), 114–129.
Stone, E. R., Choi, Y., de Bruin, W. B., & Mandel, D. R. (2013). I can take the risk, but you should be safe: Self-other differences in situations involving physical safety. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(3), 250.
Stone, R. (1954). Linear expenditure systems and demand analysis: An application to the pattern of British demand. The Economic Journal, 64(255), 511–527.
TNS Infratest Sozialforschung (2012). Methodenbericht zum Befragungsjahr 2009 (Welle 26) des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels. In SOEP Survey Papers 70: Series B. Berlin: DIW/SOEP.
Törnblom, K. Y. (1988). Positive and negative allocations: A typology and a model for conflicting justice principles. Advances in Group Processes, 5, 141–168.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.
Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior, 2nd rev. ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.