Literature DB >> 9831520

All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects.

.   

Abstract

Accentuate the positive or accentuate the negative? The literature has been mixed as to how the alternative framing of information in positive or negative terms affects judgments and decisions. We argue that this is because different studies have employed different operational definitions of framing and thus have tapped different underlying processes. We develop a typology to distinguish between three different kinds of valence framing effects. First we discuss the standard risky choice framing effect introduced by Tversky and Kahneman (1981) to illustrate how valence affects willingness to take a risk. Then we discuss attribute framing, which affects the evaluation of object or event characteristics, and goal framing, which affects the persuasiveness of a communication. We describe the distinctions, provide a number of examples of each type, and discuss likely theoretical mechanisms underlying each type of framing effect. Our typology helps explain and resolve apparent confusions in the literature, ties together studies with common underlying mechanisms, and serves as a guide to future research and theory development. We conclude that a broader perspective, focused on the cognitive and motivational consequences of valence-based encoding, opens the door to a deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of framing effects. Copyright 1998 Academic Press.

Year:  1998        PMID: 9831520     DOI: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2804

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Organ Behav Hum Decis Process        ISSN: 0749-5978


  107 in total

1.  What a speaker's choice of frame reveals: reference points, frame selection, and framing effects.

Authors:  Craig R M McKenzie; Jonathan D Nelson
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-09

2.  Technological viewpoints (frames) about electronic prescribing in physician practices.

Authors:  Ritu Agarwal; Corey M Angst; Catherine M DesRoches; Michael A Fischer
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2010 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers.

Authors:  Deirdre McCaughey; Nealia S Bruning
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 7.327

4.  What's in a frame? Response to Kanngiesser & Woike (2016).

Authors:  Christopher Krupenye; Alexandra G Rosati; Brian Hare
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 3.703

5.  Framing the debate on human-like framing effects in bonobos and chimpanzees: a comment on Krupenye et al. (2015).

Authors:  Patricia Kanngiesser; Jan K Woike
Journal:  Biol Lett       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 3.703

6.  Framing effects in inference tasks--and why they are normatively defensible.

Authors:  Craig R M McKenzie
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-09

7.  Framing effects in younger and older adults.

Authors:  Sunghan Kim; David Goldstein; Lynn Hasher; Rose T Zacks
Journal:  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.077

8.  Risk avoidance: graphs versus numbers.

Authors:  Hannah Faye Chua; J Frank Yates; Priti Shah
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2006-03

9.  A neuroimaging investigation of attribute framing and individual differences.

Authors:  Kevin B Murch; Daniel C Krawczyk
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2013-08-29       Impact factor: 3.436

10.  A randomized trial of three videos that differ in the framing of information about mammography in women 40 to 49 years old.

Authors:  Carmen L Lewis; Michael P Pignone; Stacey L Sheridan; Stephen M Downs; Linda S Kinsinger
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.