INFLUENCE OF THE PROBABILTY LEVEL ON THE FRAMING EFFECT IN REFERENCE POINT OF LOSS

Vasilije Gvozdenović; Kaja Damnjanović

doi:10.19090/pp.2016.1.83-100

Autori

Vasilije Gvozdenović Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade
Kaja Damnjanović Laboratory for Experimental Psychology, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.19090/pp.2016.1.83-100

Ključne reči:

framing effect, risky choice, probability, reference point, loss

Apstrakt

Framing effect, which refers to preference reversal due to different descriptions of the same outcome, is examined through risky choice tasks, in which experimental reference point is typically positioned in win-area (situation of lottery). The aim of the conducted study was to examine a framing effect pattern as a function of the level of risk in risky options when experimental reference point is positioned in loss-area (paying a bill). Results show general loss aversion in monetary domain, which is in an accordance with previous studies. Frame influences decisions in the situations when possibility of total loss (level of risk) is perceived as relatively low. Interpretation of these results leads to the conclusion that the probability and reference point determine framing effect. In win-area, frame influences decisions on the highest levels of probability, and, vice-versa, in loss-area, frame influences decisions on the lowest levels of probability. Results confirm notion that risk-aversion is dependent upon a decision-maker’s perception of spending (an investment or a loss). Although observed risk-seeking decisions in negative frame and different decision patterns in loss and win areas can be explained by the model of cumulative prospect-theory, influence of different experimental reference point can not.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Reference

Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationnel devant le risque: Cri- tique des postulats et axiomes de l’école américaine. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 503‒546. doi:10.2307/1907921

Chang, O., Nichols, D., & Schultz, J. (1987). Taxpayer attitudes toward tax au- dit risk. Journal of Economic Psychology, 8, 299‒309. doi:10.1016/0167- 4870(87)90025-0

Damnjanović, K. (2013). Efekat okvira: domen odlučivanja. Rad prezentovan na Naučno-stručnom skupu Savremeni trendovi u psihologiji, Novi Sad, Srbija.

Damnjanović, K. i Gvozdenović, V. (2014). Uticaj verovatnoće realizacije rizičnog ishoda na efekat okvira. Rad prezentovan na XX Naučnom skupu Empirijska istraživanja u psihologiji, Beograd, Srbija.

Fagley, N., & Miller, M. (1997). Framing effects and arenas of choice. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 355‒373. doi:10.1006/ obhd.1997.2725

Frisch, D. (1993). Reasons for framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 399‒429. doi:10.1006/obhd.1993.1017

Gambara, H., & Piñon, A. (2005). A meta-analytic review of framing effect: Risky, attribute and goal framing. Psicothema, 17, 325‒331.

Ganzach, Y., & Schul, Y. (1995). The influence of quantity of information and va- lence framing on decision. Acta Psychologica, 89, 23‒36. doi:10.1016/0001- 6918(94)00004-Z

Haward, M., Murphy, R., & Lorenz, J. (2008). Message framing and perinatal decisi- ons. Pediatrics, 122, 109‒118. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-0620

Huang. Y., & Wang. L. (2010). Sex differences in framing effects across task do- main. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 649–665. doi:10.1016/j. paid.2010.01.005

Jou, J., Shanteau, J., & Harris, R. (1996). An information processing view of framing effects: The role of causual-schemas in decision-making. Memory & Cognition, 24, 1‒15. doi:10.3758/BF03197268

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, USA: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision un- der risk. Econometrica, 47, 263‒291. doi:10.2307/1914185

Kashima, Y., & Maher, P. (1995). Framing of decisions under ambiguity. Journal Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 249‒262. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960080104

Kühberger, A. (1995). The framing of decisions: A new look at old problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 230‒240. doi:10.1006/ obhd.1995.1046

Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A Meta- analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23‒55. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2781

Kühberger, A. (2002). Theoretical conceptions of framing effects in risky decisi- ons. In R. Ranyard, W. Crozier, & O. Svenson (Eds.), Decision making: Cognitive models and explanations (pp. 128‒144). London, UK: Routledge.

Kühberger, A., & Tanner, C. (2010). Risky choice framing: Task versions and a com- parison of prospect theory and fuzzy-trace theory. Journal of Behavioral Deci- sion Making, 23, 314–329. doi:10.1002/bdm.656

Levin, P., Schneider, S., & Gaeth, G. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A ty- pology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149‒188. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804

Li, S., & Adams, A. (1995). Is there something more important behind framing? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 216‒219. doi:10.1006/obhd.1995.1044

Markowitz, H. (1952). The utility of wealth. The Journal of Political Economy, 60(2), 151‒158.

Milićević, A., Pavličić, D. i Kostić, A. (2007). Odlučivanje u uslovima rizika i teorija izgleda. Psihologija, 40, 147‒164.

Reyna, V., & Brainerd, C. (1991). Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion. Journal Behavioral Decision Ma- king, 4, 249‒262. doi:10.1002/bdm.3960040403

Schneider, S. (1992). Framing and conflict: Aspiration level contingency, the sta- tus quo, and current theories of risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psycho- logy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1040‒1057. doi:10.1037/0278- 7393.18.5.1040

Shafir, E. (1993). Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition, 21, 546‒556. doi:10.3758/ BF03197186

Sniezek, J., Paese, P., & Switzer, F. (1990). The effect of choosing on confidence in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 264‒282. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(90)90032-5

Stajkić, B., & Gvozdenović, V. (2014). Testing the house money effect in a game show: Mental accounting and asset integration. Primenjena psihologija, 7, 189‒202.

Takemura, K. (1994). Influence of elaboration on the framing of decision. Journal of Psychology, 128, 33‒39. doi:10.1080/00223980.1994.9712709

Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. J. (1990). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effects of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management science, 36(6), 643‒660. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.36.6.643

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453‒458. doi:10.1126/science.7455683

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323. doi:10.1007/BF00122574

Urbany, E., & Dickson, P. (1990). Prospect theory and pricing decisions. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 19, 69‒80. doi:10.1016/0090-5720(90)90018-3

Wang, X. (1996a). Domain-specific rationality in human choices: Violations of utility axioms and social contexts. Cognition, 60, 31‒63. doi:10.1016/0010- 0277(95)00700-8

Wang, X. (1996b). Framing effects: Dynamics and task domains. Organizatio- nal Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68, 145‒157. doi:10.1006/ obhd.1996.0095

Wedell, D. (1997). Another look at reasons for choosing and rejecting. Memory & Cognition, 25, 873‒887. doi:10.3758/BF03211332

Wilson, E. B. (1927). Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical in- ference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 22(158), 209‒212. doi:10.1080/01621459.1927.10502953