A New Look at Framing Effects: Distribution of Effect Sizes, Individual Differences, and Independence of Types of Effects

Levin, Schneider, and Gaeth (1998) identified three distinct types of framing effects in the literature: attribute framing effects, goal framing effects, risky choice framing effects. While most previous framing studies used between-subjects manipulations of frame, the present study used two session...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Organizational behavior and human decision processes 2002-05, Vol.88 (1), p.411-429
Main Authors: Levin, Irwin P., Gaeth, Gary J., Schreiber, Judy, Lauriola, Marco
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Biological and medical sciences
Cognition. Intelligence
Decision making
Decision making. Choice
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
individual differences
Information
information framing
Organization theory
Organizational behavior
Organizational behaviour
Personality
Psychological aspects
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychology. Psychophysiology
Standard deviation
Studies
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Levin, Schneider, and Gaeth (1998) identified three distinct types of framing effects in the literature: attribute framing effects, goal framing effects, risky choice framing effects. While most previous framing studies used between-subjects manipulations of frame, the present study used two sessions, spaced one week apart, to give each of 102 participants both framing conditions and all three types of framing. Using the difference between the score for the positive framing condition and the negative framing condition as the unit of analysis for each type of framing effect, the following were found: (1) reliable framing effects for attribute framing and risky choice framing, but not for goal framing; (2) distributions of individual framing effects showing that the aggregate-level effects were representative of individuals even though some individuals showed no framing effects; (3) no significant interdependencies between the three categories of framing effects; (4) individual differences in reaction to the task scenarios related to various of the “Big Five” personality traits as well as the Faith in Intuition scale. The use of within-subject designs to assess individual differences in decision-making phenomena such as framing effects and other biases and heuristics is recommended for future research.
ISSN:0749-5978
1095-9920
DOI:10.1006/obhd.2001.2983