The Effect of Task Type and Outcome Framing on Risk Decision-Making

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2022.01.007

Abstract

Abstract: This study investigated the influence of decision task types on risk preference under gain frame and loss frame in the context of money gambling and lifesaving domain respectively. A between-subjects design was conducted with 2 (task area: money gambling/lifesaving) ×2 (decision task type: experience/description) ×2 (result frame: gain/loss). By using the chi-square test and binary logistic regression analysis, we found that individuals showed more tendency to risk-seeking when they made decisions based on descriptive information under negative frame. On the contrary, no framing effects were found when individuals made decisions based on experience. In summary, the description-experience gap was consistent with money gambling and lifesaving domain.

Key words: risk decision-making, outcome framing, description-based decision, experience-based decision

摘要： 本研究考察生命和金钱问题下，获得和损失框架中决策任务类型对风险决策的影响。采用2（任务领域：生命、金钱）×2（决策任务类型：经验、描述）×2（结果框架：获得、损失）被试间设计，使用卡方检验及logistic回归分析后发现：生命和金钱问题下，个体在直接给出方案可能结果的描述性决策中仅表现出损失框架下的风险偏好；在通过自主查看方案可能结果的经验性决策中未发现结果框架作用。描述−经验差距一致性存在于生命和金钱问题中。

关键词: 风险决策, 结果框架, 描述性决策, 经验性决策

CLC Number:

B842

LIAO Yahui, HAN Mengfei. The Effect of Task Type and Outcome Framing on Risk Decision-Making[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(1): 45-51.

廖雅慧, 韩梦霏. 决策任务类型与结果框架对风险决策的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(1): 45-51.

References

李虹, 付丽莎. (2018). 经验性决策: 不完备信息条件下的搜索与学习. 西北师大学报(社会科学版), 55(2), 105–114
李纾. (2005). 确定、不确定及风险状态下选择反转: “齐当别”选择方式的解释. 心理学报, 37(4), 427–433
刘建民, 李海垒, 张文新. (2016). 行为决策中的描述-经验差距: 信息加工角度的解释. 心理科学进展, 24(10), 1623–1635
宋广文, 夏星星, 李承宗, 何云凤. (2012). 时间距离、封面故事和概率对框架效应的影响. 心理学报, 44(7), 957–963
辛自强, 李哲. (2020). 我国公民财经价值观的变迁及其对财经福祉的影响. 心理研究, 13(1), 41–48, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1159.2020.01.006
辛自强, 李哲, 杨之旭. (2020). 疫情期间公众的经济信心、财经价值观与支出行为意愿. 中央财经大学学报, (6), 118–128
张凤华, 邱江, 邱桂凤, 张庆林. (2007). 决策中的框架效应再探. 心理科学, 30(4), 886–890
Ariely, D., Huber, J., & Wertenbroch, K. (2005). When do losses loom larger than gains. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 134–138, doi: 10.1509/jmkr.42.2.134.62283.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370, doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323.
Cassotti, M., Habib, M., Poirel, N., Aïte, A., Houdé, O., & Moutier, S. (2012). Positive emotional context eliminates the framing effect in decision-making. Emotion, 12(5), 926–931, doi: 10.1037/a0026788.
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, doi: 10.1126/science.1128356.
Diederich, A., & Trueblood, J. S. (2018). A dynamic dual process model of risky decision making. Psychological Review, 125(2), 270–292, doi: 10.1037/rev0000087.
Druckman, J. N., & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the framing of risky choice. Political Behavior, 30(3), 297–321, doi: 10.1007/s11109-008-9056-y.
Fiedler, K., Brinkmann, B., Betsch, T., & Wild, B. (2000). A sampling approach to biases in conditional probability judgments: Beyond base rate neglect and statistical format. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(3), 399–418, doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.129.3.399.
Frey, R., Mata, R., & Hertwig, R. (2015). The role of cognitive abilities in decisions from experience: Age differences emerge as a function of choice set size. Cognition, 142, 60–80, doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.05.004.
Fu, L. S., Yu, J. J., Ni, S. G., & Li, H. (2018). Reduced framing effect: Experience adjusts affective forecasting with losses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 76, 231–238, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.02.006.
Gigerenzer, G., Hell, W., & Blank, H. (1988). Presentation and content: The use of base rates as a continuous variable. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14(3), 513–525, doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.14.3.513.
Gonzalez, C., & Mehlhorn, K. (2016). Framing from experience: Cognitive processes and predictions of risky choice. Cognitive Science, 40(5), 1163–1191, doi: 10.1111/cogs.12268.
Gosling, C. J., Caparos, S., & Moutier, S. (2020). The interplay between the importance of a decision and emotion in decision-making. Cognition and Emotion, 34(6), 1260–1270, doi: 10.1080/02699931.2020.1741340.
Gosling, C. J., & Moutier, S. (2017). High but not low probability of gain elicits a positive feeling leading to the framing effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 81, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00081.
Hau, R., Pleskac, T. J., & Hertwig, R. (2010). Decisions from experience and statistical probabilities: Why they trigger different choices than a priori probabilities. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(1), 48–68, doi: 10.1002/bdm.665.
Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E. U., & Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15(8), 534–539, doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00715.x.
Huang, Y. H., & Wang, L. (2010). Sex differences in framing effects across task domain. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(5), 649–653, doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.005.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350, doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341.
Lejarraga, T., Pachur, T., Frey, R., & Hertwig, R. (2016). Decisions from experience: From monetary to medical gambles. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29(1), 67–77, doi: 10.1002/bdm.1877.
Pu, B. Y., Peng, H. M., & Xia, S. Y. (2017). Role of emotion and cognition on age differences in the framing effect. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 85(3), 305–325, doi: 10.1177/0091415017691284.
Rakow, T., Demes, K. A., & Newell, B. R. (2008). Biased samples not mode of presentation: Re-examining the apparent underweighting of rare events in experience-based choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106(2), 168–179, doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.02.001.
Ranieri, A. Y., Kauffman, S. S., & Schneider, S. L. (2019). Good fortune but bad luck? Predictable versus unpredictable gains and losses in risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 32(3), 359–372, doi: 10.1002/bdm.2117.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458, doi: 10.1126/science.7455683.
Weber, E. U., Shafir, S., & Blais, A. R. (2004). Predicting risk sensitivity in humans and lower animals: Risk as variance or coefficient of variation. Psychological Review, 111(2), 430–445, doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.111.2.430.
Weiss, H. M., & Merlo, K. L. (2020). Affect, attention, and episodic performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(5), 453–459, doi: 10.1177/0963721420949496.

[1]	ZHANG Yuzhi, GAO Yi, ZHANG Jijia. The Positional Effect of Semantic and Grammatical Activation of Semantic Radical Under Semantic Radical Priming Paradigm [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(6): 721-727.
[2]	ZHANG Zhenghua, ZHANG Hang, WANG Bing, ZHENG Zilong, ZHAO Liming, LI Weijun. The Processing of the Tone and the Vowel in Poems Under Different Tasks: Evidence from ERPs [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(6): 728-735.
[3]	ZHAO Sainan, LI Lin, ZHANG Lijuan, WANG Jingxin. The Influence of Constrictive Context on the Processing of Unpredictable Word in Chinese Reading [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(6): 736-742.
[4]	CHEN Yixin, ZHANG Qihan, XIA Yidan, ZHAO Bingjie, BAI Xuejun. Motor Prediction of Others in Synchronized Joint Action: The Critical Role of Feedback Cue [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(6): 743-749.
[5]	REN Yaping, SUN Yan, ZHAO Xuesong. The Influence of Ego Depletion on Self-Other Risk Decision-Making Under Different Task Frames [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(6): 750-756.
[6]	ZHU Huan, XIE Xiaowei, DAI Zheru, TANG Xiaoya, ZANG Jian, WU Jiao, ZANG Xuelian. Semantic Information Takes Precedence over Spatial Location and Glyph Feature in Contextual Cueing with Chinese Characters [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(5): 577-584.
[7]	LIU Lu, JIANG Yamei, ZHANG Qiaoming, LI Zhuyang. Influence of the Position and Transparency of Semantic Radicals on Semantic Activation in Chinese Phonogram Recognition [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(5): 585-591.
[8]	LIU Zhifang, ZENG Taishen, CHAI Lin, CHEN Chaoyang, TONG Wen. The Characteristics of Word Processing When Deaf Readers Read Chinese: Evidences from Disappearing Text [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(5): 592-598.
[9]	YANG Xue, LEI Jianghua. The Regulatory Role of Reading Ability in Phonological Coding of Hearing-Impaired College Students [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(5): 599-605.
[10]	LI Sainan, YAN Guoli, WANG Yali, LIU Min, ZHAO Shuping. The Perceptual Span for Chinese Grade 1 Primary School Students [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(5): 606-611.
[11]	ZHANG Suyuan, LAN Zebo, ZHANG Shui, MENG Zhu, YAN Guoli. The Effects of Irrelevant Speech on Reading Among First Graders First-Grade Students: An Eye-Tracking Study [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(4): 433-438,446.
[12]	LI Yunsong, CHEN Qiyang, WU Yan, LI Tianhong, DUAN Rujun. The Dominant Role of Semantic Radicals in Chinese Phonogram Recognition [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(4): 439-446.
[13]	YANG Weiping, YANG Xiangfu, XU Jianping. The Influence of Cross-Modal Audiovisual Emotional Information on Baby Schema Effect [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(4): 447-453.
[14]	LIU Pengfei, CUI Jiaxin, REN Weicong, ZHANG Zhijie. The Acquisition Process of Time Concept in 4~7 Years Old Children [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(4): 454-459.
[15]	SONG Yiqi, YANG Wanqing, LIANG Dandan. Metaphorical Mapping of Spatial Concept “Da” in 6~8 Years Old Mandarin-Speaking Children with High-Functioning Autism [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(4): 460-465.