LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Wickham, P. (2007)
Publisher: University of Leeds
Languages: English
Types: Book
Subjects:
Framing effects, which may induce decision-makers to demonstrate preference description invariance violation for logically equivalent options varying in semantic emphasis, are an economically significant decision bias and an active area of research. Framing is an issue inter alia for the way in which options are presented in stated-choice studies where (often inadvertent) semantic emphasis may impact on preference responses. While research into both espoused preference effects and its cognitive substrate is highly active, interpretation and explanation of preference anomalies is beset by variation in the underlying structure of problems and latitude for decision-maker elaboration. A formal, general scheme for making transparent the parameter and proposition structure of framed decision stimuli is described. Interpretive and cognitive explanations for framing effects are reviewed. The formalism’s potential for describing extant, generating new stimulus tasks, detailing decision-maker task elaboration. The approach also provides a means of formalising stated-choice response stimuli and provides a metric of decision stimuli complexity. An immediate application is in the structuring of stated-choice test instruments.\ud
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Camerer, C. F (1989) “An experimental test of several generalised utility theories”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, vol. 2, pp. 61-104.
    • Camerer, C. F. (1995) “Individual decision making” in J. Kagel and A. Roth (Eds) The Handbook of Experimental Economics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
    • Camerer, C. F. and Weber, M. (1992) “Recent developments in modelling preferences: Uncertainty and ambiguity”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 5, pp. 325-370.
    • Chang, C. J., S.-H. Yen and R.-R. Duh (2002) “An empirical examination of competing theories to explain the framing effect in accounting decisions” Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 14, pp. 35-64.
    • Duchon, D., K. J. Dunegan and S. Barton (1989) “Framing the problem and making decisions: The facts are not enough”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, February, pp. 25-27.
    • Dunegan, K. J. (1993) “Framing, cognitive modes and image theory: Towards and understanding of a glass half full”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp.491-503.
    • Dunegan, K. J. (1995) “Image theory: Testing the role image of compatibility in progress decisions”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 62, pp. 79-86.
    • Dunegan, K. J. (1996) “Fines, frames and images: Examining formulation effects on punishment decisions”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 68, pp. 58-67.
    • Dunegan, K. J., D. Duchon and D Ashmos (1995) “Image compatibility and the use of problem space information in resource allocation decisions: Testing a moderating effects model”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 64, pp. 31-37.
    • Einhorn, H. J. and R. M. Hogarth (1986) “Decision making under ambiguity”, Journal of Business, Vol. 59, No. 4, Part 2, pp.S225-S250.
    • Ellsberg, D. (1961) “Risk ambiguity and the Savage axioms”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75:643-669.
    • Ellsberg, D. (2001) Risk, Ambiguity and Decision, New York: Garland.
    • Emby, C. (1994) “Framing and presentation mode effects professional judgement: Auditors' internal control judgements and substantive testing decisions”, Auditing: A Journal of Theory and Practice, Vol. 13(Suppl.), pp. 102-115.
    • Emby, C. and Finley, D. (1997) “Debiasing framing effects in auditors' internal control judgements and testing decisions”, Contemporary Accounting Research, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.
    • Fagley, N. S. (1993) “A note concerning reflection effects versus framing effects”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol.113, No.3, pp. 451-452.
    • Farquhar, P. H. (1984) “Utility assessment methods”, Management Science, Vol. 30, pp.1283- 1300.
    • Fishburn, P. C. (1988a) “Expected utility: An anniversary and a new era”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol.1, pp. 267-283.
    • Fishburn, P. C (1988b) “Retrospective on the utility theory of von Neumann and Morgenstern”, Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Vol. 2, pp.127-158.
    • Giggerenzer, G., U. Hoffrage and H. Kleinbölting (1991) “Probabilistic Mental Models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence”, Psychological Review, Vol. 98, pp. 506-528.
    • Hershey, J. C., Kunreuther, H. C. and Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1982) “Sources of bias in assessment procedures for utility functions”, Management Science, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 936- 954.
    • Highhouse, S., P. W. Paese and T. Leatherberry (1996) “Contrast effects on strategic issue framing”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 65, pp.95-105.
    • Highhouse, S. and P. Yüce (1996) “Perspectives, perceptions and risk taking behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 65, pp. 159-167.
    • Hodgkinson, G. P., Bown, N. J., Maule, J. A., Glaister, K. W. and Pearman, A. D. (1999) “Breaking the frame: An analysis of strategic cognition and decision making under uncertainty”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 977-985.
    • Hogarth, R. M. (1989) “Ambiguity and competitive decision making: Some implications and tests”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 19, pp. 31-50.
    • Hogarth, R. M. and H. J. Einhorn (1990) “Venture Theory: A model of decision weights” Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 7, pp. 780-803.
    • Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky (1979) “Prospect theory: An analysis of decision-making under risk”, Econometrica, Vol. 47, pp.263-291.
    • Kühberger, A., M. (1998) “The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 75, pp. 23-55.
    • Kühberger, A., M. Schulte-Mecklenbeck and J. Perner (2002) “Framing decisions: Hypothetical and real”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 89, pp. 1162-1175.
    • Kuhn, K. M. (1997) “Communicating uncertainty: Framing effects on responses to vague probabilities”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 71, pp. 55-83.
    • Levin, I. P. and G. J. Gaeth (1988) “Framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, pp. 374-378.
    • Levin, I. P., S. L. Schneider and G. J. Gaeth (1998) “All frames are not created equally: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , Vol. 76, pp. 149-188.
    • Machina, M. J. (1987) “Choice under uncertainty: Problems solved and unsolved” Economic Perspectives, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 121-154.
    • McCusker, C. and P. J. Carnevale (1995) “Framing in resource dilemmas: Loss aversion and the moderating effects of sanctions”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 61, pp. 190-201.
    • Munier, B. (1989) “New models of decision under uncertainty: An interpretative essay”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 38, pp. 307-317.
    • Newberry, K. J., P. M. J. Reckers and R. W. Wyndelts (1993) “An examination of tax practitioner decisions: The role of preparer sanctions and framing effects associated with client condition”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 439-452.
    • Neale, M. A. and M. H. Bazerman (1985) “The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28, pp. 34-49.
    • Prelec, D. and G. Loewenstein (1991) “Decision making over time and under uncertainty: A common approach”, Management Science, 37(3):770-786.
    • Qualls, W. J. and C. P. Puto (1989) “Organization climate and decision framing: An integrated approach to analysing industrial buying decisions”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 2, pp.179-192.
    • Reyna, V. F. and C. J. Brainerd (1991) “Fuzzy-Trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation and conversion”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 4, pp. 249-262.
    • Reyna, V. F. and S. C. Ellis (1994) “Fuzzy-Trace Theory and framing effects in children's risky decision making”, Psychological Science, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 275-279.
    • Savage, L. J. (1954) The Foundations of Statistics, Wiley, New York.
    • Schneider, S. L. and L. E. Eble (1994) “Framing and goal contingencies: Changes in framing effects with changes in risky options”, Unpublished Manuscript, University of South Florida, Tampa.
    • Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1982) “The expected utility model: Its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations”, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 20, pp. 529-563.
    • Schoorman, F. D., R. C. Mayer, C. A. Douglas and C. T. Hetrick (1994) “Escalation of commitment and the framing effect: An empirical investigation”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 24, pp. 509-528.
    • Schurr, P. H. (1987) “Effect of gain and loss decision frames on risky purchase negotiations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.72, pp.351-358.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article