Talk:Framing effect (psychology)/Archives/2013

Developmental factors

This section consists on content being prepared for possible inclusion in the article as part of a student project at Davidson University. See the next section for a discussion and caution about relying on primary source, and in particular on primary academic sources. Also note the welcome given to the two new contributors to this article working on the project!

Understanding how framing influences people approach a problem or choose a solution is vital to understanding cognition because the framing effect has consistently proven to be one of the strongest biases in decision making (Thomas and Miller 1).

We plan to add a section to this article about the framing effect as it relates to age and development. This is an assignment for a Cognitive Psychology class at Davidson College. Here is a basic outline of the information to be included:

Childhood and Adolescence

Children: The Framing Effect becomes stronger as children age. Children between the ages of 10-12 are more likely to assimilate quantitative differences (objective probabilities) and show framing effects, while younger children only considered the quantitative differences (“risk avoidance for gains, risk seeking for losses”) (Reyna and Farley). In fact, young children were more likely to be consistent across frames than adults (Schlottman and Tring). Children focus on literal information and details more than an overall situation, causing them to be less influenced by the framing effect (Schlottman and Tring). This also suggests that rational decision-making can decrease with age, a phenomenon called the Fuzzy Trace Theory.

Learning and reasoning in school-aged children

Adulthood

Young Adults In multiple studies of undergraduate students, researchers have found that students are more likely to prefer options framed positively (e.g. they were more likely to enjoy meat labeled 75% lean meat as opposed to 25% fat, or use condoms advertised as being 95% effective as opposed to having a 5% risk of failure) (Revlin 364).

The type of problem in question can contribute to the effects of framing. Revlin considers the framing effect’s impact on approaching an ill-defined problem. Ill-defined problems are open domain topics that invite each individual to consider any information they determine to be relevant in solving a problem, and hold no singular “correct” answer (Revlin 360). To observe the framing effect in this context, Revlin reviews Tversky and Kahneman’s 1981 study on a problem without a clear correct answer; they asked undergraduate students to decide whether or not to purchase a ticket to theater production under two different given conditions. In one scenario, the student had lost ten dollars earlier in the day and had to decide whether to still buy a ten-dollar theater ticket. In the second scenario, the student had previously purchased the ten-dollar ticket, and, after realizing he or she had misplaced the ticket, the student had to decide whether to purchase a second ticket. In each case the student would ultimately have lost ten dollars and paid an additional ten dollars for a ticket (Tversky & Kahneman 1981). It is clear that their two scenarios pose ill-defined problems; individuals cannot be faulted for choosing either option. Despite the monetary quantities being equivalent in both situations, the additional information, which frames the problem, adds additional values. As one might expect, when asked whether they would purchase the ten-dollar ticket, 88% of the students said yes in the first scenario (reasoning that everyone loses money sometimes) while only 46% said yes in the second option (reasoning that you should “pay the penalty” for losing the ticket) (Revlin 364).

Older Adults

Older adults have fewer cognitive resources available to them, and thus tend to consider accessible information (the frame) in making choices, even if that information is not relevant to making an informed choice (Thomas and Miller, Wood, Busemeyer, Koling, Cox, & Davis, 2005; Zamarian et al., 2008). This is consistent with other research on older adults’ decision making which finds that they tend to lack flexibility in changing decision-making strategies and are more likely to rely upon emotional information more often than cognitive information (WATANABE and SHIBUTANI). As detailed above, the framing effect influences decision making by bringing questions of outside values into reasoning. This is concerning when considering the serious choices older adults must make, because the way in which a problem is portrayed (i.e. the inclusion or exclusion of extraneous details) affects the accessibility of information within the problem, causing older adults to inappropriately form their choices based on the frame (Thomas and Miller 1). The reliance on framing in making choices is presented in two ways. First, As individuals age, they make decisions more quickly than their younger counterparts (Thomas and Miller; Johnson; Mata, Schooler, and Rieskamp). Second, When asked to perform an Iowa Gambling Task, several studies have shown that younger adults will make less biased decisions (basing choices on patterns, and strategies that require cognitive resources like working-memory skills) while older adults make choices based on immediate reactions to gains and losses (less cognitively demanding)(Wood, Busemeyer, Koling, Cox, & Davis, 2005; Zamarian et al., 2008). While they still have the ability to make unbiased decisions when prompted to do so, they are more likely to default to the less demanding option (Thomas and Miller 5).

Risky decision making processes

Comparison between age groups

Younger adults are more likely than older adults to be enticed by risk-taking when presented with loss frame trials (Thomas and Miller 2).

Younger vs. Older Adults

Adolescents vs. young adults

Overall

We believe these snap shots in life will serve as a good starting point for other wikipedia editors to add to. We intend to survey the topic at multiple points rather than focus on just one stage of cognitive development.

Additional sources may include:

Schlottmann, Anne, and Jane Tring. "How Children Reason About Gains And Losses: Framing Effects In Judgement And Choice." Swiss Journal Of Psychology/Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/Revue Suisse De Psychologie 64.3 (2005): 153-171. PsycINFO. Web. 14 Feb. 2013.

Mikels, J. A., & Reed, A. E. (2009). Monetary losses do not loom large in later life: Age differences in the framing effect. The Journals Of Gerontology: Series B: Psychological Sciences And Social Sciences, 64B(4), 457-460. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbp043

--Nancyb672 (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Susannavogel (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia, primary sources etc

The following discussion was prompted by the above 'Developmental factors' section

Hi Nancy and Susanna! I have checked about six of your sources, and saw that all of them are WP:primary sources, that is, results of single studies. However, Wikipedia is not an academic paper or essay! Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources (for instance, journal reviews and professional or advanced academic textbooks) and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources (such as undergraduate textbooks). WP:MEDRS describes how to identify reliable sources for medical information, which is a good guideline for many psychology articles as well. So please, reconsider your choice of sources and use secondary sources instead! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 17:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly... thank you Nancy and Susanna for selecting this article. I have contributed to it in the past because of its importance to society, in that is shows how people can be intentionally (or unintentionally) guided to a particular view based on the framing of a question. I think a section on 'framing effect as it relates to age and development' would be great. However... as Lova Falk suggests, it it indeed necessary to avoid leaning too heavily on primary sources, which does leave you in a bit of dilemma because in your assignment you have been required to "add at least 10 peer-reviewed references (at least 15 for the triplet) to their topic's page and weave their discussion of the material in those journal articles into the entry in a meaningful way (with the relevant citations to back up their text!)."

Can I suggest the following:

• That is would be appropriate to briefly mention the key works which show how the understanding of the framing effect in relation to age development has developed over time. This section could mention key papers which are generally recognised to have moved the thinking forward in this area, but would also need to reference at least one secondary source which identified these as indeed being the key papers.
• That you seek out some secondary sources that refer to some of subjects covered in your primary sources. Would Scientific American be a good place to start? How about books aimed a teachers which show how this research can be used when teaching young people? Are there also references to the phenomena in books aimed at the advertising sector (who will tell advertisers how to frame things to encourage consumption of the advertised products by young people or older people). How about materials providing advice to political campaigners on how to present (manipulate?) information to get the answers they want from people of different ages. If these effects are indeed real then I am sure you will find references to them in these areas.
• Finally. Please do not be put off by us. Read up widely on the subject, think about how to make this article better and then get stuck in engage with the topic. We will be friendly and will work with you and the article will be a lot better at the end than at the beginning. This is how every article in WP has been created.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Also... Do try to write in a way that is meaningful to ordinary people in a hurry, not to try to impress academia. The Current 'Causes' section of this article uses the opposite approach, to me it is virtually meaningless academic twaddle and the article would be better without it! PeterEastern (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Lova Falk and PeterEastern, for you advice! I realize at this point that our sources need some serious reconsideration. I'm wondering if one or both of you could share your answer to the following question: Although a primary source (such as the Kim et al. article titled "Framing Effects in Younger and Older Adults") obviously cannot be used as a valid source on wikipedia for the content of that specific study, would it be considered a secondary source for information about other significant experiments mentioned in the article? For instance, there is some useful description on past research about age differences and the framing effect included in the introduction to the Kim et al. article. I suspect that there may still be too much risk in bias on the authors' part in attempt to make past studies fit with their current research, but I thought I'd feel out the situation before totally eliminating these articles as useful resources. Nancyb672 (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Your challenge, as far I can see it, is to rise above the task set by your tutors and actually make the article more informative, richer, more balanced and easier to read whilst also building the reference base to key academic articles (which is a fine thing to do). The paper you mention does indeed provide a useful summary of research to date, for which it is a secondary source. You also need to avoid unbalancing the article by adding too much content in one area and neglecting the other uses. Could you start by building a brief history section within the article which states who introduced the concept to the academic world (Amos I believe, but the current article doesn't make that hugely clear - is it also worth mentioning that this guy has won a nobel prize!) and who then developed it and in what direction? References to these primary key texts can be included as part of the evidence that they exist and also to help people find them who are interested - I see no harm in that. This could actually be a way to get to your target of 10 papers in a very short number of words! Do please avoid going into too much detail in this section, people can follow the references if they are interested in the details. Do also include references to examples of this research being adopted in wider society - the book "Marketing To The Prehistoric Mind: How The Hot New Science of Behavioural Economics Can Help You Increase Your Sales" which I added today is a good example of that. Are their similar examples relating to the educational/developmental world? PeterEastern (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I completely disagree with PeterEaster. Introductions in primary articles while usually make a succint review of the literature, it is most commonly directed to make a point by the author, not comprenhensive enough and not balance; and therefore not good enough for wikipedia. This has been for example specifically stated in the WP:MEDRS (guideline for choosing sources in medical articles, which is the closest guideline for psychology articles). I quote: Research papers that describe original experiments are primary sources; however, they normally contain previous-work sections that are secondary sources (these sections are often incomplete and typically less useful or reliable than reviews or other sources, such as textbooks, which are intended to be reasonably comprehensive). Go to your library or google books and search for books for graduates or go to Google scholar and search for review articles, instead of using sub-optimal sources.--Garrondo (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Garrondo. Your reference to WP:MEDRS is particularly relevant. Sounds that though these guys need to go back to their tutors are tactfully suggest a change of brief - less of the 'please introduce loads of references to scientific papers to articles' and more of the 'please engage with the articles and make them better, in particular, go away and read up on the subject more broadly'. PeterEastern (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Both me and User:LovaFalk have commented exactly this to the Campus Embassador of their project and the teacher. We have stated one and again the importance of secondary sources and sources proposed have usually improved. Let's hope our comments are enough. I will point the campus embassador to this discussion.--Garrondo (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Lets also avoid similar discussions on other talk pages. Might it be worth creating links from them to this page? Nancy and Susanna: Do please stick with this. This is how WP works and it does work. I hope you are not wilting! This article needs your energy and ideas.PeterEastern (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

To not get hampered by Walls of text, I've reiterated the main points below:

• Use secondary sources where possible. You should also use books (try google books) or your library. While primary sources are not necasarilly bad, secondary is preferred where possible.
• It's about quality, not quantity. Don't just throw in refs and hope they stick. Rather, make compendious contributions.

Smallman12q (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, PeterEastern (and hi again to Smallman12q & Garrondo). Thanks for your comments. As the professor of the course the students are in, I fear it is not as easy as anyone might like to change the assignment, but my students are doing their best to use secondary sources as much as possible, etc. I am painfully aware that several Wikipedians take issue with my course's assignment. Timing, however, is everything and the good news is that the Wikipedia Education Initiative is constantly evolving. For example, well after our semester started tools came available that will now populate new courses within the Wikipedia Education Initiative with suggested timelines and handouts. When I put this course together (with this Wikipedia assignment being one of many components) I relied heavily on information at an APS web site [1]. I was also heavily influenced by a talk given at an APS meeting where the focus was on having students add peer-reviewed sources to Wikipedia pages which is very much in-line with my pedagogical goals. I was surprised by initial contacts on my course pages that suggested different understandings of Wikipedia and its goals than I learned through the aforementioned sources and, like the Wikipedia initiative, my understanding is evolving. As it does so I am evaluating whether Wikipedia's goals align well enough with my pedagogical goals to use a modified version of my assignment in the future or whether the goals are simply too different. Student feedback about their experiences will also inform that decision. Thanks so much for your encouraging message to my students! We are in the midst of peer-reviews so within a week or so you will start to see changes on articles again. All best wishes, CogPsyProf (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. Fyi, I found editing WP tough at the start but immensely rewarding as I learnt the ropes. Do please stick with it through the early stages and do remember that WP is itself young and still developing and is in a very different place than it was even 2 years ago (when some of your colleagues may have been engaging with it). I am sure your students will do great, they are certainly turning up some great new content which will definitely benefit the article, even if it takes some time to shake down. I am also sure that your discipline will benefit from engaging with WP. Fyi, my initial engagement with WP was also in association with a UK government funded research project. You can read our conclusions relating to transport articles here: Should Wikipedia be embraced by the transport profession as an influential source of information on transport issues?. PeterEastern (talk)

Question

93% of PhD students registered early when a penalty fee for late registration was emphasized, with only 67% doing so when this was presented as a discount for earlier registration.[7]

Hmmm. Doesn't this example contradict the thesis that positive framing is correlated with risk aversion? It appears that a discount for early registration would be positive framing, and a penalty for late registration would be negative framing. Thus it would seem that the negative framing situation caused more participants to be risk averse (making sure to register early to avoid the risk of forgetting and being charged the penalty).

However, it does support the thesis that a loss is considered more significant than its equivalent gain. Dforest (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)