L8: Frames and Rationality

What is the rational approach to decision making

Calculating probabilities

What are two components to measure the standards of rationality

1. Sensitivity to relevant information

   • Ability to make judgement’s and decision that are sensitive to probabilities of critical events and usefulness of evidence

2. Consistency

   • In equivalent situations, given the same information, people should make equivalent decisions

Framing and Decisions: The Disease Problem (Tversky & Kahneman)

• Imagine US preparing for disease that will kill 600 people

• Program A

  • 200 people will be saved

• Program B

  • 1/3 chance 600 people will be saved, 2/3 probability 600 people will die

• Program C

  • 400 people will die

• Program D

  • 1/3 chance nobody will die, 2/3 chance 600 people will die

• Condition 1

  • Majority (72%) chose Program A over B

• Condition 2

  • Majority (78%) chose Program D over C

What is the rationale behind the Disease Problem

Preference Reversal

• People prefer the certain options when framed in ‘lives saved’, and uncertain option when framed in ‘lives lost’

• Regardless of logical probability

Framing and Product Evaluation: Levin & Gaeth (1988)

• P’s evaluate ground beef that was either labelled “75% lean” or “25% fat”

• Some given label only, label after tasting beef, label before tasting beef

• Results

  • Rated worse with negative framing, tasting and label reduces this effect but is still present

  • No order effect (taste than label vs. label than taste)

The effect of a Reference Point: McKenzie & Nelson (2003)

• Asked to either imagine a full cup that becomes half full, or an empty cup that becomes half full

• Will P’s describe cup as ‘Half-empty’ or ‘Half'-full’

• Scenario A (full —> half)

  • 31% selected ‘half-full’

• Scenario B (empty —> half)

  • 88% selected ‘half-full’

Conversational Implicatures

Things that are implied by what someone says, but are not explicitly stated

What are Grice’s maxims

• Grice’s say conversations as people working together (cooperative) under 4 evaluations

1. Relevant

2. Concise

3. Honest

4. Clear

• People use these assumptions to make inferences about the broader context and meaning of what people say

What is ‘Information Leakage’

• When someone chooses one frame versus another, the speaker is ‘leaking’ information about their reference point without explicitly referencing it

What frame do people tend to chose in relation to the reference point of the current situation

The attribute that has increased from the reference point

• i.e. glass half full from being full = increasingly empty

Framing and ‘Information Leakage’: Glass half-full (Sher & McKenzie., 2006)

• P’s sat at desk with one empty cup and one full

• Asked to fill one of the cups so it is half-full OR half-empty

• Half-full condition

  • 46% gave the initially-full glass

• Half-empty condition

  • 69% gave the initially-full glass

What makes studying rationality very difficult

Unknown reference points and implicatures

• Don’t necessarily know how P’s understand a question

Stereotypes: Subject Complement Framing (Chestnut & Markman., 2018)

• Phrases thought to promote equality may actually be perpetuating these stereotypes

• i.e. ‘Girls do as well as boys at Maths’

  • Leads to judgment of higher ability in the reference gender

  • Get rid of this by saying ‘Girls and boys do equally well at maths’