Proposition structure in framed decision problems: A formal representation.

Book English OPEN
Wickham, P. (2007)
  • Publisher: University of Leeds

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
  • References (45)
    45 references, page 1 of 5

    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.

  • Similar Research Results (2)
  • Metrics
    views in OpenAIRE
    views in local repository
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    White Rose Research Online - IRUS-UK 0 28
Share - Bookmark