Abstract
Research on framing effects has revealed cases where the type of outcome at risk (e.g., human lives vs. animal lives) affects the magnitude of the framing effect. Some authors have appealed to the shape of the value function as predicting when framing effects will occur: The more valuable the outcome type, the more nonlinear its value function, and the larger the resulting framing effect (Levin & Chapman, 1990). However, having a more or less nonlinear value function cannot explain situations in which participants strongly prefer the same option in both frames. Another factor that may be at work in these types of outcome effects is an aspiration level (AL; Lopes, 1987; Schneider, 1992), which determines how acceptable the options are and combines (or competes) with the risk attitude encouraged by frame. The results described here indicate that differences in the shape of the value function between outcome types are evident but are inconsistent between framed losses and gains, though nonlinearity in the value function can be increased with a manipulation that also encourages framing effects. The results also demonstrate that an AL can lead to the same predominant risk preference in the positive and negative frame. These findings indicate that the shape of the value function and the AL each play a role in outcome type interactions with frame, and in some cases, a combination of the two factors may be at work.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Rerefences
Bloomfield, A. (2005). [Aspiration levels for framed scenarios]. Unpublished raw data.
Bloomfield, A. (2006). Group size and the framing effect: Threats to human beings and animals. Memory & Cognition, 34, 929–937.
Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1997). Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life? Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 71, 355–373.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choice, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.
Levin, I. P., & Chapman, D. P. (1990). Risk taking, frame of reference, and characterization of victim groups in AIDS treatment decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 421–434.
Lopes, L. L. (1987). Between hope and fear: The psychology of risk. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 255–295). San Diego: Academic Press.
Schneider, S. L. (1992). Framing and conflict: Aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 1040–1057.
Smidts, A. (1997). The relationship between risk attitude and strength of preference: A test of intrinsic risk attitude. Management Science, 43, 357–370.
Stevens, S. S. (1961). To honor Fechner and repeal his law: A power function, not a log function, describes the operating characteristic of a sensory system. Science, 133, 80–86.
Torgerson, W. S. (1958). Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.
Wang, X. T. (1996). Domain-specific rationality in human choices: Violations of utility axioms and social contexts. Cognition, 60, 31–63.
Wang, X. T., & Johnston, V. S. (1995). Perceived social context and risk preference: A re-examination of framing effects in a life—death decision problem. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8, 279–293.
Wang, X. T., Simons, F., & Bredart, S. (2001). Social cues and verbal framing in risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 1–15.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was part of the doctoral dissertation of the author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
N. Bloomfield, A. Explaining outcome type interactions with frame: Aspiration level and the value function. Memory & Cognition 36, 838–848 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.4.838
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.4.838