Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Framing effects under cognitive load: The role of working memory in risky decisions

  • Brief Reports
  • Published:
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Framing effects occur in a wide range of laboratory and natural decision contexts, but the underlying processes that produce framing effects are not well understood. We explored the role of working memory (WM) in framing by manipulating WM loads during risky decisions. After starting with a hypothetical stake of money, participants were then presented a lesser amount that they could keep for certain (positive frame) or lose for certain (negative frame). They made a choice between the sure amount and a gamble in which they could either keep or lose all of the original stake. On half of the trials, the choice was made while maintaining a concurrent WM load of random letters. In both load and no-load conditions, we replicated the typical finding of risk aversion with positive frames and risk seeking with negative frames. In addition, people made fewer decisions to accept the gamble under conditions of higher cognitive load. The data are congruent with a dual-process reasoning framework in which people employ a heuristic to make satisfactory decisions with minimal effort.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Allen, R. J., Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (2006). Is the binding of visual features in working memory resource-demanding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 298–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banks, S. M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A. J., Moyer, A., Beauvais, J., & Epel, E. (1995). The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14, 178–184.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313, 684–687.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • De Neys, W. (2006). Dual processing in reasoning: Two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science, 17, 428–433.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J. St. B. T. (2007). On the resolution of conflict in dual process theories of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning, 13, 321–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez, C., Dana, J., Koshino, H., & Just, M. (2005). The framing effect and risky decisions: Examining cognitive functions with fMRI. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinson, J. M., Jameson, T. L., & Whitney, P. (2002). Somatic markers, working memory, and decision making. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 2, 341–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Igou, E. R., & Bless, H. (2007). On undesirable consequences of thinking: Framing effects as a function of substantive processing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 125–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2007). Frames and brains: Elicitation and control of response tendencies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 45–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I. P. (1987). Associative effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25, 85–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I. P., & Lauriola, M. (2003). A new paradigm for studying the economic and behavioral consequences of framing health-related decisions. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 2, 25–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 76, 149–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sloman, S. A. (2002). Two systems of reasoning. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 379–398). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Washington State University, 99164-4820, Pullman, WA

    Paul Whitney, Christa A. Rinehart & John M. Hinson

Authors
  1. Paul Whitney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christa A. Rinehart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John M. Hinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Whitney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Whitney, P., Rinehart, C.A. & Hinson, J.M. Framing effects under cognitive load: The role of working memory in risky decisions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 1179–1184 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.6.1179

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.6.1179

Keywords

Search

Navigation