Speaking between the lines: Speakers’ role in framing effect

IF 1.6 3区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Sára Laníková , Vojtěch Zíka
{"title":"Speaking between the lines: Speakers’ role in framing effect","authors":"Sára Laníková ,&nbsp;Vojtěch Zíka","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2025.102337","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Framing effect research traditionally focuses on how different formulations of informationally equivalent messages affect listeners. Primarily, this equivalence is understood through a self-evident formal logic. Whether positively and negatively framed messages are equivalent in a broader, psychological sense has only recently been raised, and evidence remains scarce. We contribute by testing whether speakers use framing to implicitly convey their recommendations. In an experimental study, a scenario describing a potentially harmful procedure was presented to 119 participants, who were assigned roles of physicians or car mechanics. Their task was to convey instruction-based recommendations on whether to undertake the procedure, using only a positive or negative framing. The main finding is that participants in both roles used framing to implicitly convey recommendations, with physicians being more likely to use positive framing. Specifically, most participants instructed to recommend the procedure used positive framing. Nearly all mechanics used negative framing to discourage the procedure, while physicians were equally likely to use either frame. With no instruction on what to recommend, almost all physicians used positive framing, while mechanics were the same likely to use either frame. Presumably, this ability to speak between the lines implies also the ability to read between them. Should further research support this assumption, the effectivity of framing-based measures to shape behavior may hinge on the lens through which listeners interpret the intentions behind speakers’ framing choices.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","volume":"115 ","pages":"Article 102337"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804325000047","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Framing effect research traditionally focuses on how different formulations of informationally equivalent messages affect listeners. Primarily, this equivalence is understood through a self-evident formal logic. Whether positively and negatively framed messages are equivalent in a broader, psychological sense has only recently been raised, and evidence remains scarce. We contribute by testing whether speakers use framing to implicitly convey their recommendations. In an experimental study, a scenario describing a potentially harmful procedure was presented to 119 participants, who were assigned roles of physicians or car mechanics. Their task was to convey instruction-based recommendations on whether to undertake the procedure, using only a positive or negative framing. The main finding is that participants in both roles used framing to implicitly convey recommendations, with physicians being more likely to use positive framing. Specifically, most participants instructed to recommend the procedure used positive framing. Nearly all mechanics used negative framing to discourage the procedure, while physicians were equally likely to use either frame. With no instruction on what to recommend, almost all physicians used positive framing, while mechanics were the same likely to use either frame. Presumably, this ability to speak between the lines implies also the ability to read between them. Should further research support this assumption, the effectivity of framing-based measures to shape behavior may hinge on the lens through which listeners interpret the intentions behind speakers’ framing choices.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
113
审稿时长
83 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) welcomes submissions that deal with various economic topics but also involve issues that are related to other social sciences, especially psychology, or use experimental methods of inquiry. Thus, contributions in behavioral economics, experimental economics, economic psychology, and judgment and decision making are especially welcome. The journal is open to different research methodologies, as long as they are relevant to the topic and employed rigorously. Possible methodologies include, for example, experiments, surveys, empirical work, theoretical models, meta-analyses, case studies, and simulation-based analyses. Literature reviews that integrate findings from many studies are also welcome, but they should synthesize the literature in a useful manner and provide substantial contribution beyond what the reader could get by simply reading the abstracts of the cited papers. In empirical work, it is important that the results are not only statistically significant but also economically significant. A high contribution-to-length ratio is expected from published articles and therefore papers should not be unnecessarily long, and short articles are welcome. Articles should be written in a manner that is intelligible to our generalist readership. Book reviews are generally solicited but occasionally unsolicited reviews will also be published. Contact the Book Review Editor for related inquiries.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信