How Reframing Affects Confidence in Complex Decisions: Evidence from Behavioral Measures and Decisional Styles.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 NEUROSCIENCES
Michela Balconi, Angelica Daffinà, Laura Angioletti
{"title":"How Reframing Affects Confidence in Complex Decisions: Evidence from Behavioral Measures and Decisional Styles.","authors":"Michela Balconi, Angelica Daffinà, Laura Angioletti","doi":"10.3390/brainsci15030244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: This research examined the impact of reframing on decision confidence and its link with individual decision-making styles in a sample of healthy adults. <b>Methods</b>: Participants completed a Resistance to Reframe Task, which involved two decision-making steps. In each step, they chose the best option from four alternatives for a workplace situation and rated their confidence in the decision. Then, the task was reframed to highlight the negative consequences of their initial choice, and they reassessed their confidence. Confidence scores and reaction times (RTs) were recorded for the confidence ratings of each step. The General Decision-Making Style (GDMS) and Maximization Scale (MS) were also used to profile decision-making styles and explore their links to behavioral responses. <b>Results</b>: Findings demonstrated that reframing significantly reduces participants' confidence, particularly in the first step, highlighting its effectiveness in challenging initial choices. Additionally, higher RTs after reframing emphasize the cognitive complexity introduced by the change of perspective and allows us to describe the dynamic of the decision-making process. Correlational findings suggested that while some traits (e.g., dependent style) reduce confidence after the reframing, others (e.g., high standards, decision difficulty) seem to reinforce it. Similarly, decision-making style as MS alternative search increases RTs, reflecting the heightened complexity of reframed decision contexts. <b>Conclusions</b>: The results underscored the importance of considering confidence in the decision and individual differences when studying decision-making under reframing conditions. Individual differences in decision-making styles may act as protective or vulnerability factors to reframe in decision-making processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":9095,"journal":{"name":"Brain Sciences","volume":"15 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11940415/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15030244","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: This research examined the impact of reframing on decision confidence and its link with individual decision-making styles in a sample of healthy adults. Methods: Participants completed a Resistance to Reframe Task, which involved two decision-making steps. In each step, they chose the best option from four alternatives for a workplace situation and rated their confidence in the decision. Then, the task was reframed to highlight the negative consequences of their initial choice, and they reassessed their confidence. Confidence scores and reaction times (RTs) were recorded for the confidence ratings of each step. The General Decision-Making Style (GDMS) and Maximization Scale (MS) were also used to profile decision-making styles and explore their links to behavioral responses. Results: Findings demonstrated that reframing significantly reduces participants' confidence, particularly in the first step, highlighting its effectiveness in challenging initial choices. Additionally, higher RTs after reframing emphasize the cognitive complexity introduced by the change of perspective and allows us to describe the dynamic of the decision-making process. Correlational findings suggested that while some traits (e.g., dependent style) reduce confidence after the reframing, others (e.g., high standards, decision difficulty) seem to reinforce it. Similarly, decision-making style as MS alternative search increases RTs, reflecting the heightened complexity of reframed decision contexts. Conclusions: The results underscored the importance of considering confidence in the decision and individual differences when studying decision-making under reframing conditions. Individual differences in decision-making styles may act as protective or vulnerability factors to reframe in decision-making processes.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Brain Sciences
Brain Sciences Neuroscience-General Neuroscience
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
9.10%
发文量
1472
审稿时长
18.71 days
期刊介绍: Brain Sciences (ISSN 2076-3425) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that publishes original articles, critical reviews, research notes and short communications in the areas of cognitive neuroscience, developmental neuroscience, molecular and cellular neuroscience, neural engineering, neuroimaging, neurolinguistics, neuropathy, systems neuroscience, and theoretical and computational neuroscience. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Electronic files or software regarding the full details of the calculation and experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary material.
×
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