从偏好转移到信息泄露:框架效应下个体对信息泄露的敏感性考察

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Omid Ghasemi , Adam J.L. Harris , Ben R. Newell
{"title":"从偏好转移到信息泄露:框架效应下个体对信息泄露的敏感性考察","authors":"Omid Ghasemi ,&nbsp;Adam J.L. Harris ,&nbsp;Ben R. Newell","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The framing effect is a highly robust phenomenon, wherein logically equivalent options (e.g., 90 % chance of winning vs. 10 % chance of losing) trigger different preferences. The Information Leakage account provides a rational interpretation of this effect by suggesting that choice of frame ‘leaks’ information to decision-makers, making the frames informationally non-equivalent. For example, decision-makers might interpret a positive frame (e.g., 90 % chance of winning) as an implicit recommendation to take a risk. In a series of six preregistered experiments (total <em>N</em> = 1211), we manipulated the informativeness of frames by 1) reducing the perceived freedom of a speaker to choose a frame (the Choice Limitation manipulation), and 2) varying the communication context between the speaker and the listener from collaborative to competitive (the Interest Alignment manipulation). We expected a diminished framing effect in scenarios where the leaked information conveys no useful or trustworthy cues. While the Choice Limitation manipulation occasionally attenuated the framing effect, particularly in within-subject designs, the Interest Alignment manipulation consistently led to a reduction in the framing effect in both within-subject and between-subject designs. These findings show that individuals can be adaptable and sensitive to the informational value of frames and suggest that competition prompts inferences more readily than a speaker's agency over the choice of frame. The implications of these results for rational accounts of framing effects are discussed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"258 ","pages":"Article 106087"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From preference shifts to information leaks: Examining Individuals' sensitivity to information leakage in the framing effect\",\"authors\":\"Omid Ghasemi ,&nbsp;Adam J.L. Harris ,&nbsp;Ben R. Newell\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106087\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The framing effect is a highly robust phenomenon, wherein logically equivalent options (e.g., 90 % chance of winning vs. 10 % chance of losing) trigger different preferences. The Information Leakage account provides a rational interpretation of this effect by suggesting that choice of frame ‘leaks’ information to decision-makers, making the frames informationally non-equivalent. For example, decision-makers might interpret a positive frame (e.g., 90 % chance of winning) as an implicit recommendation to take a risk. In a series of six preregistered experiments (total <em>N</em> = 1211), we manipulated the informativeness of frames by 1) reducing the perceived freedom of a speaker to choose a frame (the Choice Limitation manipulation), and 2) varying the communication context between the speaker and the listener from collaborative to competitive (the Interest Alignment manipulation). We expected a diminished framing effect in scenarios where the leaked information conveys no useful or trustworthy cues. While the Choice Limitation manipulation occasionally attenuated the framing effect, particularly in within-subject designs, the Interest Alignment manipulation consistently led to a reduction in the framing effect in both within-subject and between-subject designs. These findings show that individuals can be adaptable and sensitive to the informational value of frames and suggest that competition prompts inferences more readily than a speaker's agency over the choice of frame. The implications of these results for rational accounts of framing effects are discussed.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognition\",\"volume\":\"258 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106087\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027725000277\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027725000277","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

框架效应是一种非常强大的现象,其中逻辑上相等的选项(例如,90%的获胜机会vs 10%的失败机会)会触发不同的偏好。“信息泄漏”理论为这种效应提供了一个合理的解释,认为框架的选择向决策者“泄漏”了信息,使框架在信息上不相等。例如,决策者可能会将一个积极的框架(例如,90%的获胜机会)解释为一个隐含的建议去冒险。在一系列6个预注册实验中(总N = 1211),我们通过以下方式操纵框架的信息性:1)减少说话者选择框架的感知自由(选择限制操纵);2)改变说话者和听者之间的沟通环境,从合作到竞争(兴趣对齐操纵)。我们预计,在泄露的信息没有传达有用或值得信赖的线索的情况下,框架效应会减弱。虽然选择限制操作偶尔会减弱框架效应,特别是在主题内设计中,但兴趣对齐操作始终导致主题内和主题间设计中的框架效应降低。这些发现表明,个体对框架的信息价值具有适应性和敏感性,并表明在框架的选择上,竞争比说话者的代理更容易促使推理。讨论了这些结果对框架效应合理解释的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From preference shifts to information leaks: Examining Individuals' sensitivity to information leakage in the framing effect
The framing effect is a highly robust phenomenon, wherein logically equivalent options (e.g., 90 % chance of winning vs. 10 % chance of losing) trigger different preferences. The Information Leakage account provides a rational interpretation of this effect by suggesting that choice of frame ‘leaks’ information to decision-makers, making the frames informationally non-equivalent. For example, decision-makers might interpret a positive frame (e.g., 90 % chance of winning) as an implicit recommendation to take a risk. In a series of six preregistered experiments (total N = 1211), we manipulated the informativeness of frames by 1) reducing the perceived freedom of a speaker to choose a frame (the Choice Limitation manipulation), and 2) varying the communication context between the speaker and the listener from collaborative to competitive (the Interest Alignment manipulation). We expected a diminished framing effect in scenarios where the leaked information conveys no useful or trustworthy cues. While the Choice Limitation manipulation occasionally attenuated the framing effect, particularly in within-subject designs, the Interest Alignment manipulation consistently led to a reduction in the framing effect in both within-subject and between-subject designs. These findings show that individuals can be adaptable and sensitive to the informational value of frames and suggest that competition prompts inferences more readily than a speaker's agency over the choice of frame. The implications of these results for rational accounts of framing effects are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognition
Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
283
期刊介绍: Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.
×
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