增加与减少框架:如何将发现框架为增加提高其感知程度。

IF 3.5 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Courtney Lee,Christopher J Bechler,Zakary L Tormala
{"title":"增加与减少框架:如何将发现框架为增加提高其感知程度。","authors":"Courtney Lee,Christopher J Bechler,Zakary L Tormala","doi":"10.1037/xge0001818","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Researchers often present their findings as increases or decreases. For example, a researcher might conclude that X increases Y or that X decreases Y. Even describing an equivalent outcome, a researcher might frame that outcome as an increase (e.g., relative to Condition A, Condition B increases persuasion) or a decrease (e.g., relative to Condition B, Condition A decreases persuasion). The current research explores the possibility that increase versus decrease framing has an important impact on how people perceive a finding. More specifically, we investigate the impact of increase versus decrease framing on the perceived magnitude of an effect. Across multiple studies testing people's perceptions of both real and fictitious research findings, we find that people perceive effects framed in increase terms to be larger in magnitude, more important, and more deserving of funding and publication than effects framed in decrease terms. In a separate study assessing the frequency and impact of increase versus decrease framing in actual published research, we find that researchers are far more likely to use increase than decrease framing and that articles that use increase framing are cited at higher rates. We find that increase frames are perceived as clearer than decrease frames-that is, they make it easier to picture the outcome in question and, thus, enhance the overall clarity of the finding-which fosters greater perceived effect size. These findings have important implications for how people evaluate scientific research and for attitudes, persuasion, and social judgment more generally. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":"169 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Increase versus decrease framing: How framing a finding as an increase boosts its perceived magnitude.\",\"authors\":\"Courtney Lee,Christopher J Bechler,Zakary L Tormala\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xge0001818\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Researchers often present their findings as increases or decreases. For example, a researcher might conclude that X increases Y or that X decreases Y. Even describing an equivalent outcome, a researcher might frame that outcome as an increase (e.g., relative to Condition A, Condition B increases persuasion) or a decrease (e.g., relative to Condition B, Condition A decreases persuasion). The current research explores the possibility that increase versus decrease framing has an important impact on how people perceive a finding. More specifically, we investigate the impact of increase versus decrease framing on the perceived magnitude of an effect. Across multiple studies testing people's perceptions of both real and fictitious research findings, we find that people perceive effects framed in increase terms to be larger in magnitude, more important, and more deserving of funding and publication than effects framed in decrease terms. In a separate study assessing the frequency and impact of increase versus decrease framing in actual published research, we find that researchers are far more likely to use increase than decrease framing and that articles that use increase framing are cited at higher rates. We find that increase frames are perceived as clearer than decrease frames-that is, they make it easier to picture the outcome in question and, thus, enhance the overall clarity of the finding-which fosters greater perceived effect size. These findings have important implications for how people evaluate scientific research and for attitudes, persuasion, and social judgment more generally. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).\",\"PeriodicalId\":15698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"volume\":\"169 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001818\",\"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":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001818","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

研究人员经常以增加或减少的形式呈现他们的发现。例如,研究人员可能得出X增加Y或X减少Y的结论。即使描述等效的结果,研究人员也可能将该结果定义为增加(例如,相对于条件a,条件B增加了说服力)或减少(例如,相对于条件B,条件a减少了说服力)。目前的研究探讨了框架的增加或减少对人们如何看待发现有重要影响的可能性。更具体地说,我们研究了增加和减少框架对感知效应大小的影响。在测试人们对真实和虚构的研究结果的看法的多项研究中,我们发现,人们认为以增加为框架的影响比以减少为框架的影响更大,更重要,更值得资助和发表。在一项评估实际发表的研究中增加框架与减少框架的频率和影响的独立研究中,我们发现研究人员更有可能使用增加框架而不是减少框架,并且使用增加框架的文章被引用的频率更高。我们发现,增加框架被认为比减少框架更清晰——也就是说,它们更容易描绘出有问题的结果,因此,增强了研究结果的整体清晰度——这促进了更大的感知效应大小。这些发现对于人们如何评价科学研究以及更普遍的态度、说服力和社会判断具有重要意义。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Increase versus decrease framing: How framing a finding as an increase boosts its perceived magnitude.
Researchers often present their findings as increases or decreases. For example, a researcher might conclude that X increases Y or that X decreases Y. Even describing an equivalent outcome, a researcher might frame that outcome as an increase (e.g., relative to Condition A, Condition B increases persuasion) or a decrease (e.g., relative to Condition B, Condition A decreases persuasion). The current research explores the possibility that increase versus decrease framing has an important impact on how people perceive a finding. More specifically, we investigate the impact of increase versus decrease framing on the perceived magnitude of an effect. Across multiple studies testing people's perceptions of both real and fictitious research findings, we find that people perceive effects framed in increase terms to be larger in magnitude, more important, and more deserving of funding and publication than effects framed in decrease terms. In a separate study assessing the frequency and impact of increase versus decrease framing in actual published research, we find that researchers are far more likely to use increase than decrease framing and that articles that use increase framing are cited at higher rates. We find that increase frames are perceived as clearer than decrease frames-that is, they make it easier to picture the outcome in question and, thus, enhance the overall clarity of the finding-which fosters greater perceived effect size. These findings have important implications for how people evaluate scientific research and for attitudes, persuasion, and social judgment more generally. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信