Department of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Front Psychol. 2011 Oct 12;2:265. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00265. eCollection 2011.
Since the discovery of the "framing effect" by Kahneman and Tversky, the sensitivity of the "framing effect" - its appearance and in some cases its disappearance - has long been an object of study. However there is little agreement as to the reasons for this sensitivity. The "ambiguity-ambivalence hypothesis" (Wang, 2008) aims to systematically explain the sensitivity of this effect by paying particular attention to people's cue priority: it states that the framing effect occurs when verbal framing is used to compensate for the absence of higher prioritized decision cues. The main purpose of our study is to examine and develop this hypothesis by examining cue priority given differences in people's "group experience." The main result is that the framing effect is absent when the choice problem is presented in a group context that reflects the actual size of the group that the participant has had experience with. Thus, in order to understand the choices that people make in life and death decisions, it is important to incorporate the decision maker's group experience explicitly into the ambiguity-ambivalence hypothesis.
自卡尼曼和特沃斯基发现“框架效应”以来,“框架效应”的敏感性——其出现以及在某些情况下的消失——一直是研究的对象。然而,对于这种敏感性的原因,人们的意见并不一致。“歧义-矛盾假说”(Wang,2008)旨在通过特别关注人们的线索优先级,系统地解释这种效应的敏感性:它指出,当使用口头框架来弥补缺乏更高优先级的决策线索时,就会出现框架效应。我们研究的主要目的是通过检查人们的“群体经验”差异来检验和发展这一假说。主要结果是,当选择问题以反映参与者实际经历过的群体规模的群体背景呈现时,框架效应不存在。因此,为了理解人们在生死决策中做出的选择,将决策者的群体经验明确纳入歧义-矛盾假说非常重要。