Pander Maat Henk, Staal Ben, Holleman Bregje
Utrecht Institute for Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Department of Language, Literature and Communication, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Front Psychol. 2021 Nov 18;12:720427. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720427. eCollection 2021.
Describing sets in terms of a two-valued variable, either value can be chosen: exam results may be referred to by pass rates or fail rates. What determines such framing choices? Building on work by McKenzie and colleagues on reference points in the production and interpretation of framed information, we investigate two determinants of frame choice. One is that speakers tend to focus on the component that has increased vis-à-vis a previous state, the other is the tendency to choose the component larger than 50%. We propose to view reference points as pointing to different kinds of communicative relevance. Hence the use of the previous state and the 50% reference points by speakers is not just a function of the information, but is co-determined by a communicative cue in the context: the question being asked about this information. This line of thought is supported by two experiments containing items offering two-sided distribution information at two points in time. Our first experiment employs a static task, requiring a description of the most recent situation. The second experiment uses a dynamic task, asking participants to describe the development between the two time points. We hypothesize that in static tasks the component size is the strongest frame choice determinant, while in dynamic tasks frame choice is mainly driven by whether a component has increased. The experiments consist of 16 different scenarios, both with symmetrical contrasts (i.e., vs. ) and with asymmetrical ones (i.e., vs. ). Both experiments support the hypotheses. In the static task, the size effect is the only consistent effect; in the dynamic task, the effect of direction of change is much larger than that of size. This pattern of differences between size and change effects applies across symmetrical and asymmetrical contrasts. Our experiments shed light on cognitive and communicative regularities involved in the production of framed messages: people do tend to prefer larger and increasing components when choosing a frame, but the relative strength of both these preferences depends on the communicative task.
用二值变量来描述集合时，可以选择任何一个值：考试结果可以用及格率或不及格率来表示。是什么决定了这种框架选择呢？基于麦肯齐及其同事关于框架信息的产生和解释中的参考点的研究，我们调查了框架选择的两个决定因素。一个是说话者倾向于关注相对于先前状态增加的部分，另一个是倾向于选择大于50%的部分。我们建议将参考点视为指向不同类型的交际相关性。因此，说话者对先前状态和50%参考点的使用不仅是信息的函数，还由语境中的一个交际线索共同决定：关于此信息所提出的问题。这一思路得到了两个实验的支持，这两个实验的项目在两个时间点提供了双边分布信息。我们的第一个实验采用静态任务，要求描述最近的情况。第二个实验使用动态任务，要求参与者描述两个时间点之间的发展。我们假设在静态任务中，部分大小是最强的框架选择决定因素，而在动态任务中，框架选择主要由部分是否增加驱动。实验由16种不同的情景组成，既有对称对比（即……与……），也有不对称对比（即……与……）。两个实验都支持这些假设。在静态任务中，大小效应是唯一一致的效应；在动态任务中，变化方向的效应比大小效应大得多。这种大小效应和变化效应之间的差异模式适用于对称和不对称对比。我们的实验揭示了框架信息产生过程中涉及的认知和交际规律：人们在选择框架时确实倾向于更喜欢更大和增加的部分，但这两种偏好的相对强度取决于交际任务。
