Center for Advanced Studies and Technologies "CAST", University "G. d' Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, Via Luigi Polacchi, 11, 66100, Chieti, Italy.
Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, University "G. d' Annunzio" of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.
Psychol Res. 2023 Jun;87(4):1114-1128. doi: 10.1007/s00426-022-01726-3. Epub 2022 Sep 5.
The framing effect leads people to prefer a sure alternative over a risky one (risk aversion) when alternatives are described as potential gains compared to a context-dependent reference point. The reverse (risk propensity) happens when the same alternatives are described as potential losses. The default effect is the tendency to prefer a preselected alternative over other non-preselected given options, without facilitating nor incentivizing the choice. These two effects have mainly been studied separately. Here we provided novel empirical evidence of additive effects due to the application of both framing and default within the same decision problem in a large sample size (N = 960). In the baseline condition, where no default was provided, we measured the proportion of risky choices in life-or-death and financial decisions both presented in terms of potential gains or losses following the structure of the Asian disease problem. In the sure default condition, the same layout was proposed with a flag on the sure option, whereas in the risky default condition, the flag was on the risky option. In both default conditions, we asked participants whether they wanted to change the preselected option. Overall, the comparison between these conditions revealed three distinct main effects: (i) a classic framing effect, (ii) a larger risk propensity in the life-or-death scenario than in the financial one, and (iii) a larger default effect when the flag was on the risky, rather than on the sure, option. Therefore, we conclude that default options can enhance risk propensity. Finally, individual beliefs about the source of the default significantly moderated the strength of the effect. Underlying mechanisms and practical implications are discussed considering prominent theories in this field.
框架效应导致人们在将选择描述为潜在收益时（相对于上下文相关的参照点），与风险选择相比，更倾向于选择确定的选择（风险规避）。当相同的选择被描述为潜在损失时（风险偏好），则会出现相反的情况。默认效应是指在没有促进或激励选择的情况下，倾向于选择预先选择的替代方案而不是其他非预先选择的给定选项。这两种效应主要是分开研究的。在这里，我们在一个大样本量（N=960）中，在同一个决策问题中同时应用框架和默认效应，提供了这两种效应相加的新的经验证据。在没有提供默认选项的基线条件下，我们在生活或死亡和财务决策中，都以潜在收益或损失的形式呈现，根据亚洲疾病问题的结构，测量了风险选择的比例。在确定的默认条件下，提出了相同的布局，并在确定的选项上标记了一个标志；而在风险默认条件下，标志则在风险选项上。在这两种默认条件下，我们询问参与者是否要更改预先选择的选项。总体而言，这些条件之间的比较揭示了三个明显的主要影响：（i）经典的框架效应；（ii）生活或死亡场景中的风险偏好大于财务场景；（iii）当标志在风险选项上时，默认效应更大，而不是在确定选项上。因此，我们得出结论，默认选项可以增强风险偏好。最后，个体对默认来源的信念显著调节了效应的强度。考虑到该领域的主要理论，讨论了潜在机制和实际影响。
