Identified by Tversky and Kahneman (1981), the framing effect is theorized by the notion that a decision maker’s choice can be influenced simply by manipulating the way options are presented. In their study regarding the Asian disease problem, they found that Individuals tend to choose a less risky option, or be more risk-averse, when the course of action is presented positively (gain), and tend to choose a more risky option, be more risk-seeking, when the course of action is presented negatively (loss). In other words, framing the outcome of a decision problem differently shifts a decision maker’s choice from risk-averse to risk-seeking. However, one limitation is that they failed to consider other factors that could influence their choice,
…show more content…
171 male participants were randomly assigned to either a promotion for prevention condition and primed accordingly. Next, they were shown either a promotion-framed or prevention-framed antismoking advertisement. After that, they were asked to evaluate the persuasiveness, helpfulness, and believability of the message. They were also asked questions related regarding their intention to smoke, and to asses the risks and perceived benefits of smoking. It was found that promotion-primed participants who were exposed to the promotion-framed message (congruent) rated it as more persuasive compared to those who were exposed to a prevention-framed message (incongruent), and vice versa. Similar results were found for message believability. More importantly, those who had a congruent fit demonstrated lower intentions to smoke, know perceived psychological and pharmacological benefits of smoking as compared to those with an incongruent fit. However, there were no significant effects for health risks, but this could be due to participants being taught about them, so they were highly aware. A limitation of this study was all participants were male, which limits generalizability to the population. In addition, similar to the previously mentioned study, it is not known whether participants actually followed through with their intention not to smoke. However, it is useful in showing us that individual differences and attitudes can affect the choices a decision maker makes, so other factors come into play apart from framing alone. Different types of framing should be
171 male participants were randomly assigned to either a promotion for prevention condition and primed accordingly. Next, they were shown either a promotion-framed or prevention-framed antismoking advertisement. After that, they were asked to evaluate the persuasiveness, helpfulness, and believability of the message. They were also asked questions related regarding their intention to smoke, and to asses the risks and perceived benefits of smoking. It was found that promotion-primed participants who were exposed to the promotion-framed message (congruent) rated it as more persuasive compared to those who were exposed to a prevention-framed message (incongruent), and vice versa. Similar results were found for message believability. More importantly, those who had a congruent fit demonstrated lower intentions to smoke, know perceived psychological and pharmacological benefits of smoking as compared to those with an incongruent fit. However, there were no significant effects for health risks, but this could be due to participants being taught about them, so they were highly aware. A limitation of this study was all participants were male, which limits generalizability to the population. In addition, similar to the previously mentioned study, it is not known whether participants actually followed through with their intention not to smoke. However, it is useful in showing us that individual differences and attitudes can affect the choices a decision maker makes, so other factors come into play apart from framing alone. Different types of framing should be