On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function of substantive processing
Identifieur interne : 001508 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001507; suivant : 001509On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function of substantive processing
Auteurs : Eric R. Igou ; Herbert BlessSource :
- Journal of Behavioral Decision Making [ 0894-3257 ] ; 2007-04.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
Three studies investigate the impact of effortful constructive processing on framing effects. The results replicated previous findings: Participants avoided the risky option when the scenario was framed in terms of gains, but preferred this option when the scenario was framed in terms of losses. Importantly, framing effects were most pronounced when conditions allowed for an effortful constructive processing style (i.e., substantive processing). This impact of decision frames varied when decision time served as an indicator for the elaboration extent (Study 1), and also when processing motivation (accountability; Study 2) and processing ability (decision time; Study 3) were manipulated. Moreover, effortful processing did not increase framing effects when contextual cues reduced the necessity for constructive thinking (Study 1). We suggest that decision frames may take on very different roles as a function of the ambiguity of the decision problem, and the degree and style of processing. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Url:
DOI: 10.1002/bdm.543
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:8B6FB0C9B402534391AE09E1A4D57D27820378AELe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function of substantive processing</title><author><name sortKey="Igou, Eric R" sort="Igou, Eric R" uniqKey="Igou E" first="Eric R." last="Igou">Eric R. Igou</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Tilburg University, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Social Psychology, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Bless, Herbert" sort="Bless, Herbert" uniqKey="Bless H" first="Herbert" last="Bless">Herbert Bless</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Mannheim, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:8B6FB0C9B402534391AE09E1A4D57D27820378AE</idno><date when="2007" year="2007">2007</date><idno type="doi">10.1002/bdm.543</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/8B6FB0C9B402534391AE09E1A4D57D27820378AE/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001508</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001508</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function of substantive processing</title><author><name sortKey="Igou, Eric R" sort="Igou, Eric R" uniqKey="Igou E" first="Eric R." last="Igou">Eric R. Igou</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Tilburg University, The Netherlands</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Social Psychology, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Bless, Herbert" sort="Bless, Herbert" uniqKey="Bless H" first="Herbert" last="Bless">Herbert Bless</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>University of Mannheim, Germany</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">J. Behav. Decis. Making</title><idno type="ISSN">0894-3257</idno><idno type="eISSN">1099-0771</idno><imprint><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisher><pubPlace>Chichester, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2007-04">2007-04</date><biblScope unit="volume">20</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="125">125</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="142">142</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0894-3257</idno></series><idno type="istex">8B6FB0C9B402534391AE09E1A4D57D27820378AE</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/bdm.543</idno><idno type="ArticleID">BDM543</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0894-3257</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>bias</term><term>decision‐making</term><term>framing effects</term><term>social cognition</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Three studies investigate the impact of effortful constructive processing on framing effects. The results replicated previous findings: Participants avoided the risky option when the scenario was framed in terms of gains, but preferred this option when the scenario was framed in terms of losses. Importantly, framing effects were most pronounced when conditions allowed for an effortful constructive processing style (i.e., substantive processing). This impact of decision frames varied when decision time served as an indicator for the elaboration extent (Study 1), and also when processing motivation (accountability; Study 2) and processing ability (decision time; Study 3) were manipulated. Moreover, effortful processing did not increase framing effects when contextual cues reduced the necessity for constructive thinking (Study 1). We suggest that decision frames may take on very different roles as a function of the ambiguity of the decision problem, and the degree and style of processing. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Eric R. Igou</name><affiliations><json:string>Tilburg University, The Netherlands</json:string><json:string>Social Psychology, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands.</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Herbert Bless</name><affiliations><json:string>University of Mannheim, Germany</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>framing effects</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>decision‐making</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>bias</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>social cognition</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>BDM543</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Three studies investigate the impact of effortful constructive processing on framing effects. The results replicated previous findings: Participants avoided the risky option when the scenario was framed in terms of gains, but preferred this option when the scenario was framed in terms of losses. Importantly, framing effects were most pronounced when conditions allowed for an effortful constructive processing style (i.e., substantive processing). This impact of decision frames varied when decision time served as an indicator for the elaboration extent (Study 1), and also when processing motivation (accountability; Study 2) and processing ability (decision time; Study 3) were manipulated. Moreover, effortful processing did not increase framing effects when contextual cues reduced the necessity for constructive thinking (Study 1). We suggest that decision frames may take on very different roles as a function of the ambiguity of the decision problem, and the degree and style of processing. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>6.836</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>567 x 737 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>1041</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>10515</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>62333</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>18</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>153</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function of substantive processing</title><refBibs><json:item><author><json:item><name>H. Bless</name></json:item><json:item><name>T. Betsch</name></json:item><json:item><name>A. Franzen</name></json:item></author><host><volume>28</volume><pages><last>291</last><first>287</first></pages><author></author><title>European Journal of Social Psychology</title></host><title>Framing the framing effect: The impact of context cues on solutions to the ‘Asian disease’ problem</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J. S. Bruner</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>69</last><first>41</first></pages><author></author><title>Contemporary approaches to cognition</title></host><title>Going beyond the information given</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J. T. Cacioppo</name></json:item><json:item><name>R. E. Petty</name></json:item></author><host><volume>42</volume><pages><last>131</last><first>116</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</title></host><title>The need for cognition</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual‐process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.</title></host></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J. P. Forgas</name></json:item></author><host><volume>117</volume><pages><last>66</last><first>39</first></pages><author></author><title>Psychological Bulletin</title></host><title>Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM)</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J. P. Forgas</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>134</last><first>99</first></pages><author></author><title>Theories of mood and cognition, A user's guidebook</title></host><title>The affect infusion model (AIM): An integrative theory of mood effects on cognition and judgments</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>H. P. Grice</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>58</last><first>41</first></pages><author></author><title>Syntax and semantics: Speech acts</title></host><title>Logic and conversation</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>E. T. Higgins</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>168</last><first>133</first></pages><author></author><title>Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles</title></host><title>Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>E. T. Higgins</name></json:item><json:item><name>C. M. Brendl</name></json:item></author><host><volume>31</volume><pages><last>243</last><first>218</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Experimental Social Psychology</title></host><title>Accessibility and applicability: Some ‘activation rules’ influencing judgment</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>O. Huber</name></json:item><json:item><name>G. Seiser</name></json:item></author><host><volume>14</volume><pages><last>85</last><first>69</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</title></host><title>Accounting and convincing: The effect of two types of justification on the decision process</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>E. R. Igou</name></json:item><json:item><name>H. Bless</name></json:item></author><host><volume>24</volume><pages><last>35</last><first>25</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Language and Social Psychology</title></host><title>The conversational basis for the dilution effect</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>E. R. Igou</name></json:item><json:item><name>H. Bless</name></json:item><json:item><name>N. Schwarz</name></json:item></author><host><volume>69</volume><pages><last>187</last><first>179</first></pages><author></author><title>Communication Monographs</title></host><title>Making sense of standardized survey questions: The influence of reference periods and their repetition</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>D. Kahneman</name></json:item><json:item><name>A. Tversky</name></json:item></author><host><volume>47</volume><pages><last>291</last><first>263</first></pages><author></author><title>Econometrica</title></host><title>Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>A. W. Kruglanski</name></json:item><json:item><name>E. P. Thompson</name></json:item><json:item><name>S. Spiegel</name></json:item></author><host><author></author><title>Dual‐process theories in social psychology</title></host><title>Separate or equal? Bimodal notions of persuasion and a single‐process ‘unimodel</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>A. Kühberger</name></json:item></author><host><volume>75</volume><pages><last>55</last><first>23</first></pages><author></author><title>Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes</title></host><title>The influence of framing on risky decision: A meta‐analysis</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>A. Kühberger</name></json:item><json:item><name>M. Schulte‐Mecklenbeck</name></json:item><json:item><name>J. Perner</name></json:item></author><host><volume>78</volume><pages><last>231</last><first>204</first></pages><author></author><title>Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes</title></host><title>The effect of probabilities and payoff on framing: A meta‐analysis and an empirical test</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>R. P. Larrick</name></json:item></author><host><volume>113</volume><pages><last>450</last><first>440</first></pages><author></author><title>Psychological Bulletin</title></host><title>Motivational factors in decision theories: The role of self‐protection</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>R. A. LeBoeuf</name></json:item><json:item><name>E. Shafir</name></json:item></author><host><volume>16</volume><pages><last>92</last><first>77</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</title></host><title>Deep thoughts and shallow frames: On the susceptibility to framing effects</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J. S. Lerner</name></json:item><json:item><name>P. E. Tetlock</name></json:item></author><host><volume>125</volume><pages><last>275</last><first>255</first></pages><author></author><title>Psychological Bulletin</title></host><title>Accounting for the effects of accountability</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>I. P. Levin</name></json:item><json:item><name>S. L. Schneider</name></json:item><json:item><name>G. J. Gaeth</name></json:item></author><host><volume>76</volume><pages><last>188</last><first>149</first></pages><author></author><title>Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes</title></host><title>All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>A. J. Maule</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>180</last><first>163</first></pages><author></author><title>Process and human structure in human decision making</title></host><title>Positive and negative decision frames: A verbal protocol analysis of the Asian disease problem of Tversky & Kahneman</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>T. McElroy</name></json:item><json:item><name>J. J. Seta</name></json:item></author><host><volume>39</volume><pages><last>617</last><first>610</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Experimental Social Psychology</title></host><title>Framing effects: An analytic‐holistic perspective</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>T. McElroy</name></json:item><json:item><name>J. J. Seta</name></json:item></author><host><volume>55</volume><pages><last>580</last><first>572</first></pages><author></author><title>Brain and Cognition</title></host><title>On the other hand am I rational? Hemispheric activation and the framing effect</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>T. Mussweiler</name></json:item><json:item><name>F. Strack</name></json:item></author><host><volume>35</volume><pages><last>164</last><first>136</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Experimental Social Psychology</title></host><title>Hypothesis‐consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>Ornstein, R. E. (1997). The right mind: Making sense of hemispheres. New York: Harcourt Brace.</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>B. W. Pelham</name></json:item><json:item><name>E. Neter</name></json:item></author><host><volume>68</volume><pages><last>594</last><first>581</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</title></host><title>The effect of motivation on judgment depends on the difficulty of the judgment</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>R. E. Petty</name></json:item><json:item><name>J. T. Cacioppo</name></json:item></author><host><volume>19</volume><pages><last>205</last><first>123</first></pages><author></author><title>Advances in experimental social psychology</title></host><title>The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>N. Schwarz</name></json:item></author><host><volume>26</volume><pages><last>162</last><first>123</first></pages><author></author><title>Advances in experimental social psychology</title></host><title>Judgments in a social context: Biases, shortcomings, and the logic of conversation</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>W. Sieck</name></json:item><json:item><name>J. F. Yates</name></json:item></author><host><volume>70</volume><pages><last>219</last><first>207</first></pages><author></author><title>Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes</title></host><title>Exposition effects on decision making: Choice and confidence in choice</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>A. F. Simon</name></json:item><json:item><name>N. S. Fagley</name></json:item><json:item><name>J. G. Halleran</name></json:item></author><host><volume>17</volume><pages><last>93</last><first>77</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</title></host><title>Decision framing: Moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>I. Simonson</name></json:item></author><host><volume>16</volume><pages><last>174</last><first>158</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Consumer Research</title></host><title>Choice based on reason: The case of attraction and compromise effects</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>I. Simonson</name></json:item><json:item><name>P. Nye</name></json:item></author><host><volume>51</volume><pages><last>446</last><first>416</first></pages><author></author><title>Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes</title></host><title>The effects of accountability on susceptibility to decision errors</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>S. M. Smith</name></json:item><json:item><name>I. P. Levin</name></json:item></author><host><volume>9</volume><pages><last>290</last><first>283</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</title></host><title>Need for cognition and choice framing effects</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>F. Strack</name></json:item><json:item><name>T. Mussweiler</name></json:item></author><host><volume>73</volume><pages><last>446</last><first>437</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</title></host><title>Explaining the enigmatic anchoring effect: Mechanisms of selective accessibility</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>O. Svenson</name></json:item><json:item><name>L. Benson III</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>144</last><first>133</first></pages><author></author><title>Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making</title></host><title>Framing and time pressure in decision making</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>K. Takemura</name></json:item></author><host><volume>35</volume><pages><last>185</last><first>180</first></pages><author></author><title>Psychologia</title></host><title>Effect of decision time on framing of decision: A case of risky choice behavior</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>K. Takemura</name></json:item></author><host><volume>128</volume><pages><last>39</last><first>33</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Psychology</title></host><title>Influence of elaboration on the framing of decision</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>P. E. Tetlock</name></json:item></author><host><volume>45</volume><pages><last>83</last><first>74</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</title></host><title>Accountability and complexity of thought</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>P. E. Tetlock</name></json:item></author><host><volume>48</volume><pages><last>236</last><first>227</first></pages><author></author><title>Social Psychology Quarterly</title></host><title>Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>P. E. Tetlock</name></json:item><json:item><name>R. Boettger</name></json:item></author><host><volume>57</volume><pages><last>398</last><first>388</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</title></host><title>Accountability: A social magnifier of the dilution effect</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>P. E. Tetlock</name></json:item><json:item><name>J. J. Kim</name></json:item></author><host><volume>52</volume><pages><last>709</last><first>700</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</title></host><title>Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>A. Tversky</name></json:item><json:item><name>D. Kahneman</name></json:item></author><host><volume>30</volume><pages><last>458</last><first>453</first></pages><author></author><title>Science</title></host><title>The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice</title></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>E. C. M. van Schie</name></json:item><json:item><name>J. van der Pligt</name></json:item></author><host><volume>63</volume><pages><last>275</last><first>264</first></pages><author></author><title>Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes</title></host><title>Influencing risk preference in decision making: The effects of framing and salience</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>T. D. Wilson</name></json:item><json:item><name>J. W. Schooler</name></json:item></author><host><volume>60</volume><pages><last>192</last><first>181</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</title></host><title>Thinking too much: Introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>T. D. Wilson</name></json:item><json:item><name>D. Lisle</name></json:item><json:item><name>J. Schooler</name></json:item><json:item><name>S. D. Hodges</name></json:item><json:item><name>K. J. Klaaren</name></json:item><json:item><name>S. J. LaFleur</name></json:item></author><host><volume>19</volume><pages><last>339</last><first>331</first></pages><author></author><title>Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</title></host><title>Introspecting about reasons can reduce post‐choice satisfaction</title></json:item></refBibs><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><volume>20</volume><publisherId><json:string>BDM</json:string></publisherId><pages><total>18</total><last>142</last><first>125</first></pages><issn><json:string>0894-3257</json:string></issn><issue>2</issue><subject><json:item><value>Research Article</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1099-0771</json:string></eissn><title>Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</title><doi><json:string>10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771</json:string></doi></host><categories><wos><json:string>social science</json:string><json:string>psychology, applied</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>health sciences</json:string><json:string>psychology & cognitive sciences</json:string><json:string>social psychology</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2007</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2007</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1002/bdm.543</json:string></doi><id>8B6FB0C9B402534391AE09E1A4D57D27820378AE</id><score>0.01587881</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/8B6FB0C9B402534391AE09E1A4D57D27820378AE/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/8B6FB0C9B402534391AE09E1A4D57D27820378AE/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/8B6FB0C9B402534391AE09E1A4D57D27820378AE/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function of substantive processing</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisher><pubPlace>Chichester, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</p></availability><date>2007</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function of substantive processing</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Eric R.</forename><surname>Igou</surname></persName><affiliation>Tilburg University, The Netherlands</affiliation><affiliation>Social Psychology, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands.</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Herbert</forename><surname>Bless</surname></persName><affiliation>University of Mannheim, Germany</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">J. Behav. Decis. Making</title><idno type="pISSN">0894-3257</idno><idno type="eISSN">1099-0771</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771</idno><imprint><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisher><pubPlace>Chichester, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2007-04"></date><biblScope unit="volume">20</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="125">125</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="142">142</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">8B6FB0C9B402534391AE09E1A4D57D27820378AE</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/bdm.543</idno><idno type="ArticleID">BDM543</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2007</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Three studies investigate the impact of effortful constructive processing on framing effects. The results replicated previous findings: Participants avoided the risky option when the scenario was framed in terms of gains, but preferred this option when the scenario was framed in terms of losses. Importantly, framing effects were most pronounced when conditions allowed for an effortful constructive processing style (i.e., substantive processing). This impact of decision frames varied when decision time served as an indicator for the elaboration extent (Study 1), and also when processing motivation (accountability; Study 2) and processing ability (decision time; Study 3) were manipulated. Moreover, effortful processing did not increase framing effects when contextual cues reduced the necessity for constructive thinking (Study 1). We suggest that decision frames may take on very different roles as a function of the ambiguity of the decision problem, and the degree and style of processing. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="en"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>framing effects</term></item><item><term>decision‐making</term></item><item><term>bias</term></item><item><term>social cognition</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Journal Subject"><list><head>article-category</head><item><term>Research Article</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2007-04">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/8B6FB0C9B402534391AE09E1A4D57D27820378AE/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisherName><publisherLoc>Chichester, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi registered="yes">10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771</doi><issn type="print">0894-3257</issn><issn type="electronic">1099-0771</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="BDM"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" xml:lang="en" sort="JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DECISION MAKING">Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</title><title type="short">J. Behav. Decis. Making</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="20"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1002/bdm.v20:2</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="20">20</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue">2</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2007-04">April 2007</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="20" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1002/bdm.543</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="BDM543"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="18"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="articleCategory">Research Article</title><title type="tocHeading1">Research Articles</title></titleGroup><copyright ownership="publisher">Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</copyright><eventGroup><event type="publishedOnlineEarlyUnpaginated" date="2006-09-26"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2006-09-26"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2007-03-19"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:JWSART34_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:HeaderRef result:HeaderRef" date="2010-03-06"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-07"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-23"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst">125</numbering><numbering type="pageLast">142</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Social Psychology, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands.</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:BDM.BDM543.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="3"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="46"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" xml:lang="en">On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function of substantive processing</title><title type="short" xml:lang="en">Framing Effects as a Function of Substantive Processing</title></titleGroup><creators><creator xml:id="au1" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Eric R.</givenNames><familyName>Igou</familyName></personName><contactDetails><email>E.R.Igou@uvt.nl</email></contactDetails></creator><creator xml:id="au2" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af2"><personName><givenNames>Herbert</givenNames><familyName>Bless</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="af1" countryCode="NL" type="organization"><unparsedAffiliation>Tilburg University, The Netherlands</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="af2" countryCode="DE" type="organization"><unparsedAffiliation>University of Mannheim, Germany</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en" type="author"><keyword xml:id="kwd1">framing effects</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd2">decision‐making</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd3">bias</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd4">social cognition</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p>Three studies investigate the impact of effortful constructive processing on framing effects. The results replicated previous findings: Participants avoided the risky option when the scenario was framed in terms of gains, but preferred this option when the scenario was framed in terms of losses. Importantly, framing effects were most pronounced when conditions allowed for an effortful constructive processing style (i.e., substantive processing). This impact of decision frames varied when decision time served as an indicator for the elaboration extent (Study 1), and also when processing motivation (accountability; Study 2) and processing ability (decision time; Study 3) were manipulated. Moreover, effortful processing did not increase framing effects when contextual cues reduced the necessity for constructive thinking (Study 1). We suggest that decision frames may take on very different roles as a function of the ambiguity of the decision problem, and the degree and style of processing. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function of substantive processing</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Framing Effects as a Function of Substantive Processing</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function of substantive processing</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Eric R.</namePart><namePart type="family">Igou</namePart><affiliation>Tilburg University, The Netherlands</affiliation><affiliation>Social Psychology, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Herbert</namePart><namePart type="family">Bless</namePart><affiliation>University of Mannheim, Germany</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Chichester, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2007-04</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2007</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="figures">3</extent><extent unit="references">46</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Three studies investigate the impact of effortful constructive processing on framing effects. The results replicated previous findings: Participants avoided the risky option when the scenario was framed in terms of gains, but preferred this option when the scenario was framed in terms of losses. Importantly, framing effects were most pronounced when conditions allowed for an effortful constructive processing style (i.e., substantive processing). This impact of decision frames varied when decision time served as an indicator for the elaboration extent (Study 1), and also when processing motivation (accountability; Study 2) and processing ability (decision time; Study 3) were manipulated. Moreover, effortful processing did not increase framing effects when contextual cues reduced the necessity for constructive thinking (Study 1). We suggest that decision frames may take on very different roles as a function of the ambiguity of the decision problem, and the degree and style of processing. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>framing effects</topic><topic>decision‐making</topic><topic>bias</topic><topic>social cognition</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Behavioral Decision Making</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>J. Behav. Decis. Making</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>article-category</genre><topic>Research Article</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0894-3257</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1099-0771</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0771</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">BDM</identifier><part><date>2007</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>20</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>125</start><end>142</end><total>18</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">8B6FB0C9B402534391AE09E1A4D57D27820378AE</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1002/bdm.543</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">BDM543</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Rhénanie/explor/UnivTrevesV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001508 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001508 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Rhénanie
|area= UnivTrevesV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:8B6FB0C9B402534391AE09E1A4D57D27820378AE
|texte= On undesirable consequences of thinking: framing effects as a function of substantive processing
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |