Teaching & learning guide for: Risky‐choice framing and rational decision‐making

An influential program of psychological research suggests that people's judgements and decisions depend on the way in which information is presented, or ‘framed’. In a central choice paradigm, decision-makers seem to adopt different preferences, attitudes risk, depending whether options specify number people who will be saved corresponding die. It standardly assumed such responses violate foundational tenet rational decision-making, known as principle description invariance. However, recent theoretical empirical has begun challenge dominant ‘irrationalist’ narrative. The alternative approaches being developed typically pay close attention how represent decision problems (including their interpretation numerical quantifiers predicate choice). They also highlight need for more robust characterization invariance itself. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: analysis under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292. doi: 10.2307/1914185 This classic text critiques expected utility theory descriptive model human making discusses several pervasive effects incompatible with choice. develops an – prospect value assigned gains losses rather than final assets probabilities are replaced by weights. played role subsequent discussions framing effects. A., D. (1981). psychology Science, 211(4481), 453-458. doi:10.1126/science.7455683 article marks beginning psychology. introduces risky-choice ‘disease problem’ presents results from seminal set experiments. These show preferences risk can reversed describing same ways terms Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames not created equal: A typology critical Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804 survey first 2 decades important three-way distinction between framing, attribute goal framing. Kühberger, (2002). rationality risky decisions: changing message. Theory Psychology, 12(4), 427-452. doi:10.1177/0959354302012004293 traces history narrative about begins present challenges it. As such, it new approach research. Keren (Ed.). (2011). Perspectives Framing. New York: Psychology Press. book collects papers mechanisms effects, written variety perspectives, including psychology, linguistics, marketing, political science, medical making. Teigen, K. H. (2016). Framing quantities. Wu (Eds.), Wiley Blackwell handbook judgement (pp. 568-589). Chichester, UK: John Sons, Ltd. main focusing particularly understand Bermúdez, L. (2021). Frame again: tools decision-making. Cambridge: Cambridge University interesting philosophical arguments against blanket view irrational. What why they puzzling? (Chapter 1) How does explain might challenged? do interpret what this mean effects? Mandel, R. (2014). Do reveal irrational choice? Journal experimental General, 143(3), 1185-1198. doi:10.1037/a0034207 Chick, C. F., Reyna, V. Corbin, linguistic disambiguation: test contemporary theory. Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory Cognition, 42(2), 238-256. doi:10.1037/xlm0000158 Fisher, (2020). Rationalising effects: At least one task empirically informed philosophy. Crítica, Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, 52(156), 5-30. 10.22201/iifs.18704905e.2020.1221 fuzzy traces: ‘Some’ observations. Review Philosophy Psychology. 10.1007/s13164-021-00556-3 speaker's convey (2001). Gain-loss choice: Separating outcome formulations descriptor formulations. 85(1), 56-76. doi:10.1006/obhd.2000.2932 Tombu, M., (2015). When influence perceptions, attitudes? explicated valence account. Behavioral Making, 28(5), 464-476. doi:10.1002/bdm.1863 Sher, S., McKenzie, M. (2006). Information leakage logically equivalent frames. 101(3), 467-494. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.11.001 play decision-making moral decision-making? (Especially chapter 4) Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2008). intuitions. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral Vol. 2. cognitive science morality: Intuition diversity (p. 47–76). MA: MIT Should account consider problems? accounts (e.g., theory, trace lower-bounding account) say issue representation, connection representation strong evidence defended, modified, abandoned favor approach? points connection/difference Tombu Mandel's account, Levin et al.'s associationist Sher McKenzie's account? most plausible characterizing principle? Does apply all contexts? some other implications could these explored future work? Write proposal experiment would pit at two competing processes each informative no matter turn out. Clearly define hypotheses tested, independent variable variables manipulated dependent measured. Divide class into debating teams (or sets teams, if large) either argue proposition, “The findings original disease problem Tversky Kahneman (1981) demonstrate irrationality decision-making.” Funding work was provided Canadian Safety Security Program project CSSP-2018-TI-2394 second author.