Decision framing: moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing
Abstract
Two studies examined the effect of an individual difference variable, need for cognition (NC), and processing of the options on the occurrence of risky choice framing effects. In Study 1 (N=206), frame interacted with NC and math skill such that no framing effect was observed among those high in both NC and math skill. No effect was found for the processing manipulation of requesting a reason for one's choices. Study 2 (N=257) enhanced the processing of the problems by asking participants to write out the options as they would describe them to a friend. Results showed that frame interacted with NC and depth of processing such that no framing effect was observed among those high in NC who were in the deep processing condition. These findings suggest that NC and depth of processing need to be considered in concert in order to understand their moderating effects on framing. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Research investigating individual decision making has identified cognitive information processing as a key factor in the decision-making process.
“Research investigating individual decision making has identified cognitive information processing as a key factor in the decision-making process [6-8].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [8]
Cites
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 17,604 · see citing works
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.1.116 · Cited by 5,359 · see citing works
All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804 · Cited by 2,592 · see citing works
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197 · Cited by 2,517 · see citing works
Prevalence, distribution, and correlates of math anxiety in college students
Betz, N. E. (1978) · Journal of Counseling Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0167.25.5.441 · Cited by 558 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dinsmore, D. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2012) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-012-9198-7 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
McCaughey, D., & Bruning, N. S. (2010) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-39 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
- Authors
- Simon, A. F., Fagley, N. S., & Halleran, J. G.
- Affiliations
- Seton Hall University (US)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Drew University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Simon, Andrew F.
- Venue
- Journal of Behavioral Decision Making
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-03-31
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 77-93
- ISSN
- 0894-3257 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0771
- OpenAlex
- W2013738214
- Cited by
- 150
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Behavioral Decision Making (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Keywords
- choice framing, need for cognition, decision making under risk, framing effects, individual differences, levels of processing, cognitive processes, moderating effect, risky decision making
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
