CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 97Decision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies

Effects of attribute framing on cognitive processing and evaluation

Open access
Kuvaas, Bård, Selart, Marcus·2004·Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
DOI 10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.08.001
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.08.001

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Bazerman, M. H., & Hoffman, A. J. (1999). Sources of environmen- tally destructive behavior: Individual, organizational, and institu- tional perspectives. In R. I. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 21, pp. 39-79).
  2. Beach, L. R., & Mitchell, T. R. (1990). Image theory: A behavioral theory of decision making in organizations. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 12, pp. 1-41). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  3. Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measure- ment: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 305-314.
  4. Chatterjee, S., Heath, T. B., Milberg, S. J., & France, K. R. (2000). The differential processing of price in gains and losses: The effects of frame and need for cognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 61-75.
  5. Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., & Conway, M. (1994). Affective causes and consequences of social information processing. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed.) (pp. 323-417). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  7. Cooper, A. C., Folta, T. B., & Woo, C. (1995). Entrepreneurial information search. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 107-120.
  8. Crawford, M. T., & Skowronski, J. J. (1998). When motivated thought leads to hightened bias: High need for cognition can enhance the impact of stereotypes on memory. Personality and Social Psychol- ogy Bulletin, 24, 1075-1088.
  9. Dunegan, K. J. (1993). Framing, cognitive modes, and image theory: Toward an understanding of a glass half full. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 491-503.
  10. Dunegan, K. J. (1994). Feedback sign and mindful vs. mindless information processing. In C. Stubbart, J. R. Meindl, & J. F. Porac (Eds.). Advances in managerial cognition and organizational infor- mation processing (Vol. 5, pp. 315-336). Greenwich, Connecticut: Jai Press Inc.
  11. Dutton, J. E. (1993). The making of organizational opportunities: an interpretive pathway to organizational change. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.). Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 195-226). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
  12. Fiedler, K. (2000). Toward an integrative account of affect and cognition phenomena using the BIAS computer algorithm. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 223-252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Fiedler, K., & Bless, H. (2000). The formation of beliefs at the interface of affective and cognitive processes. In N. H. Frijda, A. S. R. Manstead, & S. Bem (Eds.), Emotions and belief: How feelings influence thoughts (pp. 144-170). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Forgas, J. P. (1998). Happy and mistaken? Mood effects on the fundamental attribution error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 318-331.
  15. Forgas, J. P. (2000). Affect and information processing strategies: An interactive relationship. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 253-280). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Forgas, J. P. (2001). Affective intelligence: The role of affect in social thinking and behavior. In J. Ciarrochi, J. P. Forgas, & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Emotional intelligence in everyday life: A scientific inquiry (pp. 45-79). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
  17. Harvey, N. (1994). Relations between confidence and skilled perfor- mance. In G. Wright & R. Ayton (Eds.), Subjective probability (pp. 321-351). New York: Wiley.
  18. Hayward, M. L. A., & Hambrick, D. C. (1997). Explaining the premiums paid for large acquisitions: Evidence of CEO hubris. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 103-127.
  19. Hodgkinson, G. P., Bown, N. J., Maule, A. J., Glaister, K. W., & Pearman, A. D. (1999). Breaking the frame: An analysis of strategic cognition and decision making under uncertainty. Strategic Man- agement Journal, 20, 977-985.
  20. Huber, O., & Seiser, G. (2001). Accounting and convincing: The effects of two types of justification on the decision process. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 69-85.
  21. Isen, A. M. (1993). Positive affect and decision making. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland (Eds.), The handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 521-539). New York: Wiley.
  22. Kahneman, D., & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Pscyhological Review, 93, 136-153.
  23. Kernan, M. C., & Lord, R. G. (1989). The effects of explicit goals and specific feedback on escalation processes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1125-1143.
  24. Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 150-172.
  25. Kuvaas, B. (2002). An exploration of two competing perspectives on informational contexts in top management strategic issue interpre- tation. Journal of Management Studies, 39, 979-1003.
  26. Kuvaas, B., & Kaufmann, G. (2004). Impact of mood, framing, and need for cognition on decision makersÕ recall and confidence. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 59-74.
  27. Ku ¨hberger, A. (1997). Theoretical conceptions of framing effects in risky decisions. In W. R. Crozier & O. Svenson (Eds.), Decision making: Cognitive models and explanations. London: Routledge.
  28. Langer, E. (1989a). Mindfulness. New York: Addison-Wesley.
  29. LeBoeuf, R. A., & Shafir, E. (2003). Deep thoughts and shallow frames: On the susceptibility to framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 77-92.
  30. Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). Framing of attribute informationh before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Resarch, 15, 374-378.
  31. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1990). Alternative information- processing models and their implications for theory, research and practice. Academy of Management Review, 15, 9-28.
  32. Mahajan, J. (1992). The overconfidence effect in market management predictions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 261-265.
  33. Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent infor- mation on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.
  34. Mantel, S. P., & Kardes, F. R. (1999). The role of direction of comparison, attribute-based processing, and attitude-based pro- cessing in consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 335-352.
  35. Martin, L. L. (2001). Mood as input: A configural view of mood effects. In L. L. Martin & G. L. Clore (Eds.), Theories of mood and cognition: A userÕs guidebook (pp. 135-157). Mahwah, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum Associates.
  36. Martin, L. L., & Stoner, P. (1996). Mood as input: What people think about what they feel moods determines how they think. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), Striving and feeling: Interactions between goals, affect, and self-regulation (pp. 279-301). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  37. Maule, A. J. (1994). Framing elaborations and their effects on choice behavior: A comparison across problem isomorphs and subjects with different levels of expertise. In J.-P. Caverni, M. Bar-Hillel, H. Barron, & H. Jungermann (Eds.), Contributions to decision making- I (pp. 281-300). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  38. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
  39. Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 33-60.
  40. Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3-19.
  41. Schneider, S. L. (1992). Framing and conflict: Aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1040-1057.
  42. Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrention (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (2nd ed.) (pp. 527-561). New York: Guilford Press.
  43. Simon, M., & Houghton, S. M. (2003). The relationship between overconfidence and the introduction of risky products: Evidence from a field study. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 139-149.
  44. Smith, S. M., & Levin, I. P. (1996). Need for cognition and choice framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 283-290.
  45. Staw, B., Sandelands, L., & Dutton, J. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501-524.
  46. Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder-but wiser versus happier-and- smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 304-331.
  47. Svenson, O. (1989). Eliciting and analysing verbal protocols in process studies of judgement and decision making. In H. Montgomery & O. Svenson (Eds.), Process and structure in human decison making (pp. 65-83). Chichester: Wiley.
  48. Svenson, O., & Benson, L. I. (1993). Framing and time pressure in decision making. In O. Svenson & A. J. Maule (Eds.), Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 133-144). New York: Plenum Press.
  49. Takemura, K. (1994). Influence of elaboration on the framing of decision. Journal of Psychology, 128, 33-39.
  50. Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization-minimalization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67-85.
  51. Tiedens, L. Z., & Linton, S. (2001). Judgment under emotional certainty and uncertainty: The effects of specific emotions on information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 81, 973-988.
  52. Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Klein, D. J. (1994). Effects of mood on high elaboration attitude change: The mediating role of likelihood judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 25-43.
  53. Wofford, J. C., & Goodwin, V. L. (1990). Effects of feedback on cognitive processing and choice of decision style. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 603-612.
  54. Wright, G., & Goodwin, P. (2002). Eliminating a framing bias by using simple instructions to think harder and respondents with manage- rial experience: comment on breaking the frame. Strategic Man- agement Journal, 23, 1059-1067.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kuvaas, B., & Selart, M.
Affiliations
Norwegian School of Economics (NO)
Corresponding author
Kuvaas, Bård
ORCID
Venue
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-11
Volume
95
Issue
2
Pages
198-207
ISSN
0749-5978 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.08.001
OpenAlex
W3125852665
Cited by
97
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (publishedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Leadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
Keywords
attribute framing, positive and negative framing, cognitive processes, information recall, decision confidence, decision evaluation, management decision-making, effortful processing

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