Abstract
AbstractFraming effects are said to indicate irrationality in decision making because they illustrate that linguistically different descriptions of equivalent options lead to inconsistent choices. A review of the literature on the effects of adding, or subtracting, implicated complements of the sure option shows that this leads to a classic framing effect, a reversal of the classic effect, or no framing effect. Thus, the assumption of equivalence of formulations is not justified. In addition we provide a test of two major, but opposing theories on framing, prospect theory and fuzzy‐trace theory. Based on an online study we investigated the effects of subtracting complements of the risky option. The results are more consistent with fuzzy‐trace theory than with prospect theory. The consequences of these findings for the application of formal models like prospect theory, and for rationality, are discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
