N. S. Fagley

The Effects of Framing, Problem Variations, and Providing Rationale on Choice

Tversky and Kahneman reported a large effect of the framing of decision options on choice. When options were phrased positively in terms of gains, people chose the sure thing. But when options were phrased negatively in terms of losses, people chose the risky option. However, not all researchers have replicated this finding, especially when using different decision problems and task requirements. Consequently, problem and/or task variables may be important. The current study investigated two problem variables: degree of apparent gain/loss in the risky option (e.g., partial vs. total) and probability of success in the risky option. The effect of requesting a rationale on the framing effect was also studied. Although framing significantly affected choice, its effects were mediated or moderated by rationale request, degree of apparent gain/loss, and probability, sometimes in complex ways. The findings suggest that framing is less pervasive than previously believed.

The Effect of Framing on Choice Interactions with Risk-Taking Propensity, Cognitive Style, and Sex

Tversky and Kahneman suggested that choice between a sure thing and a risky option of equal expected value is affected by option phrasing. When options for fighting an Asian disease were framed positively, 72% chose the sure thing; but when options were framed negatively, only 22% did. Decision problems like the Asian disease one, however, have produced varied results. Experiment I explored three reasons for the varied results: differences between the samples in risk-taking propensity, differences in gender composition, and use of different decision problems. A significant interaction of framing, sex, and problem was observed. Women were affected by framing, while men generally were not. Further, the size and direction of framing effects varied across the decision problems. Experiment 2 investigated risk-taking propensity and field independence as mediators of the sex by framing interaction. Only framing was significant. Neither field independence nor risk-taking propensity interacted with framing.

The effects of decision framing on choice of risky vs certain options

Abstract Tversky and Kahneman (1981 , Science, 211, 453–458) reported that the choice between two decision alternatives of equal expected value, differing only in the degree of risk, was significantly influenced by the “framing” of the alternative decision outcomes. When alternative outcomes were phrased “positively” in terms of lives saved, subjects preferred the risk-averse alternative. When outcomes were phrased “negatively” in terms of lives lost, the risk-seeking option was preferred. Experiment 1 investigated the robustness of the framing effect and its remediation by formal training. Forty-five MBA students responded to a decision problem before and after training in decision theory. Results differed from those published by Tversky and Kahneman (1981) in two respects. First, although results in the positive framing condition were similar to Tversky and Kahnemans results, no preference for the risky option in the negative framing condition was observed. Consequently, no framing effect was found even on the pretest. Second, many students reported being indifferent to the two options. No significant changes occurred after training. Experiment 2 replicated these results on a nonbusiness sample. These findings suggest that (a) unidentified factors affect whether a framing effect is observed, and (b) the bias known as the framing effect may not be as robust as has been believed.

Appreciation: a spiritual path to finding value and meaning in the workplace

Appreciation is keenly connected to spirituality through a process of reciprocal causality, and both appear to be key factors in psychological and physical well-being and successful performance in the workplace, with each making a distinct contribution. Appreciation fosters well-being and success directly, as well as indirectly, through forging and maintaining social bonds, promoting better sleep, encouraging helping and building trust. Appreciation is viewed as having eight aspects: a focus on what one has (“Have” focus), awe, ritual, present moment, self/social comparison, gratitude, loss/adversity and interpersonal appreciation. Although interventions to increase several aspects of appreciation have been successful, they have not been intended for, or implemented formally in the workplace. This paper briefly reviews research on appreciation, suggests possible applications to the workplace, argues that appreciation is an important factor in workplace well-being and success, and urges researchers to pursue this line of investigation. We also argue that although spirituality and appreciation have many points of commonality and are likely involved in a process of reciprocal causality, it is most productive for research endeavors at this point to view them as distinct constructs. Research is needed to determine the most effective ways to express appreciation in the workplace and the most effective organizational and individual workplace interventions to foster appreciation and manifest spirituality. Appreciation may help employees feel valued, unleashing their intrinsic motivation and desire to excel and to help others, including customers, supervisors or peers. This would be good for them and for their employer. At the systems level, what organizational structures, procedures and practices promote spirituality and appreciation, which then foster important organizational outcomes? And finally, research is needed to assess the joint and unique effects of appreciation and spirituality on business outcomes, at the individual employee level and at the levels of the work team, unit and overall company.

Factor Structure of the Gibb Experimental Test of Testwiseness

This study investigated the factor structure of scores on the seven subscales of the Gibb (1964) Experimental Test of Testwiseness. The Gibb instrument measures a subjects ability to use seven types of secondary cues to correctly answer multiple-choice test questions. The study investigated whether the seven types of cues proposed by Gibb (1964) represented independent dimensions or could be reduced to a smaller set of interpretable factors. A principal components analysis yielded two factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1.00. The factors were rotated to final solution using the varimax method. Scales loading above .40 on factor 1 included Alliterative Associations, More Precise Alternatives, Longer Correct Alternatives, and Grammatical cues. These subscales were interpreted as more overt cues to the correct response. Scales with loadings above .40 on factor 2 included Grossly Unrelated Alternatives, Inclusionary Language, and Give Aways in other items. These subscales were interpreted as more subtle cues to the correct response. Further research is necessary to replicate the factors and to substantiate these tentative interpretations.

Stability of the Gibb (1964) Experimental Test of Testwiseness

This study investigated the reliability of the Gibb (1964) Experimental Test of Testwiseness, a performance measure (rather than a self-report measure) of testwiseness. The 70 multiple-choice items can be answered correctly using only secondary cues irrelevant to item content. Seventy undergraduate students participated. The two-week test-retest reliability coefficient was .64. Coefficient alpha was .61 for the first administration and .72 for the second administration. Although these figures are modest, they are minimally adequate for use in further research. Reliability of the seven subscales is also reported. Future research could investigate the effects of students motivation on the reliability and stability figures.

The Context of the Contexts Pyramid Model of Classroom Writing Competence.

Mosenthal (1983) presented the Contexts Pyramid Model of Classroom Writing Competence as a paradigm for guiding research on writing. Five factors that impact classroom writing competence were identified, and Mosenthal advised researchers to select a single factor as the focus of research, holding the remaining factors constant. Although the Contexts Pyramid Model may represent a useful means of organizing research, it is argued that the Contexts Pyramid Model can be considered a special case of earlier conceptual frameworks for research on memory and cognition (e.g., Bransford, 1979; Jenkins, 1979). In addition to the superficial resemblance of the geometric representations of the three models (as pyramids), the models proposed by Jenkins, Bransford, and Mosenthal address similar variables, although they differ in comprehensiveness and vary in the organization of primary factors. Earlier formulations appear to provide more parsimonious descriptions and more comprehensive frameworks for writing research than the Contexts Pyramid Model. Because Mosenthal did not relate the Contexts Pyramid Model to the work of Jenkins or Bransford, the rationale for preferring his particular reformulation is not made explicit, and its advantages over the earlier models are not explained. It remains for Mosenthal to demonstrate that the Contexts Pyramid Model offers a superior paradigm to those of Jenkins and Bransford. The Contexts Pyramid Model of Classroom Writing Competence is very similar to the problem pyramid or theorists tetrahedron proposed by Jenkins (1979) for classifying memory experiments. Mosenthals (1983) model was portrayed as a four-sided pyramid on a square base. The five vertices of the pyramid represented the primary factors in writing research and were labeled writer, materials, task, situation organizer, and setting. Jenkins model appeared as a three-sided pyramid on a triangular base, that is, a tetrahedron. The four vertices represented the primary factors in memory experiments and were labeled subjects, materials, criterial tasks, and orienting tasks. Jenkins noted the context sensitivity of memory and argued that memory problems involve all four factors, although most researchers focus on a single factor. Jenkins advised the explicit consideration of all four factors in memory research-regardless of whether each factor was sampled or manipulated. This contrasts with Mosenthals advice to simplify and investigate one factor at a time. The applicability of Jenkins framework to domains beyond memory research