STUDIES - Tversky and Kahneman Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Aim

A
  • To investigate the influence of positive and negative frames on decision-making
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Procedure

A

SAMPLE

  • Self-selected (volunteer) sample of 307 US undergraduate students

STEPS

  • Participants were asked to decide between 1 of 2 options in a hypothetical scenario where they were choosing how to respond to the outbreak of a virulent disease
  • Scenario: US is preparing for outbreak of a disease which is expected to kill 600 people and 2 programs have been proposed

Participants were allocated to 2 groups:

  • Group 1 (“positive” frame):
    — Program A: 200 people saved
    — Program B: 33% chance that 600 people will be saved and 66% that no one will
  • Group 2 (“negative” frame):
    — Program C: 400 people will die
    — Program D: 33% chance that nobody will die and 66% that 600 people will die

(Both choice sets are identical but different in wording, either in terms of potential gains (“will be saved”) or potential losses (“will die”))

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Results

A
  • Group 1: Program A: 72% and Program B: 28%
  • Group 2: Program C: 22% and Program D: 78%
  • Majority of Group 1 chose Program A as they are trying to avoid risk of not saving anyone at all (66% chance)
  • Majority of Group 2 chose Program D as they are more willing to take the risk to save as many people as possible (400 deaths are as bad as 600 so risk is worth it)
  • Tversky and Kahneman’s explanation was that the groups had a different reference point:
    — Group 1: Reference point is future state (600 people dead), so options are perceived as potential gains (how many people can I save?)
    — Group 2: Reference point is present state (600 people alive), so options are perceived as potential losses (how many people can I lose?)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Findings

A
  • People tend to engage in risk-taking behaviour when they are presented with a negative frame and more likely to avoid risks in positive frames
  • We tend to assign less positive value to gains and more negative value to losses
    — When information is phrased positively (number of people saved), people took certain outcome and avoided possibility of loss in uncertain outcome
    — When information is phrased negatively (number of people dead), people avoided certain loss and took a chance on uncertain loss
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Strengths

A
  • High internal validity: The experiment is highly controlled, and we can conclude that the framing of the situation actually had an effect on the choices made by the participants
  • High reliability: The study is highly standardised, so it is easily replicable, and the results are thus reliable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Limitations

A
  • Cultural differences: Sample is made up of Western university students, and a study by Wang et al found that people with more individualistic cultures are more averse to risk than those from a collectivist culture
  • Low ecological validity: The study has low mundane realism, as there is no actual threat and in a real situation of this nature, there would be a lot of emotion in making a decision that is not even made in consultation with others
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly