STUDIES - Tversky and Kahneman Flashcards
1
Q
Aim
A
- To investigate the influence of positive and negative frames on decision-making
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”))
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?)
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
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
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