Opt-out choice framing attenuates gender differences in the decision to compete in the laboratory and in the field

Research shows that women are less likely to enter competitions than men. This disparity may translate into a gender imbalance in holding leadership positions or ascending in organizations. We provide both laboratory and field experimental evidence that this difference can be attenuated with a default nudge—changing the choice to enter a competitive task from a default in which applicants must actively choose to compete to a default in which applicants are automatically enrolled in competition but can choose to opt out. Changing the default affects the perception of prevailing social norms about gender and competition as well as perceptions of the performance or ability threshold at which to apply. We do not find associated negative effects for performance or wellbeing. These results suggest that organizations could make use of opt-out promotion schemes to reduce the gender gap in competition and support the ascension of women to leadership positions.

Teaching & Learning Guide for: Risky-choice framing and rational decision-making

An influential program of psychological research suggests that people’s judgements and decisions depend on the way in which information is presented, or ‘framed’. In a central choice paradigm, decision-makers seem to adopt different preferences, and different attitudes to risk, depending on whether the options specify the number of people who will be saved or the corresponding number who will die. It is standardly assumed that such responses violate a foundational tenet of rational decision-making, known as the principle of description invariance. However, recent theoretical and empirical research has begun to challenge the dominant ‘irrationalist’ narrative. The alternative approaches being developed typically pay close attention to how decision- makers represent decision problems (including their interpretation of numerical quantifiers or predicate choice). They also highlight the need for a more robust characterization of the description invariance principle itself.

Replicating the Disease framing problem during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic: A study of stress, worry, trust, and choice under risk

In the risky-choice framing effect, different wording of the same options leads to predictably different choices. In a large-scale survey conducted from March to May 2020 and including 88,181 participants from 47 countries, we investigated how stress, concerns, and trust moderated the effect in the Disease problem, a prominent framing problem highly evocative of the COVID-19 pandemic. As predicted by the appraisal-tendency framework, risk aversion and the framing effect in our study were larger than under typical circumstances. Furthermore, perceived stress and concerns over coronavirus were positively associated with the framing effect. Contrary to predictions, however, they were not related to risk aversion. Trust in the government’s efforts to handle the coronavirus was associated with neither risk aversion nor the framing effect. The proportion of risky choices and the framing effect varied substantially across nations. Additional exploratory analyses showed that the framing effect was unrelated to reported compliance with safety measures, suggesting, along with similar findings during the pandemic and beyond, that the effectiveness of framing manipulations in public messages might be limited. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed, along with directions for further investigations.

Risky-choice framing and rational decision-making

This article surveys the latest research on risky-choice framing effects, focusing on the implications for rational decision-making. An influential program of psychological research suggests that people’s judgements and decisions depend on the way in which information is presented, or ‘framed’. In a central choice paradigm, decision-makers seem to adopt different preferences, and different attitudes to risk, depending on whether the options specify the number of people who will be saved or the corresponding number who will die. It is standardly assumed that such responses violate a foundational tenet of rational decision-making, known as the principle of description invariance. We discuss recent theoretical and empirical research that challenges the dominant ‘irrationalist’ narrative. These approaches typically pay close attention to how decision-makers represent decision problems (including their interpretation of numerical quantifiers or predicate choice) and they highlight the need for a more robust characterization of the description invariance principle. We conclude by indicating avenues for future research that could bring us closer to a complete – and potentially rationalizing – explanation of framing effects.

Theories, queries, “frames” and language games: Commentary on Wall, Crookes, Johnson Weber (2020) (and the literature on risky-choice framing)

In a recent article, Wall, Crookes, Johnson and Weber (2020) claim that Query Theory has better explanatory success in accounting for recent data than the Explicated Valence Account of Tombu and Mandel (2015). In this commentary, I first argue that this claim is not supported by the full range of available evidence. I then draw attention to the pernicious problem in framing studies in which researchers do not adequately ensure that framing manipulations are what they claim to be—namely, extensionally equivalent re-descriptions of the same events or event classes. The difficulty of estab- lishing extensional equivalence in the context of experimental language games (such as the Asian Disease Problem) is under-appreciated. Unfortunately, inter-subjective agreement that the extensional equivalence assumption is met, even amongst a majority of respectable decision theorists, does not constitute sufficient evidence that it is met. Empirical evidence challenges the equivalence assumption, raising meta-theoretical questions about the integrity of some framing research.