framing effects
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

688
(FIVE YEARS 150)

H-INDEX

57
(FIVE YEARS 3)

2022 ◽  
pp. 104346312110733
Author(s):  
Andreas Bergh ◽  
Philipp C Wichardt

This paper reports results from a classroom dictator game comparing the effects of three different sets of standard instructions. The results show that seemingly small and typically unreported differences in standard instructions induce different perceptions regarding entitlement and ownership of the money to be distributed, and that these perceptions influence behaviour. Less is given when the task is described as a task of generosity and more when the task is a task of distribution (average 35 % vs. 52 %). The results can contribute to explaining the large variation in dictator game giving reported in the literature and show that even small and unreported differences in instructions change how the game is perceived. JEL codes: C70; C91; D63


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
RaeAnn Elizabeth Anderson ◽  
Emily Carstens Namie ◽  
Paige K Michel ◽  
Douglas L. Delahanty

Objective: There are many methodological issues in studying sexual violence, including potential framing effects. Framing effects refer to how researchers communicate the purpose of a study to par-ticipants, such as, how the study is advertised or explained. The aim of the current study was to inves-tigate if framing effects were associated with differences in participants’ self-reported experiences of sexual violence and related correlates. Methods: College students (N = 782) were recruited to par-ticipate in one of four identical studies that differed in the title: “Questionnaires about Alcohol,” “Questionnaires about Crime,” “Questionnaires about Health,” or “Questionnaires about Sexual As-sault.” Participants chose one of the four studies and completed measures of sexual violence as well as attitudinal and behavioral measures in randomized order. Results: We found significantly more reports of childhood sexual abuse (33.6% vs. 18.5%), rape (33.9% vs. 21.1%), higher frequency of vic-timization (M = 11.35 vs. 5.44), and greater acknowledged rape for bisexual people (46.2% vs. 0.0%) in the Sexual Assault condition compared to other conditions. There were no differences in sexual violence perpetration or attitudinal or behavioral measures. Conclusion: These results revealed that framing effects, based on the study title, affect outcomes in sexual victimization research. Rape was reported 1.6x more in the “Sexual Assault” condition than in the “Health” condition. It is unclear whether these framing effects reflect self-selection bias or framing related increased reports in the Sexual Assault condition, suppression of reports in other conditions, or a combination thereof.


2022 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Douglas M. McLeod ◽  
Hyesun Choung ◽  
Min-Hsin Su ◽  
Sang-Jung Kim ◽  
Ran Tao ◽  
...  

This review introduces a conceptual framework with three elements to highlight the richness of the framing effects literature, while providing structure to address its fragmented nature. Our first element identifies and discusses the Enduring Issues that confront framing effects researchers. Second, we introduce the Semantic Architecture Model (SAM), which builds on the premise that meaning can be framed at different textual units within a text, which can form the basis of frame manipulations in framing effects experiments. Third, we provide an Inventory of Framing Effects Research Components used in framing effects research illustrated with salient examples from the framing effects literature. By offering this conceptual framework, we make the case for revitalizing framing effects research.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (12) ◽  
pp. 608
Author(s):  
Anthony Baffoe-Bonnie ◽  
Christopher T. Bastian ◽  
Dale J. Menkhaus ◽  
Owen R. Phillips

Government policies employ different support programs such as subsidies to reduce risks, increase efficiency in markets, and enhance societal welfare. In markets such as ethanol markets, where multiple agents receive subsidy, it is often difficult to determine whether recipients of these support programs will transfer some of their payments to other agents in the market. In this study, we use laboratory market experiments to understand subsidy incidence in markets where both buyers and sellers receive subsidies, and there are few buyers relative to sellers. Our results show that when subsidizing both sides of the market, framing effects matter, and when markets are buyer concentrated, subsidy distributions generally tend to favor buyers. With a per-unit subsidy of 20 tokens to both sides and an equal number of buyers and sellers in the market, we find that buyers increase their earnings by 13.4% while seller earnings decrease by 16.1%. On a per-schedule basis, buyer earnings in the concentrated market are similar to what we observed in the competitive market.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 687-716
Author(s):  
Mariela E. Jaffé ◽  
Rainer Greifeneder

The negativity bias in judgments of truth holds that content-wise identical statements are more likely to be judged as true when presented in a negative compared to positive concept frame. This article investigates the mechanisms underlying this concept frame effect by differentiating concept valence (something good versus bad) and semantic negation (grammatical operator) throughout five studies. We found some evidence that concept valence and semantic negation work in tandem to produce the concept frame, yet negation seems to be the more stable driver. Moreover, we found that negation exerts its impact on perceived truth by increasing the realm of possible states in which a specific statement can be true. Together, the present findings extend knowledge of the negativity bias in truth judgments by providing a more fine-grained picture of “negativity” and an explanation for why negation might be especially effective in increasing truth judgments.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document