Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T16:15:06.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rational framing effects: A multidisciplinary case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2022

José Luis Bermúdez Open the ORCID record for José Luis Bermúdez [Opens in a new window]
José Luis Bermúdez*
Affiliation:
Samuel Rhea Gammon Professor of Liberal Arts and Professor of Philosophy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USAjbermudez@tamu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Frames and framing make one dimension of a decision problem particularly salient. In the simplest case, frames prime responses (as in, e.g., the Asian disease paradigm, where the gain frame primes risk-aversion and the loss frame primes risk-seeking). But in more complicated situations frames can function reflectively, by making salient particular reason-giving aspects of a thing, outcome, or action. For Shakespeare's Macbeth, for example, his feudal commitments are salient in one frame, while downplayed in another in favor of his personal ambition. The role of frames in reasoning can give rise to rational framing effects. Macbeth can prefer fulfilling his feudal duty to murdering the king, while also preferring bravely taking the throne to fulfilling his feudal duty, knowing full well that bravely taking the throne just is murdering the king. Such patterns of quasi-cyclical preferences can be correct and appropriate from the normative perspective of how one ought to reason. The paper explores three less dramatic types of rational framing effects: (1) Consciously framing and reframing long-term goals and short-term temptations can be important tools for self-control. (2) In the prototypical social interactions modeled by game theory, allowing for rational framing effects solves longstanding problems, such as the equilibrium selection problem and explaining the appeal of non-equilibrium solutions (e.g., the cooperative solution in the Prisoner's Dilemma). (3) Processes for resolving interpersonal conflicts and breaking discursive deadlock, because they involve internalizing multiple and incompatible ways of framing actions and outcomes, in effect create rational framing effects.

Keywords

decenteringdecision theoryframinggame theoryperspective takingrationalityself-controlsimulation
Type
Target Article
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e220
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adolphs, R., & Anderson, D. J. (2018). The neuroscience of emotion: A new synthesis. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ainslie, G. (2001). Breakdown of will. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainslie, G. W. (1974). Impulse control in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 21(3), 485–489. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1974.21-485CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ainslie, G. W. (1992). Picoeconomics: The strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the person. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ariely, D. (2008). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that make our decisions. Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Bacharach, M. (2006). Beyond individual choice: Teams and frames in game theory. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barberis, N., & Huang, M. (2006). The loss aversion/narrow framing approach to the equity premium puzzle. In Mehra, R. (Ed.), Handbook of the equity risk premium (pp. 199–236). Elsevier.Google Scholar
Barberis, N., & Xiong, W. E. I. (2009). What drives the disposition effect? An analysis of a long-standing preference-based explanation. The Journal of Finance, 64(2), 751–784. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2009.01448.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1252–1265. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Vonasch, A. J., & Sjastad, H. (2020). The long reach of self-control. In Mele, A. (Ed.), Surrounding self-control (pp. 17–46). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bechara, A., Damasio, H., Damasio, A. R., & Lee, G. P. (1999). Different contributions of the human amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex to decision-making. Journal of Neuroscience, 19(13), 5473–5481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bermúdez, J. L. (2009). Decision theory and rationality. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez, J. L. (2015a). Strategic vs. parametric choice in Newcomb's problem and the prisoner's dilemma: Reply to Walker. Philosophia, 43, 787–794. doi: 10.1007/s11406-015-9606-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez, J. L. (2015b). Prisoner's dilemma cannot be a Newcomb problem. In Peterson, M. (Ed.), The prisoner's dilemma (pp. 115–132). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez, J. L. (2018). Self-control, decision theory, and rationality: New essays (J. L. Bermúdez Ed.). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez, J. L. (2020a). Frame it again: New tools for rational thought. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermúdez, J. L. (2020b). Framing as a mechanism for self-control: Rationality and quasi-cyclical preferences. In Mele, A. (Ed.), Surrounding self-control (pp. 361–383). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, A., Hadash, Y., & Fresco, D. M. (2019). Metacognitive processes model of decentering: Emerging methods and insights. Current Opinion in Psychology, 28, 245–251. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.01.019CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernstein, A., Hadash, Y., Lichtash, Y., Tanay, G., Shepherd, K., & Fresco, D. M. (2015). Decentering and related constructs: A critical review and metacognitive processes model. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 10(5), 599–617. doi: 10.1177/1745691615594577CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernstein, L. M., Chapman, G. B., & Elstein, A. S. (1999). Framing effects in choices between multioutcome life-expectancy lotteries. Medical Decision Making, 19(3), 324–338. doi: 10.1177/0272989x9901900311CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 543–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, A. C., Chapman, J. E., Forman, E. M., & Beck, A. T. (2006). The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Clinical Psychology Review, 26(1), 17–31. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2005.07.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carruthers, P., & Smith, P. K. (Eds.) (1996). Theories of theory of mind. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, E. C., Kofler, L. M., Forster, D. E., & McCullough, M. E. (2015). A series of meta-analytic tests of the depletion effect: Self-control does not seem to rely on a limited resource. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(4), 796–815. doi: 10.1037/xge0000083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, N. (2018). Mind is flat. Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Chick, C. F., Reyna, V. F., & Corbin, J. C. (2016). Framing effects are robust to linguistic disambiguation: A critical test of contemporary theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(2), 238–256. doi: 10.1037/xlm0000158Google ScholarPubMed
Cohen, L. J. (1981). Can human irrationality be experimentally demonstrated? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 317–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes's error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Putnam/Grosset.Google Scholar
Davies, M., & Stone, T. (Eds.). (1995a). Folk psychology. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Davies, M., & Stone, T. (Eds.). (1995b). Mental simulation. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31(3), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1975.tb01000.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diederich, A. (2020). Identifying needs: The psychological perspective. In Traub, S. & Kittel, B. (Eds.), Need-Based distributive justice (pp. 59–89). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diederich, A., Wyszynski, M., & Ritov, I. (2018). Moderators of framing effects in variations of the Asian disease problem: Time constraint, need and disease type. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(6), 529–546.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fagles, R. (1977). The Oresteia (Aeschylus). Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
Figner, B., Knoch, D., Johnson, E. J., Krosch, A. R., Lisanby, S. H., Fehr, E., & Weber, E. U. (2010). Lateral prefrontal cortex and self-control in intertemporal choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13(5), 538–539. doi: 10.1038/nn.2516CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. L. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin.Google Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1977). The development of knowledge about visual perception. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 25, 43–76.Google ScholarPubMed
Flavell, J. H., Everett, B. A., Croft, K., & Flavell, E. R. (1981). Young children's knowledge about visual perception: Further evidence for the level 1–level 2 distinction. Developmental Psychology, 17(1), 99–103. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.17.1.99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frisch, D. (1993). Reasons for framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54(3), 399–429. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1993.1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamliel, E., & Peer, E. (2006). Positive versus negative framing affects justice judgments. Social Justice Research, 19(3), 307–322. doi: 10.1007/s11211-006-0009-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gamliel, E., & Peer, E. (2010). Attribute framing affects the perceived fairness of health care allocation principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(1), 11–20.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 451–482. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (2001). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gurucharri, C., & Selman, R. L. (1982). The development of interpersonal understanding during childhood, preadolescence, and adolescence: A longitudinal follow-up study. Child Development, 53(4), 924–927. doi: 10.2307/1129129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Güth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarze, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 3(4), 367–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Alberts, H., Anggono, C. O., Batailler, C., Birt, A. R., … Zwienenberg, M. (2016). A multilab preregistered replication of the ego-depletion effect. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 546–573. doi: 10.1177/1745691616652873CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hare, T. A., Camerer, C. F., & Rangel, A. (2009). Self-control in decision-making involves modulation of the vmPFC valuation system. Science (New York, N.Y.), 324(5927), 646–648. doi: 10.1126/science.1168450CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harsanyi, J. (1977). Advances in understanding rational behavior. In Butts, R. E. & Hintikka, J. (Eds.), Foundational problems in the special sciences (pp. 315–343). D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J., & Selten, R. (1988). A general theory of equilibrium selection in games. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heuer, L., & Orland, A. (2019). Cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma: An experimental comparison between pure and mixed strategies. Royal Society Open Science, 6(7), 182142. doi: 10.1098/rsos.182142CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holton, R. (2009). Willing, wanting, waiting. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, M. A. (2008). Evolution of cooperation in a one-shot prisoner's dilemma based on recognition of trustworthy and untrustworthy agents. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 65(3), 458–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2006.02.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffrey, R. (1983). The logic of decision (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and thinking slow. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986). Fairness and the assumptions of economics. The Journal of Business, 59(4), S285–S300. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2352761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazantzis, N., Luong, H. K., Usatoff, A. S., Impala, T., Yew, R. Y., & Hofmann, S. G. (2018). The processes of cognitive behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 42(4), 349–357. doi: 10.1007/s10608-018-9920-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keltner, D., & Lerner, J. S. (2010). Emotion. In Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.), Handbook of social Psychology (pp. 317-352). Wiley.Google Scholar
Kross, E., & Ayduk, O. (2011). Making meaning out of negative experiences by self-distancing. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 187–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kühberger, A. (1995). The framing of decisions: A new look at old problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(2), 230–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 23–55. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2781CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate – The essential guide for progressives. Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition and Emotion, 14(4), 473–493. doi: 10.1080/026999300402763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, J. S., Li, Y., Valdesolo, P., & Kassam, K. S. (2015). Emotion and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 799–823. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers Are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 374–378. doi: 10.1086/209174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Fischoff, B. (1993). AIDS risk perception and decision biases. In Pryor, J. B. & Reeder, G. D. (Eds.), The social psychology of HIV infection (pp. 5–38). Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. S. (2003). The role of affect in decision making. In Davidson, R., Goldsmith, H., & Scher, K. (Eds.), Handbook of affective science (pp. 619–642). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mack, A., & Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional blindness. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magen, E., Dweck, C. S., & Gross, J. J. (2008). The hidden-zero effect: Representing a single choice as an extended sequence reduces impulsive choice. Psychological Science, 19(7), 648–649. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02137.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magen, E., Kim, B., Dweck, C. S., Gross, J. J., & McClure, S. M. (2014). Behavioral and neural correlates of increased self-control in the absence of increased willpower. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(27), 9786–9791. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1408991111Google ScholarPubMed
Mahoney, K. T., Buboltz, W., Levin, I. P., Doverspike, D., & Svyantek, D. J. (2011). Individual differences in a within-subjects risky-choice framing study. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 248–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandel, D. (2014). Do framing effects reveal irrational choices? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1185–1198. doi: 10.1037/a0034207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandler, M. (2005). Incomplete preferences and rational intransitivity of choice. Games and Economic Behavior, 50, 255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masangkay, Z. S., McCluskey, K. A., McIntyre, C. W., Sims-Knight, J., Vaughn, B. E., & Flavell, J. H. (1974). The early development of inferences about the visual percepts of others. Child Development, 45(2), 357–366. doi: 10.2307/1127956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClennen, E. F. (1990). Rationality and dynamic choice. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehra, R. (2008). The equity premium puzzle: A review. Foundations and Trends in Finance, 2, 1–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehra, R., & Prescott, E. (1985). The equity premium: A puzzle. Journal of Monetary Economics, 15, 145–161.Google Scholar
Michaelson, L. E., & Munakata, Y. (2020). Same data set, different conclusions: Preschool delay of gratification predicts later behavioral outcomes in a preregistered study. Psychological Science, 31(2), 193–201. doi: 10.1177/0956797619896270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2004). Willpower in a cognitive-affective processing system. In Baumeister, R. F. & Vohs, K. D. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 99–129). Guilford.Google Scholar
Mischel, W., & Baker, N. (1975). Cognitive appraisals and transformations in delay behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 254–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W., & Moore, B. (1973). Effects of attention to symbolically presented rewards on self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(2), 172–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. I. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science (New York, N.Y.), 244(4907), 933–938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moll, H., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2011). How does it look? Level 2 perspective-taking at 36 months of age. Child Development, 82(2), 661–673. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01571.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montier, J. (2010). How not to be your own worst enemy: The little book of behavioral investing. Wiley.Google Scholar
Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 34–49.Google Scholar
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2007). Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, L. A. (2014). Transformative experience. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piñon, A., & Gambara, H. (2005). A meta-analytic review of framing effect: Risky, attribute and goal framing. Psicothema, 17(2), 325–331.Google Scholar
Pothos, E. M., Perry, G., Corr, P. J., Matthew, M. R., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2011). Understanding cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma game. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 210–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachlin, H. (2000). The science of self-control. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rachlin, H. (2018). In what sense are addicts irrational? In Bermúdez, J. L. (Ed.), Self-control, decision theory, and rationality (pp. 147–166). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sally, D. (1995). Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: A meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Rationality and Society, 7(1), 58–92. doi: 10.1177/1043463195007001004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schick, F. (1991). Understanding action. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schick, F. (1997). Making choices. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schick, F. (2003). Ambiguity and logic. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiller, R. (2019). Narrative economics. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Selman, R. L., & Byrne, D. F. (1974). A structural-developmental analysis of levels of role taking in middle childhood. Child Development, 45(3), 803–806. doi: 10.2307/1127850CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shefrin, H., & Statman, M. (1985). The disposition to sell winners too early and ride losers too long: Theory and evidence. The Journal of Finance, 40(3), 777–790. doi: 10.2307/2327802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101(3), 467–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. (2008). Framing effects and rationality. In Chater, N. & Oaksford, M. (Eds.), The probabilistic mind: Prospects for Bayesian cognitive science (pp. 79–96). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. (2011). Levels of information: A framing hierarchy. In Keren, G. (Ed.), Perspectives on framing (pp. 35–63). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Shoham, Y., & Leyton-Brown, K. (2008). Multiagent systems: Algorithmic, game-theoretic, and logical foundations. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, J., & Nelson, L. (2013). “Exactly”: The most famous framing effect is robust to precise wording. Data Colada. http://datacolada.org/11Google Scholar
Skyrms, B. (2012). The Stag Hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steiger, A., & Kühberger, A. (2018). A meta-analytic re-appraisal of the framing effect. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 226(1), 45–55. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, S. (1990). The fragmentation of reason. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Strotz, R. H. (1956). Myopia and inconsistency in dynamic utility maximization. The Review of Economic Studies, 23, 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temkin, L. S. (1987). Intransitivity and the mere addition paradox. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 16(2), 138–187.Google Scholar
Temkin, L. S. (1996). A continuum argument for intransitivity. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 25(3), 175–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), 183–206. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199909)12:3<183::AID-BDM318>3.0.CO;2-F3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H., & Johnson, E. J. (1991). Gambling with the house money and trying to break even: The effect of prior outcomes on risky choice. Management Science, 36, 643–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tombu, M., & Mandel, D. R. (2015). When does framing influence preferences, risk perceptions, and risk attitudes? The explicated valence account. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(5), 464–476. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science (New York, N.Y.), 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59(4), S251–S278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., & Quan, H. (2018). Revisiting the marshmallow test: A conceptual replication investigating links between early delay of gratification and later outcomes. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1159–1177. doi: 10.1177/0956797618761661CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed