Fast and frugal framing effects?

Download

[thumbnail of RMcCloy_revision_nov_2009.pdf]

Preview

Text - Accepted Version
· Please see our End User Agreement before downloading. | Preview

Advice

Please see our End User Agreement.

It is advisable to refer to the publisher's version if you intend to cite from this work. See Guidance on citing.

Tools

Lists

McCloy, R. A. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2333-9640, Beaman, C. P. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5124-242X, Frosch, C. A. and Goddard, K. (2010) Fast and frugal framing effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 36 (4). pp. 1043-1052. ISSN 1939-1285 doi: 10.1037/a0019693

Abstract/Summary

Three experiments examine whether simple pair-wise comparison judgments, involving the “recognition heuristic” (Goldstein & Gigerenzer, 2002), are sensitive to implicit cues to the nature of the comparison required. Experiments 1 & 2 show that participants frequently choose the recognized option of a pair if asked to make “larger” judgments but are significantly less likely to choose the unrecognized option when asked to make “smaller” judgments. Experiment 3 demonstrates that, overall, participants consider recognition to be a more reliable guide to judgments of a magnitude criterion than lack of recognition and that this intuition drives the framing effect. These results support the idea that, when making pair-wise comparison judgments, inferring that the recognized item is large is simpler than inferring that the unrecognized item is small.

Altmetric Badge

Item Type	Article
URI	https://reading-clone.eprints-hosting.org/id/eprint/5758
Identification Number/DOI	10.1037/a0019693
Refereed	Yes
Divisions	Life Sciences > School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences > Language and Cognition
Publisher	American Psychological Association.
Publisher Statement	This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record.
Download/View statistics	View download statistics for this item

Download Statistics

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Related URLs

Deposit Details

Date Deposited:	14 May 2010 13:37	Date item deposited into CentAUR
Last Modified:	02 Nov 2025 08:00	Date item last modified

References

• Bennis, W. M., & Pachur, T. (2006). Fast and frugal heuristics in sports. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 611-629. • Bilalić, M., McLeod, P., & Gobet, F. (2008). Why good thoughts block better ones: The mechanism of the pernicious Einstellung (set) effect. Cognition, 108, 652-661. • Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650-669. • Goldstein, D. G., & Gigerenzer, G. (2002). Models of ecological rationality: The recognition heuristic. Psychological Review, 109, 75-90. • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole & J. Morgan (Ed.s). Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. pp. 41-58. New York: Academic Press. • Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Shafir, E. (1993). The interaction between reasoning and decision making: An introduction. Cognition, 49, 1-9. • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291. • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350. • Kuhberger, A. (1995). The framing of decisions: A new look at old problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 230-240. • Kuhberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23-55. • Luchins, A. S., & Luchins, E. H. (1959). Rigidity of behavior: A variational approach to the effects of Einstellung. Eugene: University of Oregon Press. • McCloy, R., Beaman, C. P., Morgan, B. & Speed, R. (2007). Training conditional and cumulative risk judgments: The role of frequencies, problem-structure and Einstellung. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 325-344. • Oppenheimer, D. M. (2003). Not so fast! (and not so frugal!) Rethinking the recognition heuristic. Cognition, 90, B1-B9. • Pachur, T., & Biele, G. (2007). Forecasting from ignorance: The use and usefulness of recognition in lay predictions of sports events. Acta Psychologica, 125, 99-116. • Pachur, T., & Hertwig, R. (2006). On the psychology of the recognition heuristic: retrieval primacy as a key determinant of its use. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 32, 983-1002. • Serwe, S., & Frings, C. (2006). Who will win Wimbledon? The recognition heuristic in predicting sports events. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, 321-332. • Sher, S., & McKenzire, C. R. M. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101, 467-294. • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458. • Volz, K. G., Schooler, L. J., Schubotz, R. I., Raab, M., Gigerenzer, G., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2006). Why you think Milan is larger than Modena: Neural correlates of the recognition heuristic. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1924-1936.

University Staff: Request a correction | Centaur Editors: Update this record

Search Google Scholar