Abstract
This research explores how fairness, as a social cue, affects one’s preference when making a choice between differently framed outcomes. To achieve this, we conducted two studies. In Study 1, we analyzed how the perception of fairness embedded in options for addressing a life-or-death problem (based on the Asian disease problem), framed either in terms of lives saved or lives lost, affects behavioral decision making. As existing data suggests that perceived fairness may mediate the effect the framing of a situation has on the decision made. In Study 2, we manipulated the fairness perception of “sure” options in order to investigate how participants’ choice preferences would consequently vary. We found that the framing effect only occurred when the distribution method was fair; it did not occur for distribution methods that were less fair. This result suggests that people assign differing priorities to social and verbal cues; when making the Asian disease problem decision, participants set the social cue of fairness as a high priority. We also found that verbal framing of choice outcomes as secondary cues is more effective in cases when using primary cues leads to conflicting preferences; this is consistent with the prediction of the ambiguity and ambivalence hypothesis, which provides an approach for exploring the social context mechanisms underlying inconsistency and bias when making risky choices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
De Quervain, D. J.-F., Fishbacher, U., Treyer, V., Schellhammer, M., Schnyder, U., Buck, A., & Fehr, E. (2004). The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science, 305(5688), 1254–1258.
Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817–868.
Gintis, H. (2009). The bounds of reason: Game theory and the unification of behavioral sciences (pp. 14–17). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hayes, A. F., Preacher, K. J., & Myers, T. A. (2011). Mediation and the estimating of indirect effects in political communication research. Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 434–465). New York: Routledge.
Higgins, E. T. (2004). Making a theory useful: Lessons handed down. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(2), 138–145.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292.
Knoch, D., Pascual-Leone, A., Meyer, K., Treyer, V., & Fehr, E. (2006). Diminishing reciprocal fairness by disrupting the right prefrontal cortex. Science, 314(5800), 829–832.
Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 23–55.
Levin, I. P., Schneider, & 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.
Levin, I. P., Gaeth, G. J., Schreiber, J., & Lauriola, M. (2002). A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 411–429.
Mittelman, M., Andrade, E. B., Chattopadhyay, A., & Brendl, C. M. (2014). The offer framing effect: Choosing single versus bundled offerings affects variety seeking. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 953–964.
Oppenheimer, D. M., & Kelso, E. (2015). Information processing as a paradigm for decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 277–294.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Rabin, M. (1993). Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics. The American Economic Review, 83(5), 1281–1302.
Sanfey, A. G., Rilling, J. K., Aronson, J. A., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300(5626), 1755–1758.
Schmidt, U., Starmer, C., & Sugden, R. (2008). Third-generation prospect theory. Risk Uncertainty, 36, 203–223.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.
Wang, X. T. (1995). Evolutionary hypotheses of risk-sensitive choice: Age differences and perspective change. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17(1), 1–15.
Wang, X. T. (1996a). Domain-specific rationality in human choices: Violations of utility axioms and social contexts. Cognition, 60(1), 31–63.
Wang, X. T. (1996b). Framing effects: Dynamics and task domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(2), 145–157.
Wang, X. T. (2000). From Simon's scissors for rationality to ABC's adaptive toolbox. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(5), 765–766.
Wang, X. T. (2008). Risk communication and risky choice in context: Ambiguity and ambivalence hypothesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1128, 78–89.
Wang, X. T., Simons, F., & Brédart, S. (2001). Social cues and verbal framing in risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 14, 1–15.
Zhang, Y., & Miao, D. (2008). Social cues and framing effects in risky decisions among Chinese military students. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11(3), 241–246.
Funding
This study was founded by the National Social Science Foundation of China (16BSH098).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
Yuexia Mai declares that she has no conflict of interest; Chen Chen declares that she has no conflict of interest; Yanjun Zhang declares that he has no conflict of interest; Wei Xiao declares that he has no conflict of interest; Hao Sun declares that he has no conflict of interest; Danmin Miao declares that he has no conflict of interest; Jiaxi Peng declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mai, Y., Chen, C., Zhang, Y. et al. Fairness as a social cue and verbal framing in risky choices: An examination of the ambiguity and ambivalence hypothesis. Curr Psychol 39, 2269–2275 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9922-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9922-7