IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v11y2024i1d10.1057_s41599-024-02658-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advanced age predicts increased susceptibility to attribute, goal, and risky-choice framing in negative frame valences

Author

Listed:
  • Lance Xu

    (Johns Hopkins University)

Abstract

The framing effect has been extensively studied in the context of attribute, goal, and risky-choice framing, revealing its significant impact on decision-making. However, the interplay between age and the framing effect remains relatively unexplored, and existing findings are inconclusive and conflicting. Addressing this gap, this study investigates the influence of age on all three types of framing using a large cohort of participants (N = 696). The Johnson-Neyman technique was employed to examine the effect across a continuous range of ages. The analysis demonstrated that advanced age significantly increased susceptibility to the framing effect. Moreover, it was found that this susceptibility primarily manifests in response to negative frames across all framing types. These findings not only align with the socioemotional selectivity theory and dual-process model but also underscore the importance of affect heuristics in decision-making among older adults. By offering a robust examination of all three types of framing and their interactions with age, this study provides a theoretical foundation for the role of age as a potential moderator in framing contexts. These findings may therefore inform the development of targeted strategies to mitigate the impact of the framing effect on elderly populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Lance Xu, 2024. "Advanced age predicts increased susceptibility to attribute, goal, and risky-choice framing in negative frame valences," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-02658-6
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-02658-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-024-02658-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-024-02658-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sunghan Kim & David Goldstein & Lynn Hasher & Rose T. Zacks, 2005. "Framing Effects in Younger and Older Adults," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 60(4), pages 215-218.
    2. Besedeš, Tibor & Deck, Cary & Sarangi, Sudipta & Shor, Mikhael, 2012. "Decision-making strategies and performance among seniors," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 524-533.
    3. Levin, Irwin P & Gaeth, Gary J, 1988. "How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information before and after Consuming the Product," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 374-378, December.
    4. Richard R. W. Brooks & Alexander Stremitzer & Stephan Tontrup, 2012. "Framing Contracts: Why Loss Framing Increases Effort," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 168(1), pages 62-82, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Besedes, Tibor & Deck, Cary & Quintanar, Sarah & Sarangi, Sudipta & Shor, Mikhael, 2011. "Free-Riding and Performance in Collaborative and Non-Collaborative Groups," MPRA Paper 33948, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, May.
    3. Tomi Rajala, 2019. "Mind the Information Expectation Gap," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 10(1), pages 104-125, March.
    4. Thunström, Linda & Nordström, Jonas, 2012. "The Importance of Taste for Food Demand and the Experienced Taste Effect of Healthy Labels - An experiment on potato chips and bread," HUI Working Papers 68, HUI Research.
    5. Jain, Gaurav & Gaeth, Gary J. & Nayakankuppam, Dhananjay & Levin, Irwin P., 2020. "Revisiting attribute framing: The impact of number roundedness on framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 109-119.
    6. Fennell, Patrick B. & Coleman, Joshua T. & Kuo, Andrew, 2020. "The moderating role of donation quantifiers on price fairness judgments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 464-473.
    7. Van de Velde, Liesbeth & Verbeke, Wim & Popp, Michael & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2010. "The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5541-5549, October.
    8. Nadja Kairies-Schwarz & Claudia Souček, 2020. "Performance Pay in Hospitals: An Experiment on Bonus–Malus Incentives," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-29, November.
    9. Freling, Traci H. & Vincent, Leslie H. & Henard, David H., 2014. "When not to accentuate the positive: Re-examining valence effects in attribute framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 95-109.
    10. Giuseppe Festa & Giada Mainolfi, 2013. "Il comportamento del consumatore/degustatore nel Wine Marketing. Una prospettiva per l'Italian Way of Wine," ESPERIENZE D'IMPRESA, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(1), pages 35-57.
    11. Idris Adjerid & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2019. "Choice Architecture, Framing, and Cascaded Privacy Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2267-2290, May.
    12. Siebert, Johannes Ulrich & Kunz, Reinhard E. & Rolf, Philipp, 2021. "Effects of decision training on individuals’ decision-making proactivity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 264-282.
    13. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4234 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Shehzad Ali & Aki Tsuchiya & Miqdad Asaria & Richard Cookson, 2017. "How Robust Are Value Judgments of Health Inequality Aversion? Testing for Framing and Cognitive Effects," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 635-646, August.
    15. Cindy Grappe & Cindy Lombart & Didier Louis & Fabien Durif, 2022. "Clean labeling: Is it about the presence of benefits or the absence of detriments? Consumer response to personal care claims," Post-Print hal-04293232, HAL.
    16. Brañas-Garza, Pablo & Kujal, Praveen & Lenkei, Balint, 2019. "Cognitive reflection test: Whom, how, when," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    17. Devetag, M Giovanna, 1999. "From Utilities to Mental Models: A Critical Survey on Decision Rules and Cognition in Consumer Choice," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 8(2), pages 289-351, June.
    18. Heribert Gierl & Roland Helm & Michaela Satzinger, 2000. "Die Wirkung positiver und negativer Aussagen in der Werbung vor dem Hintergrund des Message Framing," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 234-256, May.
    19. Eyal Gamliel & Hamutal Kreiner, 2013. "Is a picture worth a thousand words? The interaction of visual display and attribute representation in attenuating framing bias}," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(4), pages 482-491, July.
    20. Euis Soliha & Suzy Widyasari, 2018. "Message Framing and Source Credibility in Product Advertisements with High Consumer Involvement," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 3), pages 413-422.
    21. Soekhai, V. & Donkers, B. & Levitan, B. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2021. "Case 2 best-worst scaling: For good or for bad but not for both," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:11:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-024-02658-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.