IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpmi/0211016.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Framing as Path-Dependence

Author

Listed:
  • Natalie Gold

    (Balliol College, Oxford)

  • Christian List

    (Nuffield College, Oxford)

Abstract

A “framing” effect occurs when an agent’s choices are not invariant under changes in the way a choice problem is formulated, e.g. changes in the way the options are described (violation of description invariance) or in the way preferences are elicited (violation of procedure invariance). In this paper we examine precisely which classical conditions of rationality it is whose non-satisfaction may lead to framing effects. We show that (under certain conditions), if (and only if) an agent's initial dispositions on a set of propositions are “implicitly inconsistent”, her decisions may be “path-dependent”, i.e. dependent on the order in which the propositions are considered. We suggest that different ways of framing a choice problem may induce the order in which relevant propositions are considered and hence affect the decision made. This theoretical explanation suggests some observations about human psychology which are consistent with those made by psychologists and provides a unified framework for explaining violations of description and procedure invariance.

Suggested Citation

  • Natalie Gold & Christian List, 2002. "Framing as Path-Dependence," Microeconomics 0211016, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpmi:0211016
    Note: Type of Document - PDF; prepared on Windows; pages: 18. Oxford University Department of Economics Series Ref: 124
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/mic/papers/0211/0211016.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sarah Lichtenstein & Paul Slovic, 1973. "Response-induced reversals of preference in gambling: An extended replication in las vegas," Framed Field Experiments 00169, The Field Experiments Website.
    2. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    3. Arrow, Kenneth J, 1982. "Risk Perception in Psychology and Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 20(1), pages 1-9, January.
    4. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dietrich, Franz & List, Christian, 2016. "Reason-Based Choice And Context-Dependence: An Explanatory Framework," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 175-229, July.
    2. Gold, Natalie, 2020. "How should we reconcile self-regarding and pro-social motivations? A renaissance of “Das Adam Smith Problem”," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 109218, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Dino Borie & Dorian Jullien, 2019. "Description-dependent Choices," Working Papers halshs-01651086, HAL.
    4. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2011. "A model of non-informational preference change," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 145-164, April.
    5. Borie, Dino & Jullien, Dorian, 2020. "Description-dependent preferences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    6. Franz Dietrich & Christian List, 2013. "Where do preferences come from?," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 42(3), pages 613-637, August.
    7. Gold, Natalie, 2019. "The limits of commodification arguments: framing, motivation crowding, and shared valuations," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 109238, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde & Raphaël Giraud, 2009. "Framing effects as violations of extensionality," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 385-404, October.
    9. Dorian Jullien, 2016. "All Frames Created Equal are Not Identical: On the Structure of Kahneman and Tversky's Framing Effects," GREDEG Working Papers 2016-17, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    10. Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde & Raphaël Giraud, 2005. "Accounting for Framing-Effects - an informational approach to intensionality in the Bolker-Jeffrey decision model," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) ijn_00000656, HAL.
    11. Natalie Gold, 2019. "The limits of commodification arguments: Framing, motivation crowding, and shared valuations," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 18(2), pages 165-192, May.
    12. Dorian Jullien, 2013. "Asian Disease-type of Framing of Outcomes as an Historical Curiosity," GREDEG Working Papers 2013-47, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    13. Whynes, David K. & Frew, Emma J. & Philips, Zoe N. & Covey, Judith & Smith, Richard D., 2007. "On the numerical forms of contingent valuation responses," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 462-476, August.

    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. Andrew J Lloyd, 2003. "Threats to the estimation of benefit: are preference elicitation methods accurate?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(5), pages 393-402, May.
    2. Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde & Raphaël Giraud, 2009. "Framing effects as violations of extensionality," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 385-404, October.
    3. Enrique Fatas & Tibor Neugebauer & Pilar Tamborero, 2007. "How Politicians Make Decisions: A Political Choice Experiment," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 92(2), pages 167-196, October.
    4. Dorian Jullien, 2016. "All Frames Created Equal are Not Identical: On the Structure of Kahneman and Tversky's Framing Effects," GREDEG Working Papers 2016-17, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    5. Jing-Yi Chen & Ming-Hui Wang, 2023. "A Study on Real Estate Purchase Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, March.
    6. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    7. Todd McElroy & David L. Dickinson & Irwin P. Levin, 2019. "Thinking About Decisions: An Integrative Approach of Person and Task Factors," Working Papers 19-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    8. Gillitzer, Christian & Sinning, Mathias, 2020. "Nudging businesses to pay their taxes: Does timing matter?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 284-300.
    9. He, Haoran & Wu, Keyu, 2016. "Choice set, relative income, and inequity aversion: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 177-193.
    10. Ganguly, Ananda R & Kagel, John H & Moser, Donald V, 2000. "Do Asset Market Prices Reflect Traders' Judgment Biases?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 219-245, May.
    11. Joseph Teal & Petko Kusev & Renata Heilman & Rose Martin & Alessia Passanisi & Ugo Pace, 2021. "Problem Gambling ‘Fuelled on the Fly’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:6:p:529-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Voltaire, Louinord & Donfouet, Hermann Pythagore Pierre & Pirrone, Claudio & Larzillière, Agathe, 2017. "Respondent Uncertainty and Ordering Effect on Willingness to Pay for Salt Marsh Conservation in the Brest Roadstead (France)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 47-55.
    14. Manel Baucells & Cristina Rata, 2006. "A Survey Study of Factors Influencing Risk-Taking Behavior in Real-World Decisions Under Uncertainty," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 163-176, September.
    15. Gneezy, U., 1996. "Probability Judgements in Multi-Stage Problems : Experimental Evidence of Systematic Biases," Discussion Paper 1996-01, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    16. Dorison, Charles A & Lerner, Jennifer S & Heller, Blake H & Rothman, Alexander J & Kawachi, Ichiro I & Wang, Ke & Rees, Vaughan W & Gill, Brian P & Gibbs, Nancy & Ebersole, Charles R & Vally, Zahir & , 2022. "In COVID-19 health messaging, loss framing increases anxiety with little-to-no concomitant benefits : Experimental evidence from 84 countries," Other publications TiSEM 235f67b6-6be5-4061-8693-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    17. Cropanzano, Russell & Paddock, Layne & Rupp, Deborah E. & Bagger, Jessica & Baldwin, Amanda, 2008. "How regulatory focus impacts the process-by-outcome interaction for perceived fairness and emotions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 36-51, January.
    18. Yang Li & Dandan Yang & Yingying Liu, 2021. "The Effect of Message Framing on Consumers’ Intentions to Purchase Recycling-Aiding Products in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    19. Just, David R. & Wansink, Brian & Turvey, Calum G., 2009. "Biosecurity, Terrorism, and Food Consumption Behavior: Using Experimental Psychology to Analyze Choices Involving Fear," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 34(1), pages 1-18, April.
    20. Wen, Tong & Leung, Xi Y. & Li, Bin & Hu, Lingyan, 2021. "Examining framing effect in travel package purchase: An application of double-entry mental accounting theory," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    21. Hyeong Kim & Thomas Kramer, 2006. "“Pay 80%” versus “get 20% off”: The effect of novel discount presentation on consumers’ deal perceptions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 311-321, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    framing; preference reversal; path-dependence; rationality; deductive closure;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D11 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Theory
    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wpa:wuwpmi:0211016. 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: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.