Framing effects as violations of extensionality
Framing effects occur when different descriptions of the same decision problem give rise to divergent decisions. They can be seen as a violation of the decisiontheoretic version of the principle of extensionality (PE). The PE in logic means that two logically equivalent sentences can be substituted salva veritate. We explore what this notion of extensionality becomes in decision contexts. Violations of extensionality may have rational grounds. Based on some ideas proposed by the psychologist Craig McKenzie and colleagues, we contend that framing effects are justified when the selection of one particular frame conveys choice relevant information. We first discuss this idea from a philosophical point of view, and proceed next to formalize it first in the context of the Bolker–Jeffrey decision theory. Finally, we extend the previous analysis to non-expected utility theories using the Biseparable Preference model introduced by Ghirardato and Marinacci (2001) and therefore show that the analysis is independent of the assumptions of Bayesian decision theory.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Natalie Gold & Christian List, 2002. "Framing as Path-Dependence," Economics Series Working Papers 124, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. " Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
- Arrow, Kenneth J, 1982. "Risk Perception in Psychology and Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 20(1), pages 1-9, January.
- Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979.
"Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk,"
Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
- Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7656, David K. Levine.
- Raphaël Giraud, 2004. "Framing under risk : Endogenizing the Reference Point and Separating Cognition and Decision," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques bla04090, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
- Paolo Ghirardato & Massimo Marinacci, 2000.
"Risk, Ambiguity and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs,"
Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers
1143, Econometric Society.
- Massimo Marinacci & Paolo Ghirardato, 2001. "Risk, ambiguity, and the separation of utility and beliefs," ICER Working Papers - Applied Mathematics Series 21-2001, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
- Paolo Ghirardato & Massimo Marinacci, 2000. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs," Levine's Working Paper Archive 7616, David K. Levine.
- Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2000. "Risk, Ambigity and the Separation of Utility and Beliefs," Working Papers 1085, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Marc Menestrel & Bertrand Lemaire, 2006. "Ratio-Scale Measurement with Intransitivity or Incompleteness: The Homogeneous Case," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 60(2), pages 207-217, 05.
- Lipman, Barton L, 1999. "Decision Theory without Logical Omniscience: Toward an Axiomatic Framework for Bounded Rationality," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 339-61, April.
- Gold, Natalie & List, Christian, 2004.
"Framing as Path Dependence,"
Economics and Philosophy,
Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(02), pages 253-277, October.
- Marc Le Menestrel & Luk N. Van Wassenhove, 2001.
"The domain and interpretation of utility functions: An exploration,"
Economics Working Papers
576, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- Marc Le Menestrel & Luk Van Wassenhove, 2001. "The Domain and Interpretation of Utility Functions: An Exploration," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 329-349, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:theord:v:67:y:2009:i:4:p:385-404. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.