It’s been nearly precisely 10 years since I first wrote a publish on framing results on this weblog. So much has occurred since then, together with a rising variety of cross-cultural research on decision-making and the context of a pandemic.
Framing is a way that presents people with an issue that highlights optimistic or unfavorable facets of the identical choice. Often this results in completely different responses.
One well-known occasion of framing initially developed by Tversky and Kahneman used the state of affairs of a illness and offered folks with selections that highlighted both the variety of people that might be saved or the quantity that will die.
Right here’s an up to date model of the issue with the optimistic or unfavorable framing choices:
Think about that [your country] is getting ready for the outbreak of an uncommon illness, which is predicted to kill 600 folks. Two various packages to fight the illness have been proposed. Assume that the precise scientific estimate of the results of the packages is as follows:
Which of the 2 packages would you like, Program A or B?
[Positive framing condition:]
If Program A is adopted, 200 folks might be saved.
If Program B is adopted, there may be 1/3 chance that 600 folks might be saved, and a pair of/3 chance that no folks might be saved.
[Negative framing condition:]
If Program A is adopted, 400 folks will die.
If Program B is adopted, there may be 1/3 chance that no person will die, and a pair of/3 chance that 600 folks will die.
Previous analysis has discovered that, in a optimistic body (highlighting lives saved), most individuals would go for the assured 200 lives saved (Program A). Offered with a unfavorable body (deaths), however, most individuals would favor the dangerous 2/3 chance that 600 will die (Program B) over a assured 400 deaths (Program A). In keeping with prospect principle, individuals are extra more likely to make dangerous selections when they’re confronted with a loss.
This public well being downside, in fact, has been very related to the continuing COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers Hohjin Im and Chuansheng Chen determined to take the chance to analyze the issue globally by acquiring information from a big pattern of respondents in 49 nations.
The principle objective of their work was to take a look at cross-cultural variations. One of many dimensions of specific curiosity pertained to variations between individualist and collectivist cultures. Individualist cultures deal with the person as an interdependent agent and are predominantly discovered within the West. In collectivist cultures, prevalent within the East, people are seen as interdependent elements of bigger social teams.
Framing results have been researched cross-culturally earlier than, however most of those research targeted on enterprise and monetary domains. In distinction to framing issues within the area of enterprise and finance, public well being dilemmas deal with outcomes for others somewhat than the self. For that reason, the researchers hypothesized that folks from collectivist cultures can be extra averse to threat within the illness state of affairs.
The examine’s outcomes present very sturdy framing results. The truth is, in comparison with a unfavorable body, a optimistic body is related to the next proportion of people selecting the risk-averse choice. Im and Chen observe that contributors’ response to the illness state of affairs doesn’t seem to deviate a lot from the unique findings even within the context of the continuing COVID-19 pandemic.
With respect to cultural variations, the info present that people’ collectivism was related to extra risk-taking in each the optimistic and unfavorable framing circumstances. Framing results have been additionally smaller for folks from collectivist nations.
How can these cultural variations be defined? Im and Chen observe that:
Certainly, for collectivistic cultures, an agent could also be extra motivated to have interaction in riskier choices to maximise the potential well-being of the better mass out of a perceived social obligation to take action even on the expense of 1’s personal acutely aware guilt within the occasion that nobody is saved. That is in distinction with individualistic cultures have been the risk-averse choice to ensure the lives of a smaller mass and presumably decrease stated guilt from the potential probability of mass dying will be the extra palatable choice.
The authors recommend that the identical rationalization can be utilized for the discovering that collectivist people are much less prone to the framing impact usually in comparison with these from individualist cultures. The hazard of a illness could carry a better sense of relevance for folks from collectivistic societies, as their tradition emphasizes a priority for collective well-being. Previous analysis means that better relevance results in a extra analytical considering model, which is characterised by extra managed and decontextualized data processing. Thus, collectivist contributors could take a look at the illness downside extra analytically, which might make them much less prone to the context impact produced by framing. This rationalization stays to be examined in future analysis.