testing boundaries: a theory of adaptation and framing ......university of bath phd testing...

University of Bath

PHD

Testing Boundaries: A Theory of Adaption and Framing Effects in Ongoing Tasks

Harrison, Timothy

Award date:2012

Awarding institution:University of Bath

Link to publication

Alternative formatsIf you require this document in an alternative format, please contact:[email protected]

General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?

Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.

Download date: 07. Nov. 2020

https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/studentthesis/testing-boundaries-a-theory-of-adaption-and-framing-effects-in-ongoing-tasks(5509e7ae-6ee5-4323-8968-4b495c5cfd8c).html

1

TestingBoundaries:ATheoryofAdaptionandFramingEffectsinOngoing

Tasks

TimothySamuelHarrison

AthesissubmittedforthedegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy

UniversityofBath

DepartmentofComputerScience

May2012

COPYRIGHTAttention isdrawnto the fact thatcopyrightof this thesis restswiththeauthor.Acopyof this thesishasbeensuppliedoncondition thatanyonewho consults it is understood to recognise that its copyrightrestswith theauthorand that theymustnot copy itorusematerialfromitexceptaspermittedbylaworwiththeconsentoftheauthor.

This thesis may be made available for consultation within theUniversityLibraryandmaybephotocopiedor lent toother librariesforthepurposesofconsultation.

3

Abstract

Thisthesis investigateshowinformationpresentationaffectsdecisions in ongoing task scenarios. For this purpose it re‐applies theprinciplesofbounded rationality and specificallyframing effects into this domain. Over a number of studies,unique properties concerning both frame effectiveness andadditionalmeasuressuchasconfidenceareobservedtooccur.Atheoryofcognitiveadaptationtonovelscenarios,andare‐defining of the concept of framing effects are proposed as aresult.

5

Acknowledgements

It isaclichéthataPhDthesisowes itsexistencetomorethan justoneperson.Butitisaclichébecauseitistrue,andthisthesisisnoexceptiontothatrule.

Iwish to thankmyparents, for being supportivewithout question throughoutthis process with its many ups and downs. And more than that, for theunconditional love,supportandcommitmentthatstartedwhenIwasbornandhasn’tfalteredsince.

IwouldalsoliketothankthemanyfineteachersIhavebeenprivilegedtolearnfrom inmytime,both inareas familiar to this thesisandmanyothersbesides.MrsShepard,PeterChapman,MrEnnis,MrHolleleyandcountlessothers,yourlessonsinspired,andsomehowtheyledmehere.

Finally I would like to thank my supervisor Peter Johnson. For guiding theprocesswhereitwasnecessary,butalsoforsteppingbackandforcingmetogofindmyownanswers–andquestions–whenappropriate.Theworkpresentedin thisdocument isonesideofmyPhDexperience,but theprocessbywhich Iarrivedatitisequallysignificanttome.Peterguidedboth,andhasmydeepandsincerethanksasaresult.

7

TableofContents

CHAPTERONEDecisions,Decisions,Decisions ................................................. 10WhyDecisions? .........................................................................................................................10TheScienceofDecisionMaking ..........................................................................................14Structure .....................................................................................................................................15

CHAPTERTWOLiteraturereview .......................................................................... 17Categorization ...........................................................................................................................17AssumptionsandBiasing ......................................................................................................18StrategyandPlanning ............................................................................................................20SituatedCognition&ProblemIsomorphs .......................................................................22BoundedRationality ...............................................................................................................24SystemsOneandTwo .........................................................................................................................25ProspectandUtilitytheory...............................................................................................................26FramingEffects ......................................................................................................................................29LimitationsofFraming .......................................................................................................................33Re‐definingFraming ............................................................................................................................34

CHAPTERTHREE–EquivalentRuleChanges:TheSolitaireStudy................ 37Introduction...............................................................................................................................37Design ..........................................................................................................................................37Method.......................................................................................................................................................38Solitaire .....................................................................................................................................................39SortingandCoding ...............................................................................................................................42Participants..............................................................................................................................................43

ResultsandAnalysis ...............................................................................................................43OverallData .............................................................................................................................................43ConfidenceandPerformance...........................................................................................................44LearningandProgression .................................................................................................................45PatternAnalysis.....................................................................................................................................48

AModelofNovelAdaptation................................................................................................52Explanations&Predictions...............................................................................................................54

Discussion...................................................................................................................................55

CHAPTERFOUR–FramingTaskInstructions:TheCardGameStudy .......... 56Introduction...............................................................................................................................56Design ..........................................................................................................................................56GameRules...............................................................................................................................................57FrameConstruction .............................................................................................................................58Hypotheses...............................................................................................................................................63ExperimentalProcedure ....................................................................................................................63Caveats.......................................................................................................................................................65CollectionandAnalysis.......................................................................................................................66QuestionnaireScales............................................................................................................................67Participants..............................................................................................................................................67

Results .........................................................................................................................................67OverallScore ...........................................................................................................................................67PlayingTimes..........................................................................................................................................68ContextualData......................................................................................................................................69AceData.....................................................................................................................................................71Discarding ................................................................................................................................................75

8

Discussion...................................................................................................................................76HypothesisTesting ...............................................................................................................................76AdditionalConclusions.......................................................................................................................77ModelImplications...............................................................................................................................82Significance ..............................................................................................................................................83NewHypotheses ....................................................................................................................................85

CHAPTERFIVE–FramePositioningandConfidenceinaDescriptiveTask:TheFestivalStudy .......................................................................................................... 87Introduction...............................................................................................................................87Design ..........................................................................................................................................87Overview...................................................................................................................................................87Questions ..................................................................................................................................................88FramingEffects ......................................................................................................................................89Feedback ...................................................................................................................................................89Programming ..........................................................................................................................................90Pretesting .................................................................................................................................................91Grouping&Participants.....................................................................................................................92Hypotheses...............................................................................................................................................92

Results .........................................................................................................................................92PretestingMeasures ............................................................................................................................92Decisions...................................................................................................................................................93Statisticalnote ........................................................................................................................................96ConfidenceData .....................................................................................................................................97TimingData .............................................................................................................................................99

Discussion................................................................................................................................ 104Hypotheses............................................................................................................................................ 104Complexity ............................................................................................................................................ 105FramingPositionEffects ................................................................................................................. 106Integration ............................................................................................................................................ 107Confidence............................................................................................................................................. 110ImplicationsfortheModel ............................................................................................................. 112NewQuestions..................................................................................................................................... 112

CHAPTERSIX–FramePersistenceandCyberInfluenceasaFramingMechanism:TheHerbalStudy .................................................................................114Introduction............................................................................................................................ 114Setting ..................................................................................................................................................... 114

Design ....................................................................................................................................... 115Method.................................................................................................................................................... 115Hypotheses............................................................................................................................................ 121

Results ...................................................................................................................................... 121PretestingData.................................................................................................................................... 121Choices.................................................................................................................................................... 123Confidence............................................................................................................................................. 127TimingData .......................................................................................................................................... 131RethinkData......................................................................................................................................... 140Extremists ............................................................................................................................................. 143

Discussion................................................................................................................................ 147Approach................................................................................................................................................ 147HypothesisTesting ............................................................................................................................ 147BroaderThemes ................................................................................................................................. 151

CHAPTERSEVEN–AdaptationandFramesinTasks:DiscussionAndSpeculation .....................................................................................................................162

9

Introduction............................................................................................................................ 162Approach................................................................................................................................................ 163

TheModelofAdaptation .................................................................................................... 164Integration ............................................................................................................................................ 166Formulation.......................................................................................................................................... 172

ReboundedRationality ....................................................................................................... 175RationalityinTasks........................................................................................................................... 177Applications.......................................................................................................................................... 179

FurtherWork.......................................................................................................................... 185AFinalWord ........................................................................................................................... 188

References ......................................................................................................................190

AdditionalAcknowledgements................................................................................195

Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………197One:SolitaireStudy‐Pre‐StudyQuestionnaire.................................................................... 198Two:SolitaireStudy‐EndQuestions ........................................................................................ 199Three:CardGameStudy–Pre‐StudyQuestionnaire.......................................................... 200Four:CardGameStudy–Post‐StudyQuestionnaire .......................................................... 202Five:RiskTaking/ImpulsivenessQuestionnaire ............................................................... 203Six:F‐ScaleAuthoritarianismQuestionnaire......................................................................... 205Seven:Introversion/ExtraversionQuestionnaire ............................................................... 206Eight:FestivalStudyInstructionsForNeutralandQuestionFrameconditions.... 207Ten:FestivalStudyOver‐FrameInstructions,Internal..................................................... 209Eleven:FestivalStudySampleDecision,NeutralandOver‐FrameConditions ...... 210Twelve:FestivalStudySampleDecision,QuestionFrameInternal............................. 211Thirteen:FestivalStudySampleDecision,QuestionFrameExternal ......................... 212Fourteen:FestivalStudyQualitativeFeedbackPatternandValues ............................ 213Fifteen:FestivalStudyNumericFeedbackPatternandValues ..................................... 214Sixteen:FestivalStudyDecisionPageScreenshot............................................................... 215Seventeen:FestivalStudyFeedbackPageScreenshot....................................................... 215Eighteen:HerbalStudyAlternativeTherapiesattitudequestionnaire ...................... 216Nineteen:HerbalStudySocialMediaQuestionnaire.......................................................... 217Twenty:HerbalStudyInstructions ............................................................................................ 218Twenty‐One:HerbalStudyFeedbackPatternandValues ............................................... 220Twenty‐Two:HerbalStudysampledecision ......................................................................... 222Twenty‐Three:HerbalStudySampleTweets,NeutralDecision2 ............................... 223Twenty‐Six:HerbalStudySampleTweets,Pro‐AstorDecision2 ................................. 223Twenty‐Four:HerbalStudySampleTweets,Pro‐QuetiaDecision2 ........................... 224Twenty‐Six:HerbalStudyEventText ....................................................................................... 226

10

CHAPTERONE‐Decisions,Decisions,Decisions

Afoxandascorpionmetatthebankofariver.“Carrymeacross”,said

theScorpion.“No”saidthefox,“Becauseyouareascorpion;ifIcarry

you,youwillstingmeandIwilldrown”.“ButwhywouldIdothat?”

askedthescorpion,“Wewouldbeinthemiddleoftheriver,andI

woulddrownalso.”

Convincedbythisargumentthatthescorpionwouldnotharmhim,the

foxletthesmallercreatureonhisbackandstartedacrosstheriver.At

themidwaypointhowever,thescorpionstunghim.Aspoisonfilledhis

veinsandhestartedtodrownhemanagedtoask,“Why?Nowweare

bothdead!”

“Becauseitisinmynature,”theScorpionreplied.

WhyDecisions?

Thechoiceswemake,andthereasonswemakethemhavefascinatedpeople

sincethestartofrecordedhistory.Intheabovefable,choiceisseenas

predetermined;weactnotbecausewechooseto,butbecausewearedefinedby

whatweareandmustactaccordingly.Converselytheheroesofliterature,stage

andscreenareperpetuallystrugglingtomaketherightchoice,toactagainst

theirnatureanddefywhatseemstobepredestined–fromRomeoandJuliet

defyingtheexpectationsoftheirfamiliesandpayingthecost,throughtoHarry

PotterseekingtodenytheprophesythathewoulddieatthehandsofVoldemort.

Thestruggletodetermineourownlivesthroughactionswedecideuponisa

recurringthemeofhumanexistence.

Decisionsdefineourlives.Wherewego,whowetalkto,whatweeat,drink,read

andwatch.Evenwhenwecomplainthatourlivesaredecidedforus,thatwe

havenochoiceweareatthatmomentchoosingtovoicethatfrustration.Andwe

arechoosingthepaththatseemsimmutable,toliveuptoresponsibilitiesasa

parentortonotstartourownbusiness.Asbadanideaasthealternativemight

be,westillhavetheoptionofpursuingit.Ifwedonothingelseinaday’sspanwe

11

chooseananswertothatmostfundamentalofquestions:whetherwecontinue

onlivingordecidetoenditall.Itisacommoncomplaintthatwehavenochoice,

butthisisrarelytrueinthestrictestofsenses‐havingnogoodchoices,oronly

oneviableoptionisnotthesameashavingnochoicetomakeatall.

Andsocontinuallythroughourexistencewemakethedistinctionsand

divinationsthatdefineourpathway.Evenifwewalkthepaththatathousand

havetrodbeforeus,wefindourownroutethroughthatfamiliarlandscape,or

wechoosenottodeviateandallowpreviousexperiencetoguideusforwards.

Theactofmakingdecisionsshouldbeasfamiliartousasbreathing,andyet

despiteourlifetimeofexperiencewithconstantchoicesweremainfascinatedby

them.Wereadautobiographiesbyfamouspeopletotrytoanswerthequestion

ofhowtheygottowheretheyare,andwhatdecisionsboughtthemtothatpoint.

Wedemandinterviewswithfiguresofpublicnote,tounderstandtheir

motivations.ItwasnotenoughfortheworldtoknowthatTigerWoodshad

cheatedonhiswife;wehadtoknowwhyhewoulddoit.Endlessarticles

speculatedonthisseeminglyinexplicablechoicethathadnodirecteffectonthe

livesofmostofpeopletryingtounderstandit.Whenactsofunspeakableevilare

perpetratedandterroristskillinnocentcivilians,orgunmenattackstudentsin

theirclassrooms,werepeatedlyaskwhy,whatcouldmotivatesuchanact.Entire

worksofliteraturearecenteredarounddifficultchoices,ofmoraldilemmasand

howtheyareresolvedoraddressed.Evenwhenthedecisionsareobjectionable,

whentheoutcomeishorrendousweseektounderstandwhatcoulddrivea

persontomakethosechoices,tobringtheirlifetothepointwherethatwasa

plausiblerouteforwards.

Andthisinterestisnotsimplyinternal,ortheoretical.Peoplehavebeen

interestedintheideaofartificiallifeandthoughtthroughtheages–fromthe

golemofJewishfolkloretotherobotsofsciencefiction(Asimov,1950),the

questionofanartificialintelligencehasoftenbeenusedasameanstoholdupa

mirrortoourselves.Inresearchithasoftenbeentheotherwayaround–where

anyartificialsystemsareinevitablyjudgedagainsttheeffortlessandseemingly

simplewaynormalpeoplecanmakedecisionsandjudgments.Theseproperties

12

stillescapeourgeneralabilitytoevenexplainletalonereplicateinartificial

systems.

Ourunderstandingofourownmotivationsanddecisionmakingisoften

frustratinglypoor.Mostpeopleknowthefeelingofaskingthemselves‘whydidI

saythat?’afteranexchangehasgonebadly,andnothavinganygoodanswerfor

it.Wemakeanynumberofdecisionsinadaywithnogoodreasontojustifyit.If

apersonisaskedwhytheyhadacertainfoodforlunch,theanswerwillalmost

inevitablybesomethingalongthelinesof‘becauseIfanciedit’whichisa

tautologicalnon‐answer.PeoplemakeNewYearsresolutionsintheirmillions,

andacommonexperiencesharedbyalmostallisthatoffailingtokeepthem.We

knowthatwewanttoliveadifferentwayandwechooseonalargerscaletodo

so,butthenfailtoupholdthatdecisiononaday‐to‐daybasis.Why?

Itisacommonlyheldbeliefthatitislogic–formal,rational,anempirically

justifiableexplanationofreality‐thatdrivesourchoices.Wechoosetodo

somethingbecause,logically,itiswhatweshouldbedoing.Itisthebestwayto

achieveourgoals,themostlikelywaytoattainafavourableoutcomeandweare

driventomakerational,reasonablediscriminationsbetweentheavailable

options.Mostpeopleliketothinkofthemselvesinthiswaycertainly,andwhen

askedtodefendthechoicesmade,theywillgenerallyrespondalongthoselines–

‘itseemedliketherightthingtodo’.Butofcourse,weareanythingbutlogicalin

ourchoicesandlifedecisions.Anybodywhohaseverbeenromanticallyinvolved

inanywaycantestifytothemoney,timeandeffortthatisspentinthepursuitof

somethingthatisoftenunattainableforanynumberofreasons,orevenan

activelybadanddestructiveidea.Wefrequentlymakechoicesnotbecausethey

arelogicalbutbecausewebelievethemtobe‘right’;becausewevaluekeeping

ourword,orthesanctityofhumanlife.Weevenmakedecisionsfornological

reasonatall–a‘hunch’basedoncircumstantial,spuriousevidence.Manygreat

detectivestoriesplayheavilyonthisfamiliarsensation,withalonedetective

followingtheirgutinstinctwhenalllogicwouldinsistotherwise.Butsuch

decisionmakingishardlyrestrictedtothepulpthriller–ifyouaskmostpeople

howtheypicklotterynumberstheywillanswerwithsomevariationof

‘children’sbirthdays,significantdates,age,houseIgrewupin…’despitethefact

13

thatthismethodologyhasnogreateracuityorlikelihoodofsuccessthanrandom

selection.

Althoughlogicalthinkingisoftenseenas‘correct’andwhatweshoulddesireto

perpetuate,thereareactuallysignificantdrawbacksthatmaketheabilitytoskip

purelylogicalreasoningbeneficial.Purelogicisfrequentlyinefficientandtime

consuming,nottomentionpotentiallyhazardous.Ifapersongetssickafter

eatingaparticularfoodtheywilloftenavoidthatfoodinfuture–eventhough

logicallytheydonotknowifitwasthatparticularitemorthefoodstuffin

generalthatcausedtheillness.Butinpracticalterms,theriskofgettingsick

againisenoughofadeterrentthatthecostoftestingthehypothesislogicallyis

notworththepricepaid.Inimportantdecisions,timeisoftenatapremium,and

unknownandunreliableinformationprovesabarriertoanypurelylogical

solutions–hereguesses,heuristicsandrulesofthumbcomeintotheirown.

Commonlywefallbackoncheapanddirtymeansofgettingtoanapproximate

answerthatisgoodenoughtosolvethesituationathandandmoveon.Inagame

offootballaplayermightnotknowexactlywherehispasswillendup,orwhere

theotherplayerswillbewhenitarrivesthere,buthewillmakeitwhenhehas

spaceandtheneed,becausethealternativeisgettingtackledandlosing

possession.Itisthissortofthinking–onthefly,inthemiddleofastrategictask

whereinformationisbothplentifulandsparse,andachoiceisinformedbyboth

whathasgonebeforeandisyettocome.Howisitthatwecanpickupthebasics

ofagamesimplyfromwatchingitplayed?Orstarttoadoptthecorrectnormsin

anunfamiliarsocietyunconsciously?Doingsomethingwehaveexperienceofis

onething,buthowdoweapproachthosetasksthatwehavenopriorknowledge

ofandyetmanagetocorrectlyapplyexperiencethatissomewhatrelated?

Logicalreasoningiseasytoexplain,understandandstudy,relativelyspeaking.

Therearecertainlycomplexitiestoit(manyofthem)butthefactthatitworks

throughsolidrulesandmetricshelpstodefineitasamethodologythatcanself‐

evidentlybeexpandedonitsownterms.Guesses,hunchesandheuristicsare

harder.Thereisnotasingletermtodescribewhattheycover,andhowandwhy

theconclusionstheyofferarearrivedatarehardertoquantify.Theyvary,by

definition,byperson,experience,context,andothers.Buttheyarealsopowerful

14

andhelptodefinetheabilitiesthatmakepeoplesogoodatchoosing,adapting

andadvancinginnewandnoveltasks.Complicatedastheprocessmaybe,years

ofpreviousresearchintoitandsimilarproblemssuggestthatitcanbe

comprehended,thatelementsofthisunderstandingcanbemappedanddefined

andputtogreateruse.Inparticular,wecanstarttounderstandwhatelementsof

anewtaskwecangatherfromcontext,andhowthatcontextshapesour

approachtoit.

TheScienceofDecisionMaking

Foraconceptandatopicthatisclearlysofundamentaltoourexistenceand

lacedwithsomanyinterestingquestionsandissues,decisionmakingisatopic

thatpresentsanumberofchallengestoanyattempttostudyitscientifically.The

precedingsectionillustratedthecomplexityofthearea,anditisinthis

complexitythatthescientificproblemsemerge.

Fromatop‐downviewpoint,reductionistapproachesinevitablyrepresenta

simplificationofthatcomplexity.Tryingtonarrowdowntheelementsof

decisionmakingtotheirconstituentpartslosestheinteractivityofthosevery

partsandremovestheveryphenomenathatwereunderstudy.Initialworkin

theareaofArtificialIntelligence(AI)showedthelimitationsofthissortof

approach.Itwasassumedthatsimplyrule‐basedmodellingcouldeventually

accountforallbehaviour,butitwasneverborneout(Dreyfus,1972).Similar

problemswerefoundinpsychologywhenthelimitsofbehaviourismin

explainingcomplexbehaviourwereexposed,mostnotablyintheareaof

linguistics(Chomsky,1959).

Conversely,however,bottom‐upapproacheshaveadifferentsetofproblems.

Althoughtheypresentanobviousplacefortheindividualunitsofcognitiontobe

modeled–intheneuralnetthatmakesupthebrainandpresumablygenerates

themind–howitworksremainsfundamentallyoutofreachformodern

techniques.Thebasicinteractingparametersofthebrainasawholehavenot

beenestablished,northoseofinteractingneurons(althoughprogresshasbeen

andisbeingmade).Still,thereremainseverallevelsofabstractionbetweenthe

activityofneuronsandafunctioningdecisionmakingautonomousmind.And

15

approachesthatattempttomodeltheintermediatestageofcognitive

architecturehavemuchthesameproblem.Theyraisequestionsaboutifany

modelaccuratelyrepresentstheprocessoccurring,asopposedtosimply

replicatingthepatternofactivation.

Itmightbeimaginedthattheappropriatereactionatthispointwouldbethatno

approachcanaccuratelystudythephenomena,butthiswouldbetomissthe

largerpicture.Alloftheapproachesdetailedabovehaveprovidedandcontinue

toprovidevaluableinsightintotheoverallpicture.Top‐downapproachesbegin

tomaptheoutcomespaceandprovideinsightforcognitivearchitecture.Inturn,

thissuggestspossibleactivationpatternstostudyforinneuroscience,thattests

thesehypotheses,andfeedsbackintotheotherapproachesaswellasinspiring

newideasforautonomyandsoforth.Noneoftheapproachesalonecanaccount

forsuchacomplexidea,buttogetherthedisparatesourcesofinformationcan

starttobuildupanaccuratepicture.Thisthesis,beinginterestedintheroleof

contextintheprocesswillcomefromatop‐downperspectiveandseekto

providesomeinsightfromthatpositionasitdoesso.

Structure

Thisthesiswilladdresstheproblemofhowcontextaffectsdecisionmaking,

particularlyinformationpresentationinongoingtaskscenarios.Thischapterhas

hopefullyprovidedsomegeneralbackgroundandrationalefortheideasthatthe

restoftheworkisnowgoingtoexploreinamorescientificmanner.

ChapterTwoWillprovideamorein‐depthreviewoftherelevantliteraturethat

thisworkhasdrawnupon,andstarttoboundthegeneralproblem,identifying

whereempiricalworkcanusefullystarttoaddressthisproblem.Inparticular,

theareaofboundedrationalityandframingeffectswillbeconsideredasa

mediumforexamininghowcontextaffectsdecisionmakingintasks.Itwillbe

suggestedthatitisnecessarytoredefineframingtoaddressthisproblem,anda

roughsetofparameterstothisendwillbegiven.

ChapterThreewillthencoveraninitialexploratorystudyutilisingamodified

versionofthecardgameSolitaireasitsexperimentalmediumtoseehow

16

informationpresentationcanaffectdecisionmakingandstrategicchoices.

Generalprinciplesofthemethodologicalapproachbeingusedarealsoexplained,

andaninitialmodelofadaptationisposited.

Chapterfourthenutilisesthisunderstandinginthefirstfullexperiment.It

againadoptsacard‐gamescenario(althoughadifferentone,basedonthecard

game‘Uno’)asitsmediumandusesthistoexaminebothdecision‐making

adaptationinanongoingtask,andalsohowboundedrationalityworksinthis

novelconstruct‐thatitdoes,andthatitalsopossessessomeuniqueproperties.

Havingidentifiedthatthereareuniquepropertiestoboundedrationalityinan

ongoingtaskthatarereflectedinthewaythatdecisionsaremade,ChapterFive

appliesadifferentmethodologyandframingmechanismtothesameconcept,

nowutilisinganarrativeprobleminvolvinganoutbreakofavirulentdiseaseata

musicfestival.Itintroducestheconceptof‘confidence’indecisionmaking,and

usesittoprovideanadditionaldimensionforanalysis.Discoveringthat

confidenceisaffectedbyframing,andthatframe‐positionisalsoimportant,

ChapterSixre‐appliesthisunderstandinginanothernarrativetask,thistimein

thedomainofcyberinfluence.Furtherdiscoveriesaremadeaboutthe

persistenceofframingeffects,bothintermsofthedecisionsmade,andhow

participantconfidenceisaffected.

Finally,ChapterSevensummarisesthefindingsfromthroughoutthethesis.The

modelofadaptationisreconsidered,andinparticular,thestagesofformulation

andintegrationarere‐describedinmoredetailbasedonthediscoveriesmade.A

theoryofframingintasksislaidoutandaredefinitionofframingisspecified

basedontheevidencepresentedinpreviouschapters.Theimplicationsforhow

wemakedecisionsareconsidered,andsomeapplicationsandfurtherwork

consideredbeforefinallyconcluding.

17

CHAPTERTWO‐Literaturereview

Theprocessofmakingadecisionaccordingtologicalprinciplescanbeexplained

andrenderedpredictableandreplicablewithrelativeease.However,atthesame

time,suchawayofmakingachoicecanbeslow,over‐cautiousandinefficientin

therealworld,anddoesnotreflecthowmostaremade(Evans,2005).Theother

sideofdecisionmaking‐quickanddirtymethods,assumptions,heuristicsand

guesses–hasbeenextensivelystudied,butthereremainmoreunanswered

questionsabouthowitworks.Thisisthesideofdecisionmakingthatthisthesis

willbeaddressing.Thischapterwillbrieflyconsiderissuesofcategorizationand

biasinhumanmentalprocessesasabackgroundtoheuristicreasoning.Itwill

thenexplorepreviousresearchintostrategicproblemsolvingbeforeexamining

thetheoryofboundedrationalityandframingeffectsspecifically.Anapproach

willthenbeoutlinedtoutilizeframingeffectstoexplorehowcontextinforms

decisionmakinginongoingtasks.

Categorization

Categorizationistheprocessbywhichmentalrepresentationsdetermine

whetheranentityisamemberofacategory(Medin&Rips,2005).Itisalsoone

ofthefundamentalprocessesbywhichpeopleunderstandtheworld.Wegrasp

conceptsthroughunderstandinghowonethingislikeanother.Thisprovidesthe

foundationabilitiessuchasmakingreasonableassumptionsbasedonlimited

evidenceorheuristicstodetermineabestpathforwards(Vosniadou&Ortony,

1989)byestablishingtheabilitytodeterminewhensomethingis‘closeenough’

towork.Sinceinformationisfrequentlyincompleteorambiguous,best‐guess

processesrepresentamajorityofthedecisionswemake(Hogarth,1987).

Exactdefinitionsandusesvarybyresearcheranddiscipline,butitisgenerally

agreedthatcategoriesaredefinedbyconcepts,andconceptsaremental

representationsusedtodistinguishbetweencategories.Sothecategoryof

‘squares’isdefinedbytheconceptof‘havingfoursides’(Rosch,2004).Thiscan

besomethingofarecursiveeffect,wheretheconceptofonecategoryisa

categoryofitsownandso‐on.Indeed,intheexamplegiventhereisarelianceon

18

thecategoryof‘side’havingalreadybeenestablishedtodefine‘square’.The

difficultyofpreciselydefiningtheseideas(andtheirinterdependent,somewhat

recursivenature)hasbeenasourceoffrustrationtoresearchersformanyyears.

Theirprecisenatureandboundarieshaveprovedelusivetolockdown,evenas

theunderlyingideasappearfundamentaltohumancognition(Lakoff,2004).The

representationisintuitivelyappealing,andhasbeenusedasthebasisfora

numberofmodelsofknowledgestructuressuchasthehierarchical

representationproposedbyCollins&Quillian(1969).Thismodelincorporated

elementsofnetworkmodelling,butusedcategoriesandconceptsassomeofthe

basicbuildingunits.Itwasfoundtobeaninsufficientmodeltoexplainhuman

memoryoverall–negativerelationshipsareidentifiedfasterthanitwould

predict,andtherearereversalsofthepredictedcategoryeffectinsome

instances(dogsaremoreeasilynamedas‘animals’than‘mammals’forinstance)

(Rosch&Mervis,1975)–butitprovidedastartingpointthathassincebeen

extended.Itestablishedthatwhilstincomplete,associationsareausefulpartof

modelinghumancognition.

AssumptionsandBiasing

Oneofthenaturalconsequencesofcategorizationbeingpartofthebasisfor

humanmemoryisthatattributesthatareassociatedwithagroupareappliedto

individuals–whichcanleadtoincorrectassumptionsandbias.Agenerally

appropriateconceptforthecategory‘birds’isthatthey‘canfly’–though

penguinsandostrichesdonotfollowthisrule.Thiscanleadtoassumptions

whenmakingdecisions.Forexample,whenataneventsuchasafestivalorrace

daymostpeoplewillassumethatsomeonewearingfluorescentclothingisan

officialthattheycanaskforinformationsuchasdirections.Thisisnot

necessarilytrue‐anyonecanbuysuchclothingiftheywishto,andtherehave

beenexamplesofwherethishasbeenemployedinordertofoolpeopleand

commitfraud.Itisanexampleofhowcontextandover‐categorizationcanlead

toincorrectassumptions,butalsohowsuchassumptionsaregenerallyaccurate,

andthuswhyweusethem.

19

Asexperimentaldemonstrationofthistypeoftendency,researcherssentequally

qualifiedCVswithdifferentnamesattachedtothemtoalargenumberof

companiesintheUS.TheyfoundthatregardlessofwhichCVthenameswere

attachedto,applicantswith‘black‐sounding’nameswerelesslikelytobeoffered

aninterviewthanthosewith‘white‐sounding’names(Bertrand&Mullainathan,

2004).Similarly,amongmentalhealthprofessionalswhereitisexpectedthat

diagnosiswouldbepurelyobjectiveandevidence‐based,therehasbeen

evidenceofclass‐baseddiscriminationwithlower‐classpatientsbeing

prescribedmoreseverepsychiatricdisordersthanmiddle‐classcounterparts

(Routh&King,1972).Thefactthatthisdifferenceispossibleisatleastinpart

duetothefactthatpsychiatricdisordersaremorereliantuponthejudgmentof

thepractitioner,butitstillillustrateshowanimplicitbiascanaffectdecision

making.Inbothcasesthepeoplemakingthedecisionsinthestudiesrejectedthe

ideathattheirdecisionswerebeingmadeonanythingotherthanthefacts

provided,buttheactualresultsillustratedanunderlyingbias.Thiscanbe

explainedasaconsequenceofhowpeoplemanageknowledgeandaresultof

categorization,andalsoillustrateswhycontextcanbeimportanttotheoutcome

ofdecisionmakingevenwhentheinformationmightseemextraneousor

unrelated.

Biascanalsoderivefromheuristicreasoning.Oncesuchexampleisconfirmation

bias‐thetendencytoseektoconfirmratherthandisproveabelief.Whenpeople

withstrongopinionsonthedeathpenaltyweregiventhesamefabricated

studiestorateforaccuracyandinformation,theyratedtheinformationthat

confirmedtheirpriorbeliefasmoreconvincing(Lord,Ross,&Lepper,1979)

despitethefactthatalltheinformationwasuntrue.Amoredirectexampleof

thisistheWasoncardtask(Wason,1966),inwhichparticipantshavetotesta

ruletoseeifitcorrectlydescribesasetofcardswhichhavenumbersononeside

andlettersontheother.Logicallyparticipantsshouldseektoattemptto

disprovetherule,butinsteadtheytendtopositivelyconfirmit–whichwillnot

actuallyinformthemiftheruleistrueornot.Aninterestingfollowuptothis

finding,however,isthatparticipantsincreasetheirabilitytofindthecorrect

20

answer(uptoabout80%fromaround20%)iftheproblemiscoachedinreal

worldterms.Againcontextcanbeseentoaffecthowthesameproblemissolved.

StrategyandPlanning

Thatcontextcanaffectdecisionmakingandtheprocessingofinformationis

clearfromabove,butraisestheotherhalfofthequestion;whataboutstrategy?

Inthecontextofthiswork,strategywillbetakensimplytomeanplanningand

decisionmakingforataskthatgoesbeyondasingledecisionpoint.Thisareais

lesswelldefinedandempiricallyaccountedfor.

Strategyhasbeendescribedasafunctionofstimulusdetectability,whereoncea

stimulusisdetected(generallyagainstabackgroundofexperimentalnoise)it

promptsaparticularstrategicresponseintheformofaparticularschemabeing

enacted(Tanner&Swets,1954).Thishasbeensupportedforavarietyofsimple

cognitivetasksaswellassomemorecomplexonessuchaschoicereaction

(Sperling&Dosher,1986)andprovidesadecentaccountofaction‐levelstrategic

activity.Itdoesdownplaytheinternaldeliberativeprocesshowever,andrelies

heavilyupontimingresponsestostimuliforevidence‐measuresthatbecome

lessreliableorimportantwheremorecomplexdecisionsarenecessary.Forthis

reasonthisthesiswillbeconcernedwithhigher‐levelproblems.

Extensiveusehasbeenmadeofgamesinstudyingongoingproblemsolving,

althoughthesehavetheirownlimitations.Generallytheseproblemsare

‘solvable’,whereaparticularstrategycanbequantativelyestablishedasoptimal.

ConnectFourwassolvedaspartofamastersthesisforinstance(Allis,1988).

Similarly,whilstchesshasthusfardefiedanysuchfullaccount,thebesthuman

competitorshavebeenbeatenbyartificialcounterpartswhodrawprimarilyon

advancedsearchprinciplessuchastheSUPREMarchitecture(Berliner&

Ebeling,1989).Impressiveasthesedevelopmentshavebeen,however,they

utilisesearchtrees,andexploitthefactthattheenvironmenttheyareworkingin

islimited,definableandthereforecanbeaccuratelymodeledwithlittle

ambiguity.Solvableproblemsdonotnecessarilyrepresentthesortofproblem

encounteredintherealworld,northemannerinwhichahumanapproaches

them.Thisthesisisconcernedwithsituationswherethereeitherisno

21

solvability,oritisimpracticaltodetermine,andthestrategiesthatexistin

humancognitiontocopewiththat.Thereisevidencethatpeopledoshowsome

ofthesesamecharacteristicsasthesolutionsproposedbysolveableproblem

models,withincreasingskillassociatedwithincreasingsearchdepthinhuman

players(Gobet,1997).Howeverwhilstthiscanaccountforaspectsofhuman

problemsolving,itfailstocapturethewholeprocess.Astudycomparing

differenttypesofinstruction(conceptualversesprocedural)forchessnovices

didfindthatitwasconceptualknowledgethatleftparticipantsbetterprepared

tofindsolutionsformateproblems(Marmeche&Diderjean,2001),providing

someevidencethatitistheabilitytounderstandaproblemratherthanjust

memorizethenecessarycomponents,thatallowsadaptationtoanewproblem.If

optimizedsearchmethodologieswereallthatwasrequired,procedural

informationshouldhavealsoprovedequallyuseful.

Intryingtorepresenthumandecisionmaking,acommonapproachhasbeento

definetheprocessasaseriesofparts,particularlyinmanagementstudies

(Kepner&Tregoe,1965)–analysis,identification,causes,objectivesandso

forth.Buttheseapproachesarelimitedbythefactthattheyaregenerally

attemptingtoreplicate‘correct’decisionmakingandprovideaprescriptionfor

otherpeopletofollowratherthananaccountofcognitivearchitecture.More

generally,whenproblemsolving,peopleareseentoadoptbasicstrategiesor

planswhenapproachingaproblemthatarethenmodifiableoncontactwithnew

information.ThisformulationwaspartofthebasisforACT‐R,anaction‐level

accountofcognitivearchitecture(Anderson,Matessa,&Lebiere,1997)which

hassincebeenextendedandbuiltuponextensively.Adoptinganewrule

suppliedbyahintcanbeobservedandmodeled(H.A.Simon&Reed,1975),as

cantheeasingofdifficultyonceaparticularskillorruleisinternalized

(Kotovsky,1985).Butevenhere,theimportanceofcontextisstillpresent.

Domainspecificityisawellestablishedphenomenawherethesolutionthatis

obtainedcanrelyheavilyonthecontextinwhichtheproblemisposed

(Hirschfeld&Gelman,1994).Thetheoreticallysameabstractproblemcanbe

eithereasilysolvedoralmostimpossibledependingonwhetherpeoplehave

experiencedthatparticularcontextbefore.Thisalsoextendstocreativity,with

22

theworkproducedvaryinginqualityandquantityaccordingtothedomainin

whichaquestionisposed(Reiter‐Palmon,Illies,Cross,Buboltz,&Nimps,2009)

inasetupwherethereareno‘correct’answers.Formalmodelsofproblem

solvingsuchasACT‐Rdonotprovideaccountsofthisproperty.

SituatedCognition&ProblemIsomorphs

Situatedcognitionisdefinedasdifferencesinresponsethatcanbeobserveddue

toenvironment(Kirsh,2009).Itdoesnotattempttomodeltheinternal

processesofaproblemsolvingapproach,butratherthathowaproblemis

solved(andhowa‘problem’canbedefined)isafunctionofthecontextinwhich

itisfound–physical,socialandmore.Itarguesthatthementalapproachto

situationscannotberepresentedsimplybyrelatingthembacktoabstract

principlesbutaregroundedinthesituationtheyarefound.

AfamousexampleofthisconceptisastudyonBrazillianstreetchildren,who

haddevelopedparticulardomainspecificproceduresformathematical

functions,andfoundithardtotransferthisunderstandingtomoreformalized

mathematicalsettings(Carraher,Schliemann,&Carraher,1985).Asimilar

examplefoundmilkmenmadeuseofthephysicalshapeofthecontainersin

whichtheydeliveredmilktodocalculationsandagainfounditdifficulttodo

equivalentlydifficultcalculationsoutofthiscontext(Scribner,1984).Bothof

theseexamplesdemonstratehowproblemsolvingisnotnecessarilyreducedtoa

consistentabstractrepresentationthatisthenre‐appliedasappropriate.Ifit

were,bothexamplesetsofpeoplewouldhavefounditaseasytodocalculations

outoftheirfamiliarcontextastheydidwithin.

Thedegreetowhichcognitionissituatedorinternalandabstractisamatterof

continuingresearch,buttheideathatpeople’smentalprocessesareaffectedby

theworldaroundthemisbroadlysupportedbyavarietyofresearch.Human

ComputerInteractionasadisciplineandusabilityspecificallyhasdemonstrated

thatperformancecanbeaffecteddependingonhowdisplaysareorganized,for

instanceinambulancedispatchdisplays(Moore,Hayes,&Wong,2013)orhow

mobilephoneinterfacesaffectusersatisfactionandefficiency(Kim,Proctor,&

Salvendy,2012).Theconceptofaffordabilityandusabilityrestontheideathat

23

certaincontextssupportefficienthumancognitionmorethanothers(Norman,

2002).

Problemisomorphsareanexampleofproblemsthattouchonbothstrategic

problemsolving,andsituatedcognition.Problemisomorphsaresuperficially

differentrepresentationsoflogicallyequivalentproblems(Kirsh,2009).

However,thesesuperficialdifferenceshavebeenfoundtoaffectpeople’sability

toreachasolution.TheTowerofHanoiisalogicproblemthatinvolves

attemptingtomoveasetofitemsfromonelocationtoanotherwhilstabidingby

rulesthatgovernhowthoseitemscanbeassembledinagivenlocation.Inthe

classicexampleitconsistsofastackofthreeitemsthatneedtobemovedfrom

onelocationtoanother.Onlyoneitemcanbemovedatatimeandthereisonly

oneintermediatespaceavailable.Ithasbeenfoundthatdifferentisomorphsof

thisproblem(wheretheitemsarenotnecessarilyorderedbysizebutbyother

propertiesfollowingthesamerulessuchasnumberorcolourinstead)take

significantlydifferentnumbersofmovestosolve(Kotovsky,1985).Thisshows

contextintheformofproblemrepresentationaffectinghowaproblemisboth

perceivedandapproachedeventhoughtheabstractlogicaltaskbeingperformed

remainsthesame.Similarlydifferentinteractionconstraintsonthesamelogical

problemhavebeenfoundtoaffectproblemsolvingalthoughthelogical

informationavailablethroughthoseinteractionsremainedconstant(Dou,2010).

Representationsofthesamepuzzleindifferentdomainshavefoundtoaffect

problemsolvinglikelihoodsignificantly,withphysicalanddigital

representationsaffectingperformance,andevendifferentdigital

representations(Kotovsky&Simon,1990).Again,thispointstosituated

cognitionandcontexthavinganeffect,aseventhedifferencebetweenbeingable

toholdsomethinginyourhandsormakingchangestothesameproblem

representedonascreenmatters.Theeffectsofisomorphismarealsonotlimited

todifferencesinhowataskisrepresented.Instructionsthatconveyequivalent

informationhavealsobeenshowntocreateperformancedifferencesindifferent

tasksonthesametool(Bibby&Payne,1993).Differentgroupswereshownto

performbetterindifferenttasksdependingonwhichinstructionstheyreceived,

24

indicatingthatinstructionscanaffecthowknowledgeisrepresentedinthemind,

andthushoweasilycertaintasksareperformed.

Thisworkisnotwithoutitslimitshowever.Workinthisareatodatehasagain

reliedupon‘solveable’problemstocreateisomorphicequivalents.Theseare

taskscenarioswithdefinableendsstatesandlimitedactionpossibilities

specificallychosensothatequivalencescanbecreatedandmanipulated.In

manywaysthisfocusissimplyreflectiveofarequirementofisomorphism,and

problemscannotbeshowntobeisomorphicwithoutbeingcontrolledinsucha

manner.Butmanyrealworldproblemsarenotsolveableinthiswayanddonot

necessarilyevenhaveanendstate,orparsableprocessesandstagestobe

quantified.Thesecanstillinvolvestrategicchoicesanddifferentrepresentations,

butcannotbesoeasilycontrolledandbalanced.

Whattheliteratureonproblemisomorphsillustrates,however,isthatlogical

approachesandstrategicchoicescanbeaffectedbythecontextinwhichtheyare

presented.Itthereforeseemslikelythatthisistrueforproblemsthatcannotbe

quantifiedinsuchamanneraswell,althoughamethodologyisrequiredwith

whichtoapproachthem.

BoundedRationality

BoundedRationalitywasfirstproposedbyHerbertSimon(H.Simon,1957),and

proposesthatratherthanbeinginherentlyrationalactors(asmanymodelsof

humanbehaviouranddecisionmakinginavarietyofdisciplineshavedone)

peopleactrationallywithintheboundsoftheircomprehensionoftheworld–

boundssuchascognitivebiases,perceptuallimitationsandcomprehension

failures.Boundedrationalityisnotconcernedwithhowinformationitself

persuadesadecisionmakertoonesetofactionsoranother,butratherhowthe

boundsthatthatparticipantareinareresponsibleforthevariabilitythatcanbe

observed(Gigerenzer,2008).Whatthismeansisthatthereisabodyofworkthat

existsalreadyestablishingdifferentconditionswhichareknowntoaffect

particulardecisionswithoutalteringtheinformativecontentavailableto

decisionmakers.

25

SystemsOneandTwo

Boundedrationalityisgenerallyseentooperateaspartofadual‐systemmodel

ofhumandecisionmaking.Thesearereferredtoassystemoneandsystemtwo,

andreflectdifferentaspectsofthedecisionmakingprocess,adistinction

originallycoinedbyStanovichandWest(Stanovich&West,2000).Theseare

summarizedbyKahneman(Kahneman,2002)as:

Systemoneisthequick,instinctivedecisionmakingsystem.Itisdescribedas

fast,automatic,effortless,associativeandslow‐learning.

Systemtwoisthetimeconsuming,consciousdecisionmakingsystem.Itis

describedasslow,serial,controlled,effortful,rule‐governedandflexible.

Thesesystemsarenotaneither/ormodel.Whilstsomequestionsmayuseone

morethantheother,theyarethoughttoconstantlyinteract,andoneoftheroles

ofsystemtwoistoprovideexplicitmonitoringofsystemone(Gilbert,2002).In

differentsituationsonesystemwilltakepriorityovertheothereventhoughthe

otherisstillactive.Forexample,ifapersonisaskedwhat1138+435issystem

twowilltakepriorityaswouldbeexpected.However,ifaskedtodecidebetween

1600and2300whichisclosertothecorrectanswerforthesamequestion,

systemonewillallowmostpeopletoanswer1600asit‘feels’morecorrect.

Thesesystemsarethebasisfortheboundsofboundedrationality.Theydescribe

howthefirstsysteminparticularisaffectedbytheconstraintsthatsurroundit,

andthenalsohowthetwosystemswiththeirdifferentmethodologiesand

strengthsinteract–when,whereandhow.

Thishypothesishasbeenputtoextensiveusewithinthefieldofdecision

making.Ithasbeenusedtoprovideinsightformarketing,explainingpatternsof

buyingonthestockmarketandpersuasioninpolitics(Myers,2002).Therehas

alsobeensomesupportfromitwithinneuroimagingscans,whereparticular

activationpatternshavebeenfoundforgutfeelingsandinsight(Bowden,Jung‐

Beeman,Fleck,&Kounios,2005).Otherworkhasfoundactivationinthemedian

orbito‐frontalcortex(whichreceivesinputfromalloverthebrainandthusisa

plausiblelocationforassemblingdisparatesources)andtheamygdala(whichis

26

thecenterofemotionsinthebrainandthereforerelatedtotheemotional

componentofsystemone)instudiesofinstinctiveguessing,providinga

neurologicalbasisforthedistinctsystems(Volz&Cramon,2006).Therefore,the

two‐systemhypothesishasareasonablegroundinginbothpracticalapplication

andintheoreticalneurosciencestructures,whichinturnraisesthequestionof

howboundedrationalitycanhelptoexplainhumanbehaviourandfurtherthis

work.

ProspectandUtilitytheory

Asanexampleofhowboundedrationalitycanexplaindecisionmakingwecan

usetheexampleofprospecttheoryandhowithasextended(andtosomedegree

supplanted)utilitytheory.

Utilitytheoryisatheorywhichmodelshowchoicesshouldbemade,basedona

setoflogicalaxioms(Myers,2002).Ithasprovidedthebasisforalotof

economictheory,asitisassumedtonotonlydetailhowdecisionsshouldbe

madebutalsohowtheyaremade.Itassumesthatthereismathematicalparity

betweentherelativefallsandgainsinwealthandthatwealth’sperceivedutility

orvalue,aswellasthevalueofvariousobjects.Ifapersonisofferedachoice

betweenacupofcoffeeandacupofteaandshowsnopreference,forinstance,

thentheywouldalsohavenopreferencebetweenthechoiceofa40%chanceto

winacupofcoffee,anda40%chancetowinacupoftea.Iftheylikedthetasteof

coffee,butnotteathentheywouldsimilarlypreferthatchanceovertheother.

However,asweknow,peopledonotalwaysmakedecisionsbasedonstrict

logicalprobability.Considerabetwhereacoinistossed.Achoiceisoffered

betweeneitherwinning£100ifthecoincomesuptailsortaking£46forcertain

(Kahneman,2011).Mostpeoplewilltakethesurething,despitethefactthatona

statisticallevelthechanceisactuallymorerewarding.Consideralsoifthisbet

wasofferedatthelevelof£1ifthecoincomesuptailsor46pforsure–more

peoplewouldnowbewillingtogoforthechance.Finally,imagineifthesame

conditionswereoffered,butthelevelswerenow£10,000or£4,600–evenfewer

peoplewouldnowbelikelytotakethebetratherthanthesurething.

27

Theexplanationgivenforthisinutilitytheoryisoneofpsychologicalintensity.

Ratherthanbeingcalculatedpurelyonthemeritofstatisticallikelihood,people

evaluatethesebetsbasedontheintensityoftheoptionsweightedbytheir

probability.Whatthismeansmoresimplyisthatthedifferencebetween46pand

£1isnotactuallyverymuchbecauseneitheristhatvaluableandneitheristhat

differentfromthebaselinestateofzero.Hence,thechanceisnotseenasthat

important.However,whenthestakesareraisedto£10,000and£4,600suddenly

thepsychologicalintensityofthestakesaremuchhigherandthechanceismuch

moreofarisk,sopeoplewilldefertothesurethingwithincreasinglikelihood.

Thisisthecoreofutilitytheory;thevalueofabetorpropositioncanbe

objectivelycalculatedaccordingtothevalueswithin.

Thistheorywas,andtoanextentis,stillthebasisforeconomictheoriesofvalue

formanyyears,butitlacksabasicfactorthatwouldaltermanyofitspredictions

–referencepoints.ThisflawwasfirstidentifiedbyKahnemannandTversky,

whopointedoutthatitisnotsimplytheutilityofwealththatdrivessuch

decisions,butalsowhereapersonstarts(Kahneman&Tversky,1973).Itisthis

observationwhichformsthebasisofprospecttheory.

Toillustratethis,consideranotherbet:Winning£2millionguaranteed,ora50‐

50chancetowineither4millionor1million.Theutilityofthesetwo

propositionsisequal,anditwouldnotbesurprisingtoseeapersonpickeither

oneortheother–theincreaseinutilitybetween1millionand4millionisnot

actuallythatmuch.

Nevertheless,nowconsiderthetwopeopletowhomthisbetisactuallyoffered.

Jackhas1milliontostartwith,andJillhas4million–andinparticipatinginthis

bettheyhavetostaketheircurrentwealth.Theutilityofthepropositions

remainsexactlythesameasbefore,butthecontexthaschangedmassively.For

Jackthebetisessentiallyano‐losescenario–hecannotexitwithlessthanhe

startedoffwith,andwhilstbothpropositionscanofferhimmore,thechance

offersmore.Intheworstcaseheiswherehestarted.Thismakeshimmorelikely

toriskthechance.Heisprimedtoengageinrisk‐seekingbehaviour.

28

Jillontheotherhandismostlycertaintolosesomething.Atbestshecould

preservewhatshehas,andinthatcaseshewouldbeaslikelytogodownto1

million.Fromherperspective,sheislookingtominimizeherpotentiallossesand

isthereforemorelikelytogoforthe2millionguaranteed.Sheisprimedtobe

risk‐adverse.

Thesepositionsaresupportedbyempiricaltestingputtingparticipantsinthose

virtualroles.Whatisimportantaboutthisresultisthatthestartingpositionof

thetwoparticipantschangestheirapproachtotheproblem,despitethefactthat

theirpotentialoutcomesareidentical(Kahneman,2011).Theirpriorpositions

shouldnotmatterduetotheutilityoftheoptions,andlogicallytheydonot,but

whenpeopleareinvolvedthecalculationsdochange.Contextaffectschoice

whenthechoicesthemselvesareperfectlybalanced.Thisisthecoreofprospect

theory–thatitmatterswhereapersonstartsfrom.

Anotherexampleofthisprincipleistoconsideranotherpairofpeople,George

andVicky.Georgehas8millionpounds,andVickyhas2million;bothinvested

onthestockmarket.Asaresultofavolatileday,VickyandGeorgenowboth

have5million.Whoishappier?NaturallywewouldsayVicky,asherwealthhas

increasedbythreemillion,whereasGeorge’shasdecreasedbythesameamount,

buttheiractualvalueisequal–byutilitytheorytheyshouldhavethesame

satisfaction.Whatisoccurringhereisthattheyareexhibitingriskaversion,

wherepeoplearemoresensitivetolosingwhattheyalreadypossessthanthey

aretogainingadditionalthings(Novemsky&Kahneman,2005).AgainUtility

theorywouldtreattheseasequalpropositions,butprospecttheoryrecognizes

theimportanceofthestartingpositiontothepsychologicalevaluation

undertakenandbetterpredictsbehaviour.Itisnotnecessarilyineffectallthe

time:ifinstructedto‘actlikeamarkettrader’participantsshowlessloss

aversionwhichsuggestsitisafunctionofsystemoneandcanbeselectively

applied(Sokol‐Hessneretal.,2009).Someevidencehasbeenfoundforthis

tendencytobeneurologicallybased,withabroadsetofgain‐sensitiveareas

(includingmidbraindopaminergicregionsassociatedwithrewardmechanisms)

showinglessactivationwhenpotentiallosseswerecontemplated(Tom,Fox,

Trepel,&Poldrack,2007).

29

Thekeyrelevanceofthisexampleforthisthesisisthatthestartingpointmatters

totheperceptionofgainorloss.Contextwillcolouraperson’sperceptionofa

gain/lossevent,andthuspresumablyaffecttheirreasoningwhenconsidering

whattodonext.

FramingEffects

Aparticularlyusefulcomponentofboundedrationalityforthepurposesofthis

workisframingeffects.Framingeffectsarewherethesameuseful,informative

contentispresentedindifferentwaysinordertoinduceausertowardsa

particularchoice(Gigerenzer&Selten,2000).

ConsiderauniversityEngineeringdepartmentwhoseintakeofundergraduates

wassplitinto20girlsand48boys,withtheyearhavingjustpassed.Theirnew

intakethiscomingyearwillbe30girlsand45boys.Thiscouldbeexpressedas

‘TheproportionofgirlstakingEngineeringhasincreased’.Alternatelywecould

say‘TheproportionofboystakingEngineeringhasdeclined’.Bothstatements

wouldbetrue,andbothwouldbelogicallythesamething,containingthesame

informationabouttheworld,buttheyfeelverydifferentstatementswhenread.

Tohearaboutmoregirlstakingengineeringmightsummonupsatisfactionthata

long‐presentgendergapwasapparentlydeclining.Tohearthatfewerboyswere

takingthesubjectmightraiseconcernsthattheyarefallingbehindtheirmore

studiousfemininecounterparts.

Thisisanexampleofaframe.Thesamelogicalinformationisimparted:aperson

whoreadseitherofthetwostatementswillhavethesamelevelofknowledge

aboutthestateoftheworldlogicallyspeaking,yetvastlydifferentperceptionsof

whatisgoingonintheworldofengineering.

PerhapsthemostfamousexampleofaframeisthatoftheAsianfluexperiment

(Tversky&Kahneman,1981).Inthisexample,participantsarepresentedwitha

choiceoftworesponsestoanoutbreakofAsianfluinapopulationof600people.

Theycaneitherguaranteethatacertainnumberofthepopulationwillsurvive

andacertainnumberwilldie,ortheycantakeaprobabilitythattheentire

populationwilleitherliveordie.Theseareexpressedas:

30

FormulationOne:

IfProgramAisadopted,200peoplewillbesaved.

IfProgramBisadopted,thereis1/3probabilitythat600peoplewillbe

saved,and2/3probabilitythatnopeoplewillbesaved.

FormulationTwo:

IfProgramAisadopted,400peoplewilldie

IfProgramBisadopted,thereis1/3probabilitythatnobodywilldie,and2/3

probabilitythat600peoplewilldie.

Notethatbetweenthetwoformulationstheactuallogicalinformationbeing

presentedisthesame.Alsonotethebetweenthetwoprogramsthestatistical

valueofbothisactuallyidentical–ifthesituationwasrun100timesandthe

sameprogramwaspickedeachtime,statisticallyspeakingthesamenumberof

peoplewouldbeexpectedtosurviveanddieineachchoice.

Itwasfoundthatinformulationone,72%ofparticipantschoseprogramA.In

formulationtwo,78%ofparticipantschoseformulationB.Itissuggestedthat

thereasonforthisisthattheframingaltersthetypeofdecisionbeingmade.

Formulationonesupportsarisk‐adverse(seeearlier)decision–participants

chosetobesureofsaving200people.Formulationtwoontheotherhand

supportsrisktaking–the400peopledyingforcertainisregardedasless

acceptablethana2/3chanceofeveryonedying.Theframeisthereforepriming

differentsortsofarisk‐takingheuristicthroughthewaytheinformationis

structured.Context,again,isdrivingthemannerinwhichadecisionismade.

Framinghassincebeenappliedtoarangeofcircumstancestoeitherexplain

decisionmaking,ortoillustratethattheprocessisnotasobjectiveaswemight

imagine.Ithasbeendemonstratedusingmortalityratestoaffectthedecisionsof

doctors(McNeil,Pauker,Sox,&Tversky,1982)andrichnessofadescriptionto

affectacourtdecision(Shafir,1993)forexample.

Theeffectsofframingarenotimmutableandunmovedbyotherfactors

however.Individualdifferencescanplayaroleforinstance.Framingmonetary

31

gainsorlossescannormallyprimeanindividualtoberiskadversewhena

choiceisframedasagain,butriskadversewhenthesamedecisionisframedas

aloss(Kahneman,2002).However,recentworkhasfoundthatwhilstolder

participantsdobecomeriskadversewhenastandardgain/lossgamblingtask

wasframedasagain,theydonotshowrisk‐seekingbehaviourwhenthesame

taskisframedasaloss(Mikels&Reed,2009).Similarlythereissomeevidence

thatexperiencecanpreventaframeaffectingadecision.Invitationstoregister

foraconferenceweresenttoallpeoplewhosubmittedapaperforaneconomics

conference,butthedescriptionofincreasingfeesasthedeadlinenearedwere

framedaseitherapenaltyforbeinglate,orabonusforregisteringearly.When

dividedbyexperiencelevel,juniorexperimentaleconomistsregisteredin

greaternumberswhenthechangeinpriceswasdescribedasapenalty,whilst

theirseniorcounterpartsshowednodifferencebetweenthetwoconditions

(Gächter,Orzen,Renner,&Starmer,2009).Theexperimentisnotablefor

establishingthataframecanbeeffectiveinarealworldsetting,andalsofor

showingthatexperiencemaycausepeopletobelesssusceptibletoframing,

althoughitshouldbenotedthatthismayrepresentknowledgeofframes,given

thatthesubjectpoolwaseconomistswhowouldbeexpectedtohaveahighrate

ofknowledgeofthesubject.Regardlessthefactthatitwaseffectiveonthejunior

subset(whoshouldalsohavethisdomainknowledge)suggeststhatabroader

effectmaybeatplay.Inalaboratorybasedexperiment,differencesinchoices

madewerefoundtoexistbetweensexes.Althoughbothsexeswereframed,they

respondedatdifferentratestoframeddecisionsindifferentdomainssuchas

moneyvstimeandlifevsdeathdomains(Huang&Wang,2010).Againthis

resultissomewhatambiguousforwherethereasonforthedifferencecomes,

anditisreasonabletosuggestthatsocialcueswhichsetdifferentprioritiesfor

thedifferentsexesmayberesponsibleratherthanfundamentalprocessing

differencesbetweenthesexes.Regardless,thesestudiesillustratethatpre‐

existingknowledgeandexperiencecanhaveanimpactonhowparticipants

respondtoframing,regardlessofthesourceofthatinformation.

Thereissomelimitedevidencethatframingcanoccurinanongoingtasksas

wellassingledecisionpoint,andthenbeaffectedbyadditionalfactors.These

32

experimentsdotendtohaveaverylimitedscopeforwhatcomprisesanongoing

task.Boundedrationalityhasbeenappliedintotheareaofstrategyselection,

particularlywiththesuggestionofcognitivelyboundedrationalanalysis(Howes,

Lewis,&Vera,2009).Thisprovidesanaccountofcognitivearchitecturein

psychologicalrefractoryperioddual‐taskperformanceandillustratesthe

potentialapplicationofboundedrationalityintocognitiveareas,butthat

strategyselectionaccountisatthecognitivelevelwherecontextisinvariant;this

thesisisconcernedwithactivitywhenthecontextinwhichastrategicdecisionis

beingmadevaries.Inanonlineshoppingtaskwhereoffersandpricereductions

wereframed,messagesthatwarnedagainstbiassuccessfullylessenedthe

framingeffectinhighlyengagedparticipants(Chenga&Wu,2010),althoughthe

effectwaslessenedbothbytheintensityofthemessagedecreasing,andbythe

participantbeinglessengaged.Regardless,asmall‐scaletaskwassuccessfully

framed,andthatframewassubsequentlycounteracted.Ina20‐daysimulated

stock‐buyingsimulationwhereparticipantsratedtheiremotionalstateasthe

taskwasconducteditwasfoundthataffectattenuatedframingeffects(Seo,

Goldfarb,&Barrett,2010).Thisbothagainsuccessfullyframedatasklonger

thanonedecision(albeitinahighlylimitedandartificialsetting)andlinked

framingeffectstoanothercognitivecharacteristic,inthiscaseemotion.Ina

complementarystudy,risk‐lossframedgamblingtaskparticipantswere

promptedtousecognitivereappraisaltechniquestoregulatetheiremotions

whilstperformingthetask,whichalsoreducedframing(Miu&Crişan,2011),

suggestingthattheemotionalcomponentmightnotjustbeattenuatingframing

butactuallydrivingit.

Thesignificanceofthesefindingstothisresearchisthatframingisacomplicated

andinvolvedprocess,onethatispotentiallynoteasilydivorcedfromthecontext

inwhichitoccurs,astheoriesofsituatedcognitionwouldsuggest.The

dimensionsofwhatcanaffectframing,andbeaffectbyframingappearto

potentiallybebroaderthansimplywhatdecisionismade.Framingtherefore

potentiallyrepresentsamethodologywithwhichtosystematicallyvaryhow

informationispresented,andthuspotentiallyaffectstrategicdecisions–with

thatdifferencethereforebeingattributabletopresentationratherthanlogical

33

contentoftheinformation.Researchhasdemonstratedthatframingcanexistin

tasksbeyondasingledecision,althoughasnotedthesetendtobeverytightly

controlledenvironmentsthatlackthecomplexitytosuggestthatstrategic

decisionsarebeingframed–thechoicesdonotgenerallyhaveongoing

consequencesforinstance.Thisoffersapotentialareainwhichtooffernovel

investigation.

LimitationsofFraming

Framingasatheoryhasnotbeenunchallengedhowever,andisnotwithoutits

conceptuallimitations.Theassumptionthatunderliesframingisthatthetwo

choicespresentedareequivalent(isomorphic)intheirambiguity,butthereare

suggestionsthatthismaynotbeentirelysupported.Areviewoftherelevant

literature(Kühberger&Tanner,2009)suggestedthattherelevantchoicesinthe

Asianfluexamplearenotequivalent,andthatwhenambiguityisequalized

betweenthetwodescriptions,theframingeffectiseithersignificantlyweakened,

ordisappears.Anexampleofthisisanexperimentthattransferredthedomain

oftheasianfluchoice,andcontrolledforthisimbalancedambiguityinthenew

context(Mandel,2001).Inthiscase,theframingeffectwasnolongerpresent.

Thesefindingraiseavalidpoint–whatexactlycanbeconsideredtobeaframe?

Iftheeffectsthathavebeennotedaresimplyacaseofunequalambiguitythen

canframingbesaidtoexistatall?Thestudiescitedabovefindfaultinthe

unequaldistributionofambiguity,butitisnotnecessarilythecasethattheir

definingitassuchisappropriate.Itispossibletocontrolforframingby

controllingtheamountofambiguitypresent,buttheprocessofdecidingwhatis

orisnotambiguousdependsitselfuponajudgmentcallbytheexperimenter,

andperceptionsofwhatisambiguouswillvarybetweenparticipants.Buteven

acceptingthatimbalancedambiguitymaybethesourceofthephenomenadoes

notinvalidateframingasanapproach.Realresultsandsignificantfindingswith

applicableimplicationscanandhavebeenfound.

Instead,framingmaynotbewellservedasbeingdefinedaslimitedtoprecise

andstrictlyisomorphicequalpairs.TheAsianfluexample(Tversky&

Kahneman,1981)wouldnolongerbeanexampleundersuchaclassification.If

34

suchrigidstandardsareappliedthenitcouldbecomefunctionallyimpossibleto

defineanythingasbeingframing–somelevelofunbalancecouldbefoundin

virtuallyanyattempttocreateapproximatelyequalsetsofinformation.

Suchastringentrequirementwouldmissthepointofframingonatleasttwo

levels.Firstlyframingisclearlynotsolelydefinedbyambiguity.Thestudies

presentedinthisreviewhaveidentifiedanumberofdimensionswhichcanaffect

thedecisionsmadeevengiventhesenon‐isomorphicsets.Sotheyremaina

viablemethodinwhichtoidentifyadditionalfactorsaffectingdecisionmaking.

Secondly,therealworldisacomplex,dynamicandlargelyuncontrollablesetof

conditions.Understandingrealworlddecisionsmayrequireacceptingadegree

ofimbalanceinmethodologies.Framingmaywellnotexistwithoutaslight

imbalanceofambiguity,butapproximateambiguitycancreatedemonstrable

resultsaslistedabove,andframingstillprovidesausefulmodelfor

understandingthoseproperties.Butthatsaid,itmaythereforebenecessaryto

re‐defineframingtoallowforuseinmorecomplicatedcontexts.

Re‐definingFraming

Therearestillunresolvedquestionstobeansweredabouthowtaskstrategyin

ongoingstrategictasksmightbeaffectedbyinformationpresentation.Bounded

rationalityprovidesevidencethatcontextaffectsdecisionmaking.Thereare

examplesofworkextendingframingintoongoingtasks,butthesehavebeen

tightlycontrolled,highlyartificialexampleswherethestrategicthinkingdoes

notreflectmorecomplex,ambiguousscenarios.

Framingeffectarestilllargelyconductedinasingle‐decisionparadigm,andas

partofthere‐definingsuggestedaboveitwouldbeusefultomoveitbeyondthis

paradigm.Kahnemanhasdescribedsuchchoicesasbeing‘thefruitfly’of

decisionresearch(Kahneman,2011),anditisanaptanalogyonanumberof

levels.Singledecisionsareeasilysetup,quicklyrunandrepeatable.Theyare

alsohighlycontrollableandfreeofmanyextraneousvariables–itwasa

relativelysimpletasktosequencethefruitflygenome.Theycantellusagreat

dealabouthowwemakedecisionsinthesamewaythatfruitfliescantellus

aboutgenetics,buttherearelimitspreciselybecauseoftheirsimplicity.

35

Inthesamewaythatfruitfliesareasimplegeneticblueprinttoworkwith,single

decisionsareasimpleparadigmtoemployandbothmissthelargerpicture.

Humansaresignificantlymorephenotypicallycomplexthanfruitflies,and

decisionmakingintherealworldissignificantlymorecomplicatedthansingle‐

decisiontasks.Butapplyingframesintoamorecomplicatedandecologically

validcontextisnotsimple.Framesrelyonpreciseconstructioninordertobe

consideredisomorphic,butsuchtightdefinitionslimittheirapplicabilityina

systemwherethosebasicconstraintsaremoreabletobechallenged,

contradictedorusurped.Approximate,ratherthanfullequivalencemaybe

necessarytoassessframinginthiscontext,butthatisnotaninappropriate

methodologytoapply–ashasbeennotedeventightlycontrolledsingle

decisionsmaynotbeequalintheirambiguitybuttheystillrepresentavalid

sourceofinvestigation,thiswouldbeanextensionofthat.

Thequestionhaspotentialimplicationsforwidertheoriesofboundedrationality

andnotjustframingeffects.Thepremiseofsystemsoneandtwois,as

previouslynoted,atleastpartiallythatsystemtwohasmonitoringdutiesover

systemone(Gilbert,2002).Soatwhatpointdoesthemonitoringsystemcutin

andoverridetheemotionalorgutdecisionthathasbeenmadeasatask

progresses?Someresearchhasaddressedtheconceptthatmonitoringcanoccur

(Gigerenzer,2008)butthishasgenerallytakentheformofprimingsubjectsto

respondtoquestionsandconsideringthemmoreconsciously.Alternativelyit

hasbeenshownthatintelligencecanbelinkedincertaintaskswithagreater

degreeofsystemtwocontrol(Frederick,2005),butagainthisisinasingle

decisiontask.Therehasbeenlittleattempttodeterminehowsystemtwomight

graduallytakebackcontrolfromsystemone.

Anobjectiveofthisthesiswillbetoprovideaframeworkforbetterdefining

frameswithinalargercontext.Asnoted,framingeffectsaregenerallyrelianton

tightlycontrolledsinglechoiceandlimitedcontextmethodologiesinordertobe

balanced,butsuchtightlycontrolledcircumstancesaretooartificialforthis

objective.Thereforeitwillseektore‐applymoretraditionalframesand

experimentalparadigmsascloselyaspossiblewhilstalsoexpandingthemto

morecloselyresemblecomplex,ambiguousongoingtasks,followingageneral

36

principleofobtainingasmuchapproximatebalanceaspossible.Fromthese

approximations,amorepreciseandquantifiedframeworkwillbedevelopedand

suggestedintheconcludingchapterofthisthesis.

37

CHAPTERTHREE–EquivalentRuleChanges:TheSolitaireStudy

Introduction

Thepreviouschapterestablishedtheexistingunderstandingofframingin

currentliterature,andillustratedthelimitationsofthecurrentdefinition.

Expandingthedefinition(andunderstanding)ofthisprocessisnottrivial

however‐thereexistagreatdealofconflicting,possiblyconfoundingfactors

withinpotentialexperimentaldesigns.

Thefirststudywasdesignedasbeingsolelyexploratoryinnature.Ataskwas

designedtobeapproximatelyisomorphicatthenewruleimplementationlevel

andforthefindingstoactasapointerforsubsequentresearch.Itwasnot

designedtobeperfectlybalancedforthetheoreticalreasonsdetailedinthe

previoussection;producingadirectisomorphofrulechangesinacomplex

environmentisextraordinarilycomplicatedandpotentiallyselfdefeating.A

generalhypothesiswasthereforeemployedratherthanspecificpredictions.It

washypothesizedthatapproximatelyisomorphicruleswouldproduce

observabledifferencesinbehaviour.

Thetaskwasdesignedtocontainanelementofnoveltyintheformofintroduced

rulealterations,butfamiliarityintheunderlyingmechanismsandmanipulations

beingemployed.Itwasalsodesignedtoallowadegreeoffreedomofbehaviour

andchoice,inorderthatalternativebehaviourswerepossible.

Design

Measurementswerekeptgeneralratherthantightlycontrolledorspecificby

design,aswhatshouldbeobservedwasnotyetestablishedandthehypothesis

wasgeneralratherthanspecific.

Thestudy’senvironmentwasrequiredtofitseveralrequirements.Itwas

intendedtobeafamiliartaskthatwasalsomodifiableinordertointroducethe

novelelement.Itwouldalsoneedtoberelativelycontrolled,witheasily

38

identifiedandcategorisedactionsandbehaviours.Finallyitwasdesiredthatit

wouldbeambiguous,atleasttothedegreethatoptimalbehaviourcouldnotbe

easilyandobviouslyadoptedinordertobeabletodifferentiatebetween

differentstrategicapproachestotheproblem.

Itwasdecidedtoutilisethecardgame‘solitaire’.Gamespresentacontrollable

andconstrainedenvironmenttostudybehaviour,wherethelimitsandfeatures

ofasystemcanbereadilyunderstoodandaccountedfor.Theparadigmalso

enablesfortheintroductionofanewruleasasourceofvariationtoafamiliar

environment.

Apotentialobjectiontothismethodologyisthatthegameiscomparatively

knowledge‐lightandsolvable(inthemannerthattheoriesofsituatedcognition

takeexceptiontotraditionallimited‐scopedecisionmakingexperiments(Kirsh,

2009)).However,thisisnotconsideredproblematicfortworeasons.Firstlythe

taskdomainstillrepresentsasignificantexpansionofpotentialaction.Secondly,

whilstsmallchangestocardgamescanpotentiallybemadeoptimalitdoesnot

followthattheycanbemadeoptimalandimplementedperfectlybyaperson‐

particularlynotwhilstplayingthegameforthefirsttime.Thechangesare

sufficientlycomplexthatthereisenoughambiguityformistakestobemadeand

imperfectandvariablestrategiesadopted.Additionally,theaimofthislineof

studyisnottoestablishabest‐fitsolutionforthisgame,cardgamesorindeed

gamesingeneral–butrathertounderstandthecognitiveprocessesinvolvedin

reasoningformorecomplexsituations.Themethodologyofgoingfrom

encounteringsomethingnewandthenendingupatasolutionarewhatis

interesting,nottheresultitself.Theprocessofdevelopingasolutionandtowhat

degreeitisprimedbycontextisstillrelevantwhenobtainedfroman

optimizablescenario,althoughtheeventualintentionistounderstanditinterms

ofnon‐perfectibleexamples.

Method

Participantswerepre‐selectedonthebasisofhavingfamiliaritywithsolitaire

simplybyaskingthemiftheyknewhowtoplayit.Otherwise,nocriteriawere

appliedtorecruitment,otherthanavailability.

39

Initially,allparticipantsfilledoutaquestionnairethatconsistedofaLikert‐scale

setofquestionsratingtheirconfidenceinandlevelofunderstandingofgamesin

generalandsolitaireinparticular(seeappendixone).Theythenansweredaset

ofopen‐endedquestionsaboutthegamedesignedtoelicitknowledgeabouthow

thegameworkedandparticularstrategies,aswellasgeneralunderstandingof

strategyandadaptationintheireverydaylife.

Solitaire

Solitaireisasingleplayercardgamethatisalsoknownaspatienceandfamiliar

toalargenumberofpeopleatleastinpartduetoitsinclusionasafreegamein

Microsoftwindowsoperatingsystemssinceatleastwindows3.11.

Thegameisusuallyplayedwithafulldeckofnormalcards(AcetoKingofall

foursuit),althoughforthepurposesofthisexperimentitwasplayedwithAceto

Queen,astheremovaloftheKingsmadethegamemarginallyeasiertoplayand

quickertocomplete.

Solitairehasasetofcoremechanics,althoughthereissomevarianceinhow

particularindividualsplay.Thereexist,forinstance,multipleoptionsforhow

manycardsaplayerdealsfromthedeck,andhowmanytimestheyareallowed

tocyclethroughsaiddeckinthecourseofthegame.Therulespresentedbelow

andusedinthisexperimentareonecommoninstanceoftheoptionsavailable.

Objective

Theobjectiveofagameofsolitaireistomovecardsfromtheplayingareainto

foursortedpilesofcardsascendingfromAcetoQueeninagivensuit.These

cardscanbemovedatanytimefromtheplayarea,butmustbemovedinorder,

startingwiththeacesandcontinuingupwards.Thecardscanbemovedback

downoncetheyhavebeenplacedinthewinningpilestobeusedinthegame

againaspartofalegalmove,butonlyiftheyarethetopcard.

Setup

Itwasnecessarytosetuptheplayingareacorrectlybeforestarting.Sevenpiles

ofcardsweredealtontothetableinalineinfrontoftheparticipant.Fromright

toleftthesepilescontainedanascendingnumberofcards,fromoneonthefar

40

righttosevenonthefarleft.Thetopcardofeachpilewasthenturnedoverso

thatitwasfaceupandleftontopofthepile.Thepileswerestaggeredslightlyso

thatitwasvisiblehowmanycardswereleftineachcaseundertheface‐upcard.

Abovethisarrangementofcards,fourspacesweredesignatedforcardstobe

movedintoaspartofthewinconditionofthegame.

Theremainingcardswereplacedfacedownonthetableinfrontofthe

participanttoserveasthedeckfromwhichadditionalcardswouldbedrawnin

thecourseofthegame.

Play

Playproceedswithaparticipantmakingalegalmove.Thereareseveralmoves

whicharelegal,andaplayercanperformanyoftheseanynumberoftimes

beforechoosingtodoanother.Thesemovetypesaredetailedbelow.

Deal–Aplayerdealsthreecardsinsequenceontothetable,orontopreviously

dealtcardsifitisnotthefirsttimethattheyhavedealt.Thesecardsaredealt

faceup.Aplayermaythenusethetopmostcardtomakealegalmove.Ifthey

succeedatthistheycanusethenextcarddown,andsoforth.Ifthereareless

thanthreecardsinthedeck,theydealasmanycardsareleftandplayfromthat.

Iftherearenocardslefttobeplayed,theplayerpicksupthepileofdealtcards

andturnsitoverwithoutshufflingandusesitasthedecktobedealtfromonce

more.

Move–anycardwhichisfaceuponthetablecanbeplacedontoanothercardon

thetableprovideditisontheplayingarea.Cardscannotbeplacedontothecards

thathavebeendealt.Therulesthatgovernwhichcardscanbemovedintothe

winpileshavealreadybeenexplained.Withinthedeck,cardmovementis

governedbycolourandnumberofthecardratherthanthesuit.Acardcanonly

beplacedonanothercardthatisnumericallyonehigherthanit,andofthe

opposite(redorblack)colour).Soasevenofclubs(black)canbeplacedonthe

eightofdiamonds(red),butthesevenofhearts(red)couldnot.Norcouldthesix

ofclubs(black),whichistherightcolour,butwrongnumber.

41

Ifcardsareassembledintoastackofcardsinthismanner,theycanthenbe

treatedasasinglecardforthepurposesofmovingthem.Astackthathasthe

sevenofheartsasitshighestcardcanbemovedinitsentiretyontotheeightof

clubs–whichmayitselfbepartofastack.Thesestackscanalsobedisassembled

ifitisdesired,withanycardfromthestackabletoactasthe‘top’cardforthe

purposeofmovingthem.

Cardscannotbemovedasastackuptothewinpiles,sinceobviouslytheybreak

therulesofhowcardsmustbeplacedinthosepositions.

Ifinthecourseofplaythecardthatisupmostandfaceuponapileofcardsis

movedawayfromthatpile,thecardunderneathitisturnedovertobefaceup

andcanthenbeplayedasnormal.

Ifapileofcardsonthetableisexhausted,thatspaceisnowopen.Onlythe

highestcard(aQueen)canbemovedintoiteitheraloneoraspartofastack,and

thequeenscanbeusednormallyfromthatpoint.

Thegameendswheneitherallthecardsareinthewinningposition,thereareno

morelegalmoves,ortheplayerdecidestostopthegame.

Videofootagewastakenofallthegamesplayed.Participantswereinstructedto

playfivegamesofregularsolitaire.Theywereallowedtochoosethepointat

whichtheystopped,eitherwhentheycompletedthegameorfoundthatthey

hadnomoreviablemovestomake.Beforetheystartedtheywerepresented

withstandardrules,andalsoencouragedtoaskanyquestionsthattherulesmay

nothavecoveredtoensureconsistencyofapproach.Thiswasduetothehigh

variabilityofsolitairerulesandtheprevalenceof‘houserules’thatare

commonlyused.Participantswerefilmedwhilstundertakingthetask,and

encouragedto‘thinkaloud’aboutthemovestheyweremakingiftheyfeltthey

hadanythingtonote.

Afterfivegamestheywerethengivenoneoftwoadditionalrulesforthegame:

‐ The‘FreeCell’conditionintroducedafreecellsuchasthosefoundinthe

namesakecardgame,whereanyonecardcouldbeplacedandstoredwith

norestriction(otherthantherequirementthatithadtobepermissibleto

42

movethecardinthefirstplace).Oncethefreecellwasoccupieditwas

full,andnomorecardscouldbestoredthere.Cardscouldberemoved

fromthefreecellatanypointwherealegalmovewaspermissible.

‐ The‘WildSevens’conditionmadeaddedarulespecifyingthat,sevens

wereexemptfromthenormalrulesofcardplacement.Theycouldbe

placedonanycard,andhaveanycardplaceduponthem.However,ifthey

wereusedinamannerthatwouldnormallyhavenotbeenpermissibleno

stackbeyondoneinitialcardcouldbeplacedonthem.

Theserulesrepresenteddifferentmethodsofobtainingfunctionallysimilar

changestothegameenvironment.Inbothconditionsitwasnowpossibleto

movecardsoutsideofthenormalplacementrules.

Finally,oncethegameswerecompleteparticipantswereaskedfortheir

thoughtsontheirstrategieswhendealingwiththenewrulesinaquestionnaire

(seeappendixtwo).

SortingandCoding

Multipleempiricalmeasuresweretakenfromtheexperiment,primarilyfrom

studyingthevideotapesretrospectively.Fromplayback,thetimeofeachmove

madewasrecordedandcodedaccordingtothetypeofactionthatwasoccuring.

Thecodingsusedwereasfollows:

Uncover:Amovewhereacardisuncovered,eitherturningacardfaceuponthe

board,ordealingcardsfromthepack

Normal:Amovewhereafaceupcardismovedontheboardofplay,eitherfrom

thepack,betweencardsontheboard,oruptothefinishingpiles.Anycard

movementthatcouldbeperformedundertheregularrules,andinnoway

involvedthenewrules.

Special:Amovewherethenewrulesarebeingboughtintoplay(movingcardsto

thefreecell,playingacardonawildseven)

Reverting:Amovethattakesacardcurrentlypositionedasaresultofthenew

rules(inthefreecell,onawildseven)andplacesitbackintoregularplay.

43

Pass:Whereanewmovewaspossible,butdeclined.Primarilycodedforwhen

sevensappearedinthedealingpack,butwerenotutilised(sincetheycouldbe

placedonanycard,theyarealwayscapableofbeingused)

NonSpecial:SpecifictotheWildsevenrule,whereasevenisusedinamanner

thatdidnotrequirethenewrule(placedonaneight,forinstance)

Thesecodingswereconsideredsufficienttocovertherangeofpossibleactions

interestingtothisanalysis,withoutbeingsospecificastodefytheidentification

ofanypatterns.

Participants

Therewere6participantsintotal,threeineachcondition.Thereweretwo

womenandonemanineachcondition.Themeanageofparticipantswas24,and

themedian23.

ResultsandAnalysis

Asthenatureofthisstudywasexploratoryratherthanhypothesistesting,the

analysisfocusedonlookingforpatternsandtrendsinthedata.Statistical

analysiswasnotemployedforavarietyofreasons‐primarilyalackofstatistical

powerandanevidentlackofcontrolofextraneousvariablesinparticipant

selection.

OverallData

Twoempiricaloverallmeasuresweretaken.Firstly,thetotaltimetakentoreach

theendofagamewasmeasured.Notethatasitwaspossibleforagivengameto

beimpossibletocompleteorthataplayersimplyfailed,thisdoesnotnecessarily

representa‘complete’state.Inordertomeasurehowcompleteagamewas,a

secondmeasureof‘depth’wastaken.Thiswasacountofhowmanycardswere

faceuponthetableattheendofthegame(includingcardsmovedintofinishing

piles),andthereforehow‘deep’intothegameaparticipanthadmanagedtoget.

Therewasaminimumscoreof0,andamaximumscoreof41.Thiswasbecause

therewerenokingsinuse(makingthemaximumnumberofcards48)andseven

cardswerefaceuponthetableatthestartofthegame.Athirdmeasureof‘time

perdepth’(TPD)wasgeneratedbydividingthetimebythedepthobtainedto

44

giveanindicationofhowquicklyparticipantsweremakingprogressthroughthe

gamewhilstcontrollingfordifferingplaylengths.

FreeCell Wild7

Time

(seconds) Depth

TimePer

Depth

Time

(seconds) Depth

TimePer

Depth

Baseline 228.61 21.93 11.22 387.55 20.53 21.90

RuleChange 257.74 24.27 10.98 467.63 25.13 18.91

RawChange 29.13 2.33 ‐0.24 80.08 4.60 ‐3.00

Percentage

Change 12.74 10.64 ‐2.14 20.66 22.40 ‐13.67

Table3.1:Meanvaluesforoverallmeasures,allfiguresgivento2dp

Thesefiguresprovideanumberofbasicobservationsabouttheexperiment.Post

rulechangebothgroupsappeartobegettingdeeperintothegame.Their

efficiencymayalsohaveimprovedastpdwasdifferentforbothgroups.

Thegroupsmayhavestartedatdifferentlevelsofbaselineskill.TheWildSevens

conditionparticipantstooksignificantlylongeranddidnotgetasfarintothe

gameasintheFreeCellconditionevenbeforetherulechange.Thedifferencein

depthachievedasaresultoftherulechangebetweenthetwogroupsappears

reasonablyconsistentconsideringthesmallsamplesize,thereforethetworules

appearreasonablyequalintermsoftheactualbenefittheygivetoplayersfor

completingthegame.

ConfidenceandPerformance

Priortotheexperimentasnoted,participantscompletedabriefLikertscale

questionnairethatmeasuredparticipantconfidenceintheirplayingabilities.

Thisconcernedbothsolitairespecifically,andcardgamesandstrategygenerally,

includingtheirperceptionoftheirabilitytoadapt.Toexamineiftheremightbea

relationshipbetweenconfidenceandtaskperformance,thesescoreswere

plottedagainstthedifferencebetweendepthscoresbetweenconditions.

45

Figure3.1:Participantconfidence(xaxis)againstrelativechangeindepth

betweentrials(yaxis)

Figure3.1suggestsacorrelationmayexistbetweenthetwofactors.Thismay

simplyrepresentparticipants’accurateestimationoftheirownabilities.

However,itwasalsopossiblethatthiswasindicativeofthemannerinwhich

newstrategiesweretriedandadopted;thatconfidenceindicateshowsuccessful

aparticipantmightbebecausetheyweremorewillingtotrythings.

LearningandProgression

Alsoofinterestinthisstudywashowparticipantsprogressedoverthecourseof

theexperiment;thedevelopmentofstrategiesandskill.Themetricsdetailed

abovecouldalsobetrackedonagame‐by‐gamebasis.Initially,thebaseline

gameswereaveragedasawhole(sinceatthispointtherewasnodifference

betweentheconditions).

46

Figure3.2:Meantimetakentocompletebaselinegamesforallparticipantsin

secondsbytime(yaxis)andgameprogression(xaxis)

Intheabove(figure3.2)thereappearstobealearningeffect,completingthe

taskwithincreasingspeedinlatergames.Howeverasimilarpatterncannotbe

seenforgamedepth(seefigure3.3below)

Figure3.3:Meandepthscoresforallparticipantsinbaselinegamesbygamedepth

(yaxis)andgameprogression(xaxis)

Hereitcanbeseenthatthedepthobtaineddoesnotseemtoincreasewith

increasinggames,asmightbeexpected.Itseemslikelythatthehighvariabilityof

47

potentialsetupsandoutcomesinthetaskisthereasonforthis,butno

conclusionscanbedrawnfromthedata.

Progressionwithintherule‐changetrialswasalsochartedandcompared

betweenthetwoconditions.Fortimingdata,therewasadistinctdifference

betweenthetwo,ascanbeseenbelow(infigure3.4).

Figure3.4:Meantimetakentocompleteamodifiedrulegameinsecondsfor

FreeCellandWildSevenconditions,bytime(yaxis)andgameprogression(xaxis)

Ascanbeseenabove,theFreeCellconditiondemonstratesarelativelylinear

progressiondownwardsthatisconsistentwiththepatternseeninthebaseline

condition.IntheWildSevenscondition,however,thereisanupwardstrendof

timetakenthatcontinuesforbothgames3and4,suggestingthatitisnota

simpleaberration(andtheparticipantdataconfirmsthatthisisnotdowntoa

singleinstanceofapersontakingaverylongtimeandskewingtheaverage).

Thiscouldbeforseveralreasons,themostobviousbeingthatthereissomesort

oflearningprocessgoingonfortheWildSevenparticipantsinthoselatergames

thatisnotoccurringintheFreeCellcondition.Thisiscausingtheparticipantsto

takelongerandpresumablyasaresultgaingreatergamedepth.

48

Figure3.5:MeandepthscoresforFreeCellandWildSevenconditionsbydepth

score(yaxis)andgameprogression(xaxis)

Here(infigure3.5)twothingsareofparticularnote.Firstly,thehypothesis

abouttheincreasedtimebeingasignofincreasedprogressionappearstobe

accurateintheWildSevencondition,providingabasisforlookingforsomesort

ofpatternofnewbehaviourinthattime.Secondly,theFreeCellconditionscores

actuallydeclineovertime–asurprisingresultgiventhattheyalsohadanew

ruletouseandgoesagainstexpectationsofincreasingability.However,itshould

benotedthatallofthegamesotherthanthelastonearestillbeatingthepre‐rule

averagedepthobtained,sothereisstillgeneralimprovementbetween

conditions.Thedeclinecanbeattributedtotwofactorsinalllikelihood:firstly

therandomnatureofthegamesjustbeinglesssolvablebychance,andsecondly

thatparticipantshadbeenplaying10gameofsolitairebytheendofthe

experiment.Itislikelythattherewasadegreeoffatigueatthispoint(severalof

theparticipantsmentionedsuchfeelings)andthedropinperformanceforthe

lastgameinbothconditionsisprobablyindicativeofthisboredomwiththetask.

PatternAnalysis

Havingestablishedfromtheabovedatathattherewasreasontobelievethatthe

twoconditionsmayhavebeenresponsibleforthedifferencesinperformance

metrics,thenextquestionwaswhetherthedifferentrulesmaybegenerating

49

differentstrategicapproaches.Forthisthecodingsnotedearlierwereusedto

examinewhatmovesweremadeatwhattime.

Graphicalrepresentationsofallthegamesplayedweregenerated,anda

selectionofthegraphsandkeyobservationsarepresentedhere.Combination

graphswerecreatedofmultiplegames.Sincethegameslastedadifferent

amountofrawtime,thesewereconvertedintoapercentageandoverlaid.

InitialApproaches

Theplaypatternsofthefirstgameswiththenewrulesforbothconditionswere

comparedandcontrasted.Forthesegraphs,allparticipantgamedatawastaken

andpresentedonanormalisedpercentagescaleoftime.

Figure3.6:Movetype(seekey)playtimebypercentageofgametimeelapsed(x

axis)forthefirstmodifiedrulegameforallparticipantsinWildSevenscondition.


axis)forthefirstmodifiedrulegameforallparticipantsinFreeCellcondition.

Ascanbeseenfromtheabove(figures3.6‐3.7),themoststrikingdifference

betweenthetwoconditionsistherelativetimeatwhichparticipantsusethe

newrule.IntheWildSevenscondition,theruleisonlyusedtowardstheendof

50

thegame,andonlyafterasignificantamountofcyclingthroughthedeck.It

appearsthatparticipantswereonlyusingitafteralltheotheravailableoptions

hadexhaustedthemselves.Thismaybepartiallydowntoavailability;inthisrule

conditiontherewasnoguaranteeaparticipantmighthaveaccesstoasevenat

anygiventime,unliketheFreeCellexample.However,asthechartshowsthere

infactwasavailabilityofsevens,butthattheywerebeingusedasnormalmoves

instead.Itmaythusbeinferredthatparticipantshadtheoptionofmakinga

move,butchosenotto.

Bycontrast,theFreeCellconditionischaracterisedbysignificantlyearlieruseof

themove.Thereissomeevidenceofcycling,asintheWildSevenscondition,

beforeuse,butnottotheextentthatisfoundintheWildSevensinstance.Here

insteaditappearsthatparticipantsbothhavetheoptionofmakingamove,and

arechoosingtomakeuseofit.

Giventhatbothrulesarefunctionallyverysimilar,andthattheyatleastprovide

forthepossibilityofsimilarapplicationthatparticipantschoosenottoutilise,it

canbeinferredthatdifferentstrategiesmaybebeingappliedasaresultofthe

differentpresentationoftherules.However,analternativehypothesiswouldbe

thattherelativecomplexityoftheWildSevensinstancewasdeterring

participantsfromitsuseincomparisontothemorestraightforwardFreeCell.

FinalStrategies

Asabove,thefinalgamesforeachconditionwerechartedaccordingtomove

type.


axis)forthefifthandfinalmodifiedrulegameforallparticipantsintheWild

Sevenscondition.

51


axis)forthefifthandfinalmodifiedrulegameforallparticipantsintheFreeCell

condition.

Inthesecharts(figures3.8and3.9),twothingsinparticularareofnote:

Firstly,thepatternsofusearenowbroadlyidentical.Thisisnotinabsolute

terms,astheWildSevensconditionisusingtherulemore,butintermsof

distributionbothconditionsnowusetheruledistributedthroughoutthe

playtimeofthegames.Withintheindividualgames,agreatdealofcycling

throughcardscanbeseeninallconditionsbeforethespecialruleisappliednow.

Theactualuseoftheruleappearstobelargelyequalbetweenthetwo

conditions.Thissupportstheexpectationthattheconditionswereequivalentin

thefunctionalchangetheywereinducing.

ThereisnowamuchgreateramountofpassingthatcanbeseenintheWild

Sevenscondition.Thisissignificantbecauseitindicatesthatparticipantshave

movedtoavoidingusingthecardsuntilthereisaspecificpurpose.Thisis

suggeststhatthiscondition,liketheFreeCell,hasmovedtowardsusingtherule

asa‘getout’clausewherenoothermoveisavailable.

Thesignificanceofthesefinalgraphsisessentiallythattwodifferentrulesthat

havebeeninitiallyappliedindifferentmannershavemovedtowardsa

consensusapplicationofbeststrategy.

Theseobservationscannotbetakenasempiricalevidenceforthereasonsstated

earlier.However,usingtheobservationsobtainedasastartingpointfor

speculation,twohypothesesforsubsequentempiricalinvestigationwere

generated:

52

1) Strategyformationisinfluencedbycontext,andthemannerinwhich

informationispresented,independentofthesemanticcontentofthat

information

2) Feedbackwilleventuallyovercomethiseffectandtrendtowardsabest

logicalstrategy.

AModelofNovelAdaptation

Inadditiontoprovidingthebasisforfuturehypothesistesting,theabovedata

alsoprovidesabasisforsomecognitivemodeling.Aswiththeabovehypothesis

generationthisisapurelyspeculativestepwhichwillbeaddressedempirically

insubsequentwork.

Fromtheaboveanalysis,andadditionalexaminationofindividualparticipant

gamedata,afour‐stagemodelofnoveladaptationcanbeproposed.Thisisa

high‐levelconstruct,mappingtheoverallprocessratherthanprovidingclose

specificityoftaskimplementation,andforgoodreason.Thenatureofadaptation

toanovelscenariois,bydefinition,goingtoinvolveutilizingspecificprocesses

thatcannotbeanticipatedaheadoftime(elsethescenariowouldbeanticipated

andthusnotnovel).Thus,anabstractlevelaccountofthegeneralizedprocesses

ismoreappropriate.

Figure3.10showsthefourproposedstagesofadaptation.Ascanbeseen,the

modelisacircularprocess,sinceadaptationandtheabilitytoadaptare

propertiesthatseemtobeinnate,andcontinuouslyactivatedforhumans.This

modelassumesthatthisisduetoaperpetualcycle,ratherthanindividual

monitoringsystems,asitseemsunlikelythattheconditionsforasingle

monitoringsystembeingactivatedcouldbesatisfactorilydefinedgiventhe

rangeandscopeoftherealworld.Thefourstagesareasfollows:

Comprehension:Concernedwithwhathaschanged.Thiscoversboththe

processingofinformationtobeabletomakethatdistinction,andalsothe

makingofsaiddistinction.Iftheunderstandingofagivensituationisunderstood

ofthecurrentmentalmodel(aspreviousworkgenerallydoes)thenthisstage

involvesupdatingsaidmodel.Itdoesnotinvolvemanipulationofthe

53

informationwithin,beyondtheprocessofbecomingawareofthechangesthat

haveoccurred.Notethatthisallowsforthepossibilityoferrors.Thesemay

include,butarenotlimitedto,failuretonoteachange,noticingachangewhere

thereisnoneandcorrectrecognitionbutincorrectattributionofeffect.

.

Figure3.10:Ahighlevelcognitivemodeloftheabstractstagesinvolvedin

adaptationtoanovelscenario.

Itencapsulatesboththeformalchangesinrules,butalsotheimplicationsof

theserules.Asanexample,whilsttherulefortheWildSevensconditioncouldbe

verbalized,theexactwayinwhichthisimpactsgameplaymaynotbefully

understood,especiallysincealthoughtheruleitselfissimple,theinteractionsit

producesarenot.Thegradualprocessofcomprehensioncouldbeseeninthe

WildSevenscondition,asparticipantsgraduallyalteredtheirpatternsofuseof

thesevensastheimplicationsofthoserulesbecamemoreapparentthrough

feedback(seelater)

Formulation:Althoughnotdirectlyobservableassuch,thisstageisatheoretical

propositionthatmustexistgivenourunderstandingofcognition.Herethe

alteredsituationisanalysed,considered,andnewapproachesandstrategiesare

constructedonthebasisofthementalmodelproducedinthepreviousstage.

Implementation:Enactingtheplansproducedinformulation.

54

Notethatitispossibletochangeplans,oralterbehaviour–butthisstill

indicatesanothertripthroughtheloop.Implementationintentionallyonly

coverstheliteralenactingoftheplanformed.Thiscouldevenbetosimplytake

noaction.Itisalsopossiblethattherecanbesmalladjustmentstoanongoing

plan–again,thiswouldfallunderthepurviewofbeingproducedinformulation.

Feedback:Theprocessofgatheringinformationaboutthestateoftheworldand

specificallythesystembeingconsidered.

Thisencompassesbothunconsciousinformationbeinggatheredsimplyasa

matterofcourse(tactilefeedback,visualinformation),aswellasanygathering

asaresultofplannedaction.Anyinformationthatanactorbecomesawareof

andthereforeinformsorupdatesthementalmodelisconsideredtobe

‘feedback’,albeitofvaryingsignificance.

Asshouldbeapparentfromthisinitialdescription,thisisanearlyframework

withinwhichtoconsidertheproblemofnoveladaptation.Thereareanumberof

assumptionsunderlyingitthathaveyettobetestedeitherexplicitlyorasa

resultofmorespecificobservationalstudies.Asanexample,itassumesthat

processingproceedsinalinearpathwayaroundthisloop,whereanalternative

hypothesismightspeculatethatfeedbackloopsexistbetweentheindividual

sectionsasappropriate.Thisisconsideredtobeareasonableproposition,since

thestagesarelargelydependentuponeachotherforanyupdating–amental

modelwillnotbeupdatedwithoutnewinformationofsomesort(evenifthat

informationwasalackoffeedback),forinstance.Still,thisisthereasonitexists;

tostartaskingquestionsofthatnature.

Explanations&Predictions

Thismodelcanbeusedtoexplainsomeoftheresultsseeninthisstudy.

IntheFreeCellcondition,participantsunderstoodthechangealmostinstantlyin

termsofhowtousetherule,butnottheimplicationsorthebest‐usepolicies.

Therefore,aperiodofcomprehension,wheretheexactimplicationsoftherule

areexploredin‐situcanbeobserved–participants‘tryingout’therulerightat

thestartoftheirfirstgame.Oncethishasbeencompleted,abetter

55

understandingoftheimplicationsisgainedandwhatcansubsequentlybe

observedisaniterativeprocessofrefinement,viaformulation,towardshowto

applythatunderstanding.

IntheWildSevenscondition,thecomprehensionstagewasmorecomplicated.

Duetothelessstraightforwardnatureoftheruleseveraliterationsoffeedback

informingcomprehensionwererequiredbeforeboththeuseitselfandthebest

usepolicieswereformulatedintoasimilarformtothatseenmorerapidlyinthe

FreeCellinstance.Inbothcasesdevelopingimplementationcanbeobserved,and

feedbackintheformofresultsisconstantlyforthcoming.Thedifferinglevelsof

formulationthatcanbeinferredcanthereforebepresumablyattributedto

differinglevelsofcomprehension.

Discussion

Thisstudysoughttoprovidequalitativeinspirationtobasesubsequent

empiricalworkon.Ithasnotprovidedspecificvalidation,buttheunverified

observationscanprovideabasisforfurtherwork.

Theapproachappearstohavepotential.Bylimitingdowntheproblemspacetoa

solitairecardgame,varyingstrategiesresultingfromdifferentpresentationsof

equivalentrulesmayhaveoccured.Althoughasimplificationofthegeneralized

principlebeingstudied,itseemsthattheapproachisprovidingviableresultsfor

furtheranalysis.Thereforetheprincipleofalimitedbutpotentiallydynamic

environmentwillbecarriedforwardsforsubsequentstudies.

Thestudyalsosuggeststhatcontextappearstobeabletodrivedifferent

strategicapproachestoessentiallythesameproblem.Thishasprovidedthe

basisforaskingnewquestionsatthestrategiclevel,andalsofordefiningthe

boundariesofthenextexperimentstobeabletoaddressthesequestions.

56

CHAPTERFOUR–FramingTaskInstructions:TheCardGameStudy

Introduction

Havingidentifiedtheimpactofframingeffectsonstrategicbehaviourintasksas

anareaforpotentialinvestigation,thischapterwilldetailafirststudyin

addressingthisexperimentally.

Ataskwasdesignedwherestrategicinformationwasframed.Thisreliedupon

theexpandedandreviseddefinitionofframingasdetailedintheliterature

reviewchapter.Thetaskwasintendedtobefamiliarandthusnotutterlynovel,

inordertolimitlearningeffectsasmuchaspossibletobeingattributabletothe

framingeffectsemployed.Acardgamewasusedforthispurpose,basedroughly

ontherulesof‘Uno’althoughmodifiedasdetailedbelow.Theintentwasto

presenttheinstructionsofthetaskintwodifferentways,andsimplybyframing

thesameinformationindifferentwaystocausedifferentstrategiestobe

employed.

Design

Forthepurposesofthistask,ascenariowasrequiredthatwouldberestricted

enoughtoenableaccuratemanipulationoftheframingeffect,whilstalsobeing

openenoughtoenableviablealternativestrategiestoexist.Experiencewiththe

previousexperimentsuggestedthatcardgamesprovidedaneatlylimited

environmentinwhichtoconstructsuchascenario,butthatpattern‐spotting

solitairegamesdidnotprovidesufficientstrategicrangetoaddressthis

question.Consequentlyamultiplayercard‐gamewaschosenasthebasisforthe

design,whereamajorityoftheactionsanddecisionscouldbemeasured,

understoodandexplicitlyquantified,whilestillenablingarangeofoptionsand

tacticalchoicestobeobservable.Theuseofamultiplayergameraisesquestions

ofexperimentalvaliditybutthesewerenotconsideredsufficienttoquestionthe

results(seethecaveatssectionlaterfordetails).

57

Inthissection,therulesofthegameusedwillbeexplainedfirst,andthenthe

mannerinwhichthegameinstructionswereframedwillbedetailed.Afterthese

generalhypothesesforthetaskwillbedescribed,andthenthespecific

experimentalprocedurewillbeexplained.

GameRules

Thegameusedtookthebasicstructureandformofthegames‘Crazy8’s’and

‘Uno’,withsomemodification.Thesewereselectedbothfortherelativelysimple

natureofthegamesconcerned,butalsotheirfamiliarity–theyemploybasic

mechanicscommontomanycardgames.Itwaschosentoframetheinstructions

giventoparticipantsastheindependentvariable,anticipatingthatthiswould

causestrategicdifferencesbetweenconditions.

Therulesofthegamewereasfollows:

Objective:

Thegamewasplayedoveratotaloffourrounds.Theobjectivewastobethe

lowestscoringparticipantattheendoftheserounds.

Eachroundcouldendinoneoftwoways:

1) Oneplayermanagedtogetridofalltheircards

2) Thedeckwasexhausted,andtherewerenomorecardstopickup.

Attheendofaround,pointswereallocatedaccordingtohowmanycardseach

playerhadintheirhand,andwhattypeofcardsthesewere.Allpowercards

countedfortenpoints,whilstallothercardscountedforonepointonly.

Play:

Eachplayerwasdealt6cards.Playproceededinaclockwisedirection.Onecard

wastakenfromthedrawpileandplacedface‐upinthecenterofthetable,which

wastreatedexactlyasthoughithadbeenplayed,includinganyeffects.Each

playerthentookitinturntoplaceacardonthepileinthecenterofthetable.

Thecardhadtobeeitherthesamesuit,orthesamenumberasthecardface‐up

inthecenter.Onlyonecardcouldbeplayedatatime,regardlessoftype.

58

Ifaplayercouldnotplay,orchoosetonotplay,theyhadtodiscardacard

insteadfacedownontothediscardpile.Theythenpickeduptwocards.There

wasanexceptiontothisruleforwhenaplayerhadonlyonecardleft,inwhich

casetheyjustdrewasinglecard.

PowerCards:

Somecardshadadditionaleffectswhenplayed.Thesewerereferredtoas‘power

cards’.

Twos:Thenextplayerhadtopickuptwocards,andthenmisstheirturn.

Jacks:Thenextplayerhadtopickupfourcards,andthenmisstheirturn

Aces:Couldbeplayedontoanything,atanytimeregardlessofsuitornumberof

thecardonthestack.Theplayerthennominatedasuitforthenextplayerto

playto.

Eights:Skippedthenextplayer’sturn

Sevens:Reversedthedirectionofplay.

FrameConstruction

Inorderthatthegameinstructionscouldbeframing,thereneededtobeviable

alternativeapproachestothegametoselectbetween.Scoringcardsattheendof

eachroundprovidedtheseoptions.

Withnoscoringsystemitisunambiguouslybeneficialtobeholdingpowercards

comparedtonormalcards,astheyenabletheplayertohavemoreofaneffecton

theprogressofthegame.Thescoringsystemcausedpossessingthemtobeof

ambiguousbenefit.Theycouldallowmorebehaviour,butwouldpotentially

penaliseaplayerattheendofaround.Havingthedeckrunningoutofcardsas

anend‐conditionaddedanadditionalpressureonthisdimension,astherewasa

finiteamountoftimeinwhichtogetridofcards.

Anotheradditionwasmadetotherulesintheformofdiscarding.Because

playerswereexpectedtowishtogetridoftheirpowercardsbyanymeans

59

necessary,itwaspermittedforplayerstodiscardacardatanytimeratherthan

takingtheirturn.However,asapenaltytheywouldthenhavetodrawtwocards.

Theriskofdrawinganadditionalpowercardshouldnotbeasgreatasthe

potentialbenefitofgettingridofoneyouarealreadyholdingifthegamelooks

likelytoendsoon.Playerswerealsoobligedtodiscardiftheycouldnotplay,and

againhadtodrawtwocards.Thisforcedplayerstomakechoicesaboutwhich

cardstheyvaluedwhichcouldbequantitativelymeasured.

Anovelruleaboutdiscardingwasalsoaddedtoenabledifferentbehaviour.

Becausegettingridofpowercardswasexpectedtobethepreferredstrategyfor

onesideoftheframe,itwaspermittedforplayerstodiscardacardatanytime

ratherthantakingtheirturn,atthepenaltyofpickinguptwocards.Playerswere

alsoobligedtodiscardiftheycouldnotplay,andagainhadtodrawtwocards.

Thismechanismwasexpectedtoshowcardpreferencebetweenthetwotypes

(power/normal).

Framingwasconductedalongtheexpandedlinesdetailedintheprevious

chapter.Itwasbothmulti‐dimensional(comprisingseveralchangesintherule

text)andlesstightlyboundasclassicalstudieswouldrequire.

Theexperimentwasdividedintotwoconditions,highvalueandlowvalue.All

participantswerepresentedwithinstructionsthatexplainedthegameandrules

atthestartoftheexperiment.Theinstructionsemphasiseddifferentstrategies

forwinningviaaseriesofframingmanipulations.Thehighvalueinstructions

emphasisedthatpowercardswereusefulinfacilitatingawin,implyingthatthey

couldbemoreusefulifheldontoratherthanquicklyplayed.Thelowvalue

instructionsemphasisedthepenaltythatplayersfacediftheyheldontopower

cards,andtheideathatitwasmoreimportanttogainanoveralllowscorethan

itwastowinindividualrounds.Semanticdifferenceswerekepttoaminimum.

Someunevenrepetitionwasusedforemphasis,buttherewasnoinformationin

oneconditionthatdidnotexistintheother.

HighValueInstructions:

Todayyouwillbeplayingasimplecardgamewiththreeotherparticipants.

60

Thegamewillbeplayedoveratotaloffourrounds.Theobjectiveistobethelowestscoringparticipantattheendoftheserounds.

Ineachround,theobjectiveistoscoreaslowaspossible.Theroundcanendinoneoftwoways:

1) Oneplayermanagestogetridofalltheircards2) Thedeckisexhausted,andtherearenomorecardstopickup.

Attheendofaround,pointsareallocatedaccordingtohowmanycardseachplayerhasintheirhand,andwhattypeofcardstheyare.

Allcardscountforonepoint,exceptforpowercards,whichcountforten.

Thebestscorepossibleis0,ifaplayermanagestogetridoftheircardsinallfourrounds.

Play:

Eachplayerisdealt6cards.

Playproceedsinaclockwisedirection.Onecardistakenfromthedrawpileandplacedfaceupinthecenterofthetable,whichisplayedexactlyasthoughithadbeenplayed,includinganyeffects.Eachplayertakesitinturntoplaceacardonthepileinthecenterofthetable.Thecardmustbeeitherthesamesuit,orthesamenumberasthecardfaceupinthecenter.

Onlyonecardcanbeplayedatatime,regardlessoftype.

Ifaplayercannotplay,orchoosestonotplaytheyareforcedtodiscardacardinstead,facedownontoadiscardpileinfrontofthem.Theymustthenpickuptwocards.

TheExceptiontothisruleiswhenaplayerhasonlyonecardleftandcannotplay,inwhichcasetheyjustdrawacard.Finalcardsthereforecannotbeexchanged.

Whenaplayerhasonecardleft,theymustsayoutloud‘lastcard’.Failuretodothismeansthattheymustpickupfromthedeck.

PowerCards:

Powercardsarecardsthatcarryaspecialrule.(Theydohoweverincurapenaltyattheendofthegameiftheyareheldattheendofthegame).Importantly,thesecanbeusedtofrustrateotherplayersorhelpaplayersowngame.Theycanskipotherplayersturns,givethemextraturns,orenabletheplayertoplayonanycardtheychoose.

Twos:Thenextplayermustpickuptwocardsbeforetakingtheirgo.

61

Jacks:Thenextplayermustpickupfourcardsbeforetakingtheirgo.

Aces:canbeplayedontoanything,atanytime.Theplayerthennominatesasuitforthenextplayertoplayto.

Eights:Skipthenextplayersturn

Sevens:Reversethedirectionofplay.

LowValueInstructions:

Todayyouwillbeplayingasimplecardgamewiththreeotherparticipants.

Thegamewillbeplayedoveratotaloffourrounds.Theobjectiveistobethelowestscoringparticipantattheendoftheserounds.

Eachroundcanendinoneoftwoways:

1) Thedeckisexhausted,andtherearenomorecardstopickup.2) Oneplayermanagestogetridofalltheircards

Attheendofaround,pointsareallocatedaccordingtohowmanycardseachplayerhasintheirhand,andwhattypeofcardstheyare.

Allpowercardscountfortenpoints.

Allothercardscountonepointonly.

Thescoreattheendofthegamewillbethesumofthetotalsfromtheendofallrounds.

Play:

Eachplayerisdealt6cards.

Playproceedsinaclockwisedirection.Onecardistakenfromthedrawpileandplacedfaceupinthecenterofthetable,whichisplayedexactlyasthoughithadjustbeenplayed,includinganyeffects.Eachplayertakesitinturntoplaceacardonthepileinthecenterofthetable.Thecardmustbeeitherthesamesuit,orthesamenumberasthecardfaceupinthecenter.

Onlyonecardcanbeplayedatatime,regardlessoftype.

Discarding:

Therearetwoconditionsunderwhichaplayermaydiscardcards:

1) Aplayercannotplay2) Aplayercanplay,butchoosestodiscardinstead

62

Inbothcasesaplayerdiscardsacardontoapileinfrontofthem,andthendrawstwocardsfromthedeck.

TheExceptiontothisruleiswhenaplayerhasonlyonecardleftandcannotplay,inwhichcasetheysimplydrawacard.Finalcardsthereforecannotbeexchanged.

Whenaplayerhasonecardleft,theymustsayoutloud‘lastcard’.Failuretodothismeansthattheymustpickupfromthedeck.

PowerCards:

Powercardsarecardswithadditionalrules.Theyalsoincuragreaterpenaltythannormalcardsifaplayerisholdingthemwhentheroundends.Powercardsofalltypescountfortenpointswhenagameends,comparedtoonlyoneforanormalcard.

Twos:Thenextplayermustpickuptwocardsbeforetakingtheirgo.

Jacks:Thenextplayermustpickupfourcardsbeforetakingtheirgo.

Aces:canbeplayedontoanything,atanytime.Theplayerthennominatesasuitforthenextplayertoplayto.

Eights:Skipthenextplayersturn

Sevens:Reversethedirectionofplay.

Thedifferencesbetweenthetwoversionsoftheinstructionsareasfollows:

1) Inthethirdparagraph,thehighvalueconditionincludesanadditional

sentenceabouttryingtoscoreaslowaspossibleineachround.

2) Theorderoftheendconditionsisreversedwhenlisted.LowValue

participantsweretoldthegameendedifthedeckwasexhaustedfirst

(implyingitwasdangeroustoholdontopowercards)whilsthighvalue

participantsweretoldthegameendedwhenoneplayergotridofalltheir

cardsfirst(implyingthewaytowinwastotrytogetridofallyourcards)

3) Thedescriptionofhowcardswerescoredwasbrokenupintotwolines

forthelow‐valueparticipants,andthetenpointvalueofpowercards

highlightedinbold.

63

4) Highvalueparticipantsweretoldthatthelowestpossiblescorewas0,by

winningallfourrounds.Lowvalueparticipantswereremindedthatthe

gamewouldbescoredonthesumtotalfromallfourrounds.

5) Theexplanationfordiscardingisbrokenintolistformforthelow‐value

participants.

6) Powercardpreamble:Inthelowvalueconditionthepenaltythatpower

cardsincurishighlightedinboldtext,acomparisontothecostofnormal

cardsismade,anditisreiteratedthatpowercardscoasttenpoints.Inthe

highvalueconditionitisstatedthatpowercardscanbeusedtofrustrate

anopponent.

Hypotheses

Participantswereexpectedtoshowadifferenceingameperformancebetween

conditions,asmeasuredbytheiroverallscores(cardpoints)attheendoftheir

game.Itwaspredictedthatthehighvalueframingconditionparticipantswould

holdontotheircardsmore,andthusscorehigher.

Itwasalsohypothesizedthatevidencethatparticipantswereutilizingdifferent

strategieswouldbeseeninarangeofadditionalmeasuresrelatedtocarduse

andcontextualchoices.Itwasanticipatedthatparticipantsindifferent

conditionswouldtakedifferentamountsoftimetomakeaplayingdecisionand

willmakechoicesindifferentproportionsasaresultoftheframing.Highvalue

conditionparticipantsareexpecttotakelongertomakeadecisionandtochoose

toplaymorenormalcardsthanpowercardswhenachoiceisavailable.

Finallyitwashypothesizedthatevidencewouldbeseenthatdifferencesin

strategiesreducedovertime,asfeedbackchangedthestrategicapproachbased

onevidence.

ExperimentalProcedure

Inordertomakethegames–andthusthedecisionsoftheparticipants–as

similaranddirectlycomparableaspossible,pre‐sorteddeckswereusedforeach

64

ofthefourroundsofeachgame.Inthisway,thestartinghandsofallplayers

wereidenticalforeachround,thesameplayerstartedeachround,andtheorder

inwhichthecardsweresequencedinthedeckwasalsoidentical–althoughonce

playersstartedmakingchoicesaboutwhichcardstoplaythisinevitablywasno

longercompletelyidenticalbetweenconditions.Itdid,however,ensurethat

cardsgenerallymadetheirwayintothegameatapproximatelythesametime

betweengroupsandconditions.

Arandomcardorderwasgeneratedforeachroundofthegamethrough

shufflingandthatorderwasmaintainedforallconditionsandgroups,withsome

additionalmanipulations.Firstly,decksweresortedsothateachparticipanthad

three(randomised)powercardsandthreenormalcardsintheirhandwhen

startingeachround.Secondly,thedeckswerearrangedsothatthelast6cardsin

eachdeckwerenormal,ratherthanpowercards.Thiswasdonetoensurethat

allplayershadatleastthreepowercardsthatneededplaying,thateveryplayer

startedfromasimilarpositionwhichwasidenticalinscoringvalue,andsothat

asmanypowercardsaspossibleenteredplay(cardsattheendofthedeckwere

lesslikelytobeplayedthanthoseatthestart,sinceaplayercouldwinbygetting

ridofalltheircardsandendingtheround).Playerswereinformedthatthedecks

hadbeenrandomisedinitially,butwerenowidenticalbetweenconditions.

Theexperimentwascounterbalancedsothatthereweretwomalesandtwo

femalesineachgroupinordertoaccountforpotentialgenderdifferences,and

forpotentiallydifferentgroupdynamicsbetweenunisexandmixedgroups.

Participantswereseatedtoplayboy‐girlalternately.Forbothconditionsitwas

alternatedbetweenexperimentalinstanceswhetheraboyorgirlbeganthefirst

game,althoughthecardstheplayersreceivedfortheirinitialhandremained

consistentwiththeirposition.

Beforereadinganyoftheinstructionsorbeingtoldthenatureofthetaskthey

wereundertaking,participantsfilledinabriefquestionnaireconsistingofboth

generalisedwrittenanswerstogaugetheirpriorexperienceandopinionsanda

likertscalemeasureofcompetitiveness,logicalthinkingandgamesplaying

experience(seeappendixthree).Participantswerefilmedwithtwovideo

65

cameraswhilstplayingthegame.Uponpickingupordiscardingtheywere

instructedtoshowtheircardstothecamera,andwerepromptedtodosobythe

experimenteriftheyforgot.Playerswereincentivisedbytheprizeofabarof

chocolateforthewinner,althoughthegeneralattitudeofplayersandtheir

questionnaireresponsesindicatedthattheyweregenerallysufficiently

motivatedbythegameforitsownsake.Scoresattheendofeachroundwere

keptsecret,aswerediscardedcards,sonoparticipantswereawareofhowwell

otherplayersweredoingcomparedtothemuntilthefinalscoreswererevealed,

whichmaintainedmotivation.

Caveats

Thisexperimentwasamulti‐playergame,whichintroducedpotential

confoundingfactors.Thisdecisionwasmadeforanumberofreasonsandthe

resultsarestillbelievedtobevalid.Subsequentexperimentsremovethe

multiplayerfactortoinpartprovidevalidationforthetheoriesproducedinthis

chapter.

Amoreconventionalexperimentalsetupwouldbetosimulatesuchadecision

processinasinglepersonparadigm.Fromthepriorexperimenthowever,there

wasconcernthatalimitedenvironmentwasnotchallengingordynamicenough

torequirestrategisingfromparticipants.Thepresenceofcompetitorsaddressed

thisconcern.Italsohadthebenefitoflendingecologicalvaliditytotheprocess,

whereasrigorouslycontrolledexperimentalparadigmscanbepotentially

artificialandunrepresentative.Itshouldbepossibletosimulateanappropriate

environmentonacomputer,buttherequiredtechnicalskillswerenotavailable.

Inapilotstudyparticipantswereinstructedtoremainsilent,buttheunrealityof

thatenforcedsituationwasobservedtodistractthem.Inthemainexperiment

playersweresimplytoldtoplaythegameastheywouldsocially,andgroups

enforcedacompetitivesilencebychoice.Occasionalcommentswererestricted

tocompetitivebanterthatdidnotappeartoaffectbehaviour,butwereseenas

beneficialfortherealismofthesituation.

Noindicatorsthattheenvironmentwasbiasingwereobserved.Because

participantsheldtheirhandanddiscardchoicessecret,itwasnotpossibleto

66

observeotherstrategiessincethenecessarycontexttounderstandmovesinthat

waywasmissing.Playerswereaskedaboutthisinthepost‐experiment

questionnaireandindicatedthattheyhadnotmimickedotherplayers’choices.

Resultssupporttheideathatframingwasadefiningdifferencebetweengroups

anditisthereforebelievedthattheparadigmwassuitableforthetask,although

asnotedtheseresultswillbesubsequentlyaddressedinamorerigorously

controlledparadigmforvalidation.

CollectionandAnalysis

Resultswerecollectedandanalysedfromthreemainsources.Firstlyoverall

measuresaboutthegamewerecollectedasitwasongoinginordertolookfor

generaltrends.Thisconsistedoftheroundscoresandcards(andcardtypes)

discardedforeachparticipant.

Secondly,Resultsfromthequestionnairewereexamined,andtheLikertscale

questionssortedandtotalled.Qualitativeanswerswerealsoexaminedfor

commentsthatsupported/contradictedthequantitativefindingsoncethe

analysiswascomplete.

Thirdly,videodatawasexaminedinordertoprovideinformationaboutcard

choicesandtimingdata.Forallmovesthatweremadeinallgamesthefollowing

informationwasrecorded:

‐ Thecondition,round,andgroup.

‐ Thecardsthateachplayerwasholdingwhenthemovewasperformed,

thenumberofNormalandPowercardsthatcomprisedthathand,andthe

gamescorethesewereequivalentto.

‐ Theplayermakingthemove,theirpositionandsex.

‐ Thecardfaceuponthestackthatwasbeingplayedupon.

‐ Themovebeingmade(play,discardortake).

‐ Thecardsinvolvedinthatmove,andthetypeofcard(PowerorNormal)

67

‐ Thecontextofthatmove,consistingofwhetherthosedecisionswerethe

onlyoptionoriftherewasanalternative.DiscardingandAceswere

codedinasimilarmanner,buttreatedasspecialcasesasexplainedlater.

‐ Thetimeatwhichthismoveoccurred,andthereforethetimetakento

makethemove.Movesweredeterminedtohavefinishedatthepointat

whichthecardbeingplayedwasplacedonthepile,orthecardsbeing

pickedupmadeitintotheplayer’shand.

‐ Themovepercentage:whichnumbermoveinagameitwas,relativeto

thetotalnumberofmovesinthatgame.

Timingsweremadeaccuratetothenearestsecondusingthein‐builttimerinthe

videorecording.Thiswasconsideredanappropriatelevelofaccuracyduetothe

inherentnoiseininferringcognitivedifferencesfromphysicalaction,andthe

uncertaintyinusingthemtoinfersaidprocesses.

QuestionnaireScales

ThedatafromthequestionnairewassortedaccordingtoscoresforLogical

thinking,gameplayingandcompetitiveness.Thesescoreswereusedtotest

betweengroupstoseeifthefactorsweremorepredicativethanthealternative

conditionsastheanalysisbelowwasundertaken.Noevidenceofthiswasfound.

Additionallydemographicinformationwasusedtosimilarlytestbetweenmale

andfemaleparticipants,butnosignificantdifferenceswereobserved.Thelackof

observableeffectprovideconfidencethatanyeffectsobservedareduetothe

framingeffectsratherthanagreaterdegreeofcompetitivenessorskill.

Participants

Therewereatotalof32participants,evenlysplitbetweenmaleandfemale.

Theyparticipatedinatotalof8groupsof4participantseach,with4groupsin

eachofthetwoconditions.Themeanagewas23.0,andtheMedian20.5.

Results

OverallScore

Theoverallgamescoresforeachparticipantwerenotedandchartedascanbe

seeninfigure5.1.Atwotailedt‐testwasperformedonthisdataandfoundtobe

68

non‐significant.However,thisresultdidnotseemcongruentwiththe

observablevarianceandspread.Thedatawasthereforethencleanedforoutliers

usingtheforthspreadmethod,andthetwohighestresultswereconsequently

removedfromthehighvaluecondition.Anotherindependentsamplest‐testwas

performed(equalvariancewasnotassumed),thistimedemonstratinga

significantdifference,t(25.258)=‐2.120,p=0.044,withLowValueparticipants

scoringsignificantlyhigher(andthereforeperformingworseinthegame)than

HighValueparticipants.

Figure4.1:FinalParticipantScores(yaxis)byCondition(HighValue/LowValue).

Uncleaneddata.

Cleaningthedataappearsjustifiedbytheresultsobtained.Thedifference

observedsuggeststhattheremaybeasystematicdifferenceintheapproaches

takenbetweenthegroups.

PlayingTimes

Timetakentoplaydifferentcardtypes(Power/Normal)indifferentconditions

(HighValue/LowValue)wasanalysed.Thedatawasskewed,asiscommon

withtimingdataanditwasnormalisedbytakingthelogvalue.

69

A2x2ANOVAwithCondition(HighValue,LowValue)andcardtype(Normal,

Power)asbetween‐subjectsfactorsrevealedmaineffectsofcondition,F(1,869)

=13.171,p=.000andcardtypeF(1,869)=5.532,p=.019.Aninteractionwas

notfound.

Figure4.2:Meantimetakenforparticipantstoplayacardinseconds(yaxis)by

CardType(xaxis)andCondition(HighValue/LowValue).Standarderrorshown

aserrorbars.

ThisresultwasthencheckedbyperformingaseriesofMann‐WhitneyUtestson

theindividualelements.Significantdifferenceswerefoundwhencomparing

Powercardsbetweenconditions(U(493)=26865,p=0.026,Z=‐2.228),comparing

normalcardsbetweenconditions(U(379)=15474,p=0.031,Z=‐2.155),and

betweenpowercardsandnormalcardsinthehighvaluecondition

(U(454)=22458.5,p=0.023,Z=‐2.278).Nodifferencewasfoundbetweenpower

andnormalcardsinthelowvalueconditiononitsown(U(418)=18771.5,

p=0.060,Z=‐1.879)althoughitwasclosetosignificance.

ContextualData

Thedecisionofwhichcardtoplaygoesbeyondsimplywhichtypeofcardis

available,butalsoincludeswhetheralternativesareavailable,andwhatthose

are.Havinganalternativeavailableshouldshowadifferenceinstrategicchoice.

Cardusewascodedforeachmove.Movesweredescribedintermsofwhether

70

theothertypeofcard(Normal/Power)wasavailabletoplay.Theywereeither

the‘onlyavailable’,whichmeanthattherewasnocardofthealternativetype

availabletoplay,or‘alternativeavailable’wheretherewasthealternativetype

ofcardavailabletoplay,butwasnotchosen.Thiswasalsodonefordiscarding

movesinthesameway.Aces,however,werecodedseparatelyandtreatedasa

separatetypeofpowercardforreasonsthatwillbediscussedlater;theyarenot

includedinthisanalysis.

Cardchoicewascomparedbetweenconditions.Forallinstanceswherethere

wasadecisiontobemadebetweenplayinganormalcardorapowercardthe

proportionsofthischoicewerecomparedbetweenconditions.Itwasfoundthat

highvalueparticipantschosetoplaynormalcardsinthissituationmore(21%)

thanlowvalueconditionparticipantsdid(12%).AAchisquareresultrevealed

thatthiswasstatisticallysignificant,c2(1,N=303)=4.506,p=0.034.

Figure4.3:Percentageofmoves(xaxis)whereacardtypeischosenovertheother

(Power/Normal)bycondition(HighValue/LowValue)

Thedatawasalsotestedwithinindividualrounds(seefigure).Therewereno

differencesbetweenconditionswithinrounds.Thereweredifferencesbetween

theproportionsinthefirstandlastroundsoverall(c2(1,N=143)=10.93,p=

0.01)),inthehighvaluecondition(c2(1,N=72)=4.055,p=0.044))andalsoin

71

thelowvaluecondition(c2(1,N=71)=5.588,p=0.018)).Allofthismovement

wastowardsplayingpowercardsinpreferencetonormalcards.

Figure4.4:Percentageofmoves(yaxis)whereanormalcardischosenovera

powercardbyround(xaxis)andcondition(HighValue/LowValue)

Additionally,thetimetakentomakeachoicewerecomparedbetween

conditionsusingaseriesofMannWhitneyUtests,butnosignificantdifferences

werefound.Thisisnotinlinewiththeoveralldatafindingsdetailedabove,but

canbelargelyexplainedbyalossofpower.Thisdatasetwassignificantly

smallerthantheoveralldata,anditisnotsurprisingthatthiswouldresultin

insufficientpowertodetectwhatmayhavebeenareal,butrelativelysmall,

effect.AnANOVAandseriesofMann‐WhitneyUtestswerealsoperformedon

themovepercentagedatatoseeifthesedecisionsweremadeatdifferentpoints

inthegames(thistechniqueisexplainedindetaillater)butagainnosignificant

differenceswerefound.

Overall,contextdatasupportstheideathattherearedifferentchoicesoccurring

asaresultoftheframing.

AceData

Aceswerenotcountedasapowercard,eitherasanalternativetoanormalcard,

orcountedwhenplayedasbeingapowercardintheprevioussectiondueto

theiruniqueproperties.Whereallothercardscouldonlybeplayediftheirface

72

orsuitvaluematchedthatofthecardonthetopofthestack,acescouldbe

playedonanycard,regardlessoffaceornumbervalue.Thisenabledagreater

degreeofchoice,andtheexistenceofviablealternativestrategies.Highvalue

participantswouldbepredictedtoholdontoaceswhengivenachancetoplay

them,andlowvalueparticipantswouldbeexpectedtoplayaceswherethey

werenotneeded.

Aceplayingwascodedcontextually.Becauseacescouldalwaysbeplayedoncein

aplayer’shand,therelevantcontextwaswhethertheyweretheonlyoption

availableatthatpointorifadifferentcardwasavailabletobeplayed.This

wouldillustrateifparticipantswereholdingonto,orgettingridofaces.

Thenumbersofeachtypeofthesemoveswerecollectedforbothconditions,and

achisquaretestwasperformedonthedata.Thetestrevealedtherewasa

statisticallysignificantdifferenceinthemoveproportionsbetweenconditions,

c2(1,N=60)=5.610,p=0.018.Inthehighconditionaceswereplayedwhenan

alternativewasavailableonly33%ofthetime.Inthelowconditionthiswas

55%ofthetime.

Figure4.5:Numberoftimes(yaxis)anaceisplayedinagivencondition(Only

Option/AlternativeAvavilible)byCondition(xAxis,High/Low)

Acedatawasalsocomparedbyround.Nodifferencewasfoundforthefirstor

thirdrounds,butwereseeninthesecond(c2(1,N=28)=4.368,p=0.037)and

73

fourthrounds(c2(1,N=24)=5.714,p=0.017),inbothcaseswithHighValue

participantstendingtowaituntilplayinganacewastheonlyoptionmore.There

wasalsoadifferencebetweenroundsoneandfourintheHighValuecondition

(c2(1,N=23)=4.915,p=0.027).

Figure4.6:ProportionofAcesplayed(yaxis)whenanalternativeavailableby

round(xaxis)andCondition(Low,High)

GamePositionData

Anadditionalsourceofdatatobeexaminedforevidenceofsystematic

differencesisthepointinagameatwhichanaceisused.Ifthereisasignificant

differenceinwhenthecardisplayedbetweenconditions,thiscouldbeevidence

ofdifferingstrategies.Rawtimedatawouldbepotentiallyskewedandbiasedby

pausesingameplayordifferinggamelength.Instead,themovecountwasused

togenerateagame‐completepercentagewhichindicatedtherelativepositionof

amoveinthegame.Acemovetypeswerecategorisedinthesamewayasthe

previoussection(AlternativeAvailable/OnlyOption)astable4.1summarises.

A2x2ANOVAwithCondition(HighValue,LowValue)andmovetype

(Alternative,OnlyOption)asbetween‐subjectsfactorsrevealedamaineffectof

MoveType,F(1,104)=3.970,p=0.049andnoothereffects.Thistest,however,

failedtomeettheexpectationsofhomogeneityandthereforeaseriesofMann‐

WhitneyUtestswereundertakentocomparebetweenthegroupsdirectly.A

74

significantdifferencewasfoundbetweenmovetypesintheHighValuecondition

U(52)=184,P=.027,Z=‐2.214butnotintheLowValuecondition,suggestinga

differenceinaceusebetweenconditions.

High Value Low Value

Alternative

Available 70.0 54.60

Only Option 54.50 50.50

Table4.1:Meannumberofgamemovescompleted(percentage)whenanAceis

playedbycondition(HighValue,LowValue)andMoveType(AlternativeAvailable,

OnlyOption)

Figure4.7:Frequencydistributionofproportionoftotalpopulation(yaxis)oftime

takentoplayacard(xaxis)whenanalternativeisavailableintheHighValue

condition.

Theindividualmovetimedataforthissetwasthencompared.Sincethedata

wasnon‐parametricaseriesofMann‐WhitneyUtestswereusedtotestbetween

theconditions,andasignificantdifferencewasfoundbetweenthetimetakento

playanAcewhenthereisanalternativeavailablebetweenthehighandlow

conditions(U(48)=172p=0.048,Z=‐1.976).Nosignificantdifferencewasfound

formovetypewithinthehighvaluecondition,althoughitwasclose(U(52)=210,

75

p=0.087,Z=‐1.711).TheAlternativeAvailabledatawasthenplottedas

frequencydistributions.

Figure4.8:Frequencydistributionofproportionoftotalpopulation(yaxis)oftime

takentoplayacard(xaxis)whenanalternativeisavailableintheLowValue

condition.

Discarding

Afinalsourceofdataisthecardsdiscardedinthecourseofthegame.Discarding

wasbothaconditionofbeingunabletoplay,andalsowasavailableforplayers

tochoosetodoinlieuofamove.Intheoryitprovidedanotherwaytobeableto

getridofpowercards.

Thisdatawascodedinthesamewayastheothermoveswere,withitbeing

notedifcardswerediscardedwilfullyornormally,whattypeofcardtheywere

andalsoifthecardtypediscardedwastheonlyavailable,ornot.Aseriesoftests

wereperformed,butnosignificantresultswerefound,eitherasameasureofthe

proportionsofchoicesmadeineachconditionforwhichachisquarewas

performed,norforthetimingdatabetweenconditionsandcardtypesforwhich

aseriesofMann‐WhitneyUtestswereundertaken.Therewerenoidentifiable

differencesbetweentheconditions.

76

Figure4.9:Percentageofdiscardedcardsthatwerepowercards(yaxis),byround

(xaxis)andcondition(HighValue,LowValue)

GraphingthedataasinFigure4.9suggeststheremaybeapotentiallearning

effect.Nosucheffectcouldbestatisticallydetected,althoughthedatasetwastoo

smalltoconsiderthisconclusive.

Discussion

Thehypothesesdescribedatthestartofthissectionwillbeevaluated,andthen

additionalconclusionsthatemergedasaresultoftheevidencegathered

detailed.Implicationsforthemodelspecifically,andthenthemoregeneral

significancewillbeevaluated,beforenewhypothesesaresuggestedforfurther

study.

HypothesisTesting

Thefirsthypothesisstatedthatadifferencewasexpectedtobeobserved

betweenconditionsasmeasuredattheoverallgamescorelevel.Thiswas

supportedwiththecaveatthatthedatarequiredcleaningforoutlierstodetect.

Secondly,itwashypothesisedthateffectswouldbeseenatadditionalmeasures.

Thiswassupported,aseffectswereseenbetweenconditionsforcardchoice

(power/normal)timetakentoplay(power/normal)andwithintheaceplaying

data.Thedifferenceswerealsofoundinthedirectionthatwasanticipated,with

77

highvalueconditionparticipantschoosingtoholdontopowercardslonger(both

overallandforacesspecifically)andtakinglongertomakeadecisionoverall.

Finallyitwashypothesisedthatdifferencesbetweenconditionswouldreduce

overtime.Thiswasnotsupportedasdifferencesremainedincardplaying

choicesbetweenthefirstandlastroundforbothnormal/powercardchoices,

andalsowhenaceswereplayed.However,inbothcasestherewasevidencethat

thetrendwasinthesamedirectionbetweenconditions.Thissuggeststhatthe

underlyingideabehindthishypothesis(thatfeedbackwouldinformanoptimal

strategycommontobothconditions)mayhavesomevalidity.

AdditionalConclusions

Firstly,wecanconcludethatthedifferenceobservedinoverallscoresisrealand

significant.Therangeofsystematicdifferencesdemonstratedinthemove‐level

analysesprovidessufficientevidencetobelieveparticipantswereacting

differentlyinthedifferentconditions,andthedatacleaningremovedoutliers

thatwereskewingthedataandobscuringarealeffect.Participantswere

successfullyframedbydifferentinstructions,withhighvalueparticipants,on

averagescoringbetter.Wecanseethisinthedifferenceoftheoveralltiming

data,thedifferenceinthechoicetousenormalorpowercardsandintheuseof

aces.

Secondlythereappearstobeaninteractionbetweenframingandfeedback.

Althoughthecardchoiceresultsdidnotreachasharednormandtheconditions

remaineddifferent,theydidmoveinthesamedirectionwhichsuggeststhatboth

setsofparticipantswereadjustingtheiractionsinthesamedirection.Itwould

appearthataframecanbealteredbyfeedback,althoughthereisinsufficient

evidencetoconcludewhetheritwouldeventuallyrenderaframeirrelevant.

Additionallyitshouldberememberedthatthisresultisnotnecessarily

transferabletoothertasks.Thefeedbackinthisscenariowasunambiguous,

accurateandcomplete.Intherealworlditisentirelypossibleforfeedbacktobe

misleading,ambiguous,inaccurateorincomplete–anditisuncleartowhat

degreethismayhaveanimpactonframing.

78

Havingdrawnconclusionsfromsomeofthespecificresults,moregeneral

conclusionslookingatthebodyofresultsasawholewillbeaddressed.

SelectiveApplicationofFramingEffects

Thereisevidencethatwithinagiventaskthesameframingcanhavedifferent

resultsondifferentaspectsofthattask.Thisimpliesthatonsomeleveltheframe

isconsideredandappliedaccordingtothecontextadecisionismadein.Itcanbe

easytothinkofframingeffectsassettingalargelyunconscioustendencywhich

isthenconsciouslyapplied–aviewpointlargelysupportedbythefactthat

participantsdonotgenerallyacknowledgebeingframed,evenwhenitis

illustratedtothem(Gigerenzer,2000).Inthisexperimentevidencesuggeststhat

framingisnotnecessarilyautomaticorgenericbutappropriateandcontextual.

Inthisexperiment,measurementsofframingeffectsweretakenforthree

measures;a)betweennormalandpowercards,b)theuseofacesandc)

discarding.Differenttypesofeffectwereseenateachdespitethefactthateach

involvedelementsofthesamebasicdecision:howandwhentoplaypower

cards.Forthechoicebetweennormalandpowercardstheeffectwastoalterthe

ratioofthedecisionmade,butitseemsnottheunderlyingstrategyorrationale

behinditastherewasnoevidenceofdifferencesintimetakentoplayorwhen

thedecisionwasmade.ForAces,notonlywasthechoicemadedifferently

betweenconditions,buttimingandpositioningdatashowedthatthiswas

varyingaccordingtothecontextitwasmadein.Finally,fordiscardingnoeffect

couldbeobservedatall.Whencontrastingbetweenthesethreedifferentresults

itiscleartoseethatthesameframeishavingadifferenteffect(ornon‐effect)in

threedifferentaspectsofthesametask.

Apossibleexplanationforwhythisisoccurringcanbeworkedfromprior

research,whichobservedthatambiguityappearstohavearoleindetermining

whenandhowaframingeffectisapplied.Theremustbealevelofuncertaintyas

totheoptimalcourseofactionorcorrectanswer(ascanbeseenintheAsianflu

examplecitedearlierwherethestatisticaldifferencebetweenthesolutionsis

nil).Inthesesituations,participantsrelyonframinginformationtodiscriminate

79

betweenotherwiselargelyindistinguishablechoices.Thesuggesteddifference

hereisthatwhenambiguityvaries,framingbehavesdifferently.

Whenchoosingbetweenpowerandnormalcardsthelevelofambiguityand

uncertaintyislow;powercardsaregenerallybestplayedwhentheopportunity

presentsitself,astheobjectiveisultimatelytoberidofallcards,andtheycarry

morepenaltythanmostwhilstprovidinglittlebenefitfromholdingontothem.

Thereareplausiblebenefitsincertainsituations,andgenerallyitisaquestionof

whetheraplayerwantstotaketheriskofholdingontoone,buttheweightof

evidencesupportsgettingridofthem.Theframingeffectislimitedbecausethe

amountofambiguityislimited,andtheeffectequatestothatofapplyingthe

samediscriminatoryheuristicindifferentparameters,namelyholdingonto

powercardsonetimeinten,oronetimeintwenty.

Incontrast,whenconsideringtheuseofAcesthereisagreatdealofambiguity.

Therearecompeting,plausibleconsiderations:ononehandtheyrepresentthe

samedangerasanypowercard,inthattheywillsignificantlyincreasea

participant’sscoreattheendofaroundandthereforeshouldbegottenridof

quickly.Ontheother,theyarealsoabletobeplayedonanythingandtherefore

areespeciallyusefulwhenaplayerhasveryfewcardsandismorelikelytofacea

situationwherenoneoftheircardscanbeplayed.Asaresultofgreater

ambiguitytheframingeffectismorepronouncedinitseffect,notonlyintermsof

whichchoiceismadeinadecision,butalsothestrategyonwhichthatdecisionis

basedisdifferent.Hereinthelowconditionparticipantsarefarmoreeagerto

getridoftheirAces;theyplayfarmoreoftheminsituationswhereanothercard

isavailable,andtakealotlesstimetothinkaboutitwhentheydo.Bycontrast

thoseinthehighvalueconditionnotonlytakemoretimebeforemakingsucha

move,buttheyalsomakethosemoveslateroninthegame,atatimewherea

strategyisactuallyviableoruseful.Sointhiscaseparticipantsareapplyinga

differentheuristicaltogether,dependingoncondition.

Whatthisexplanationdoesnotaccountfor,however,isthediscardingdata.Here

ambiguityisatleastsufficientthatthereisuncertaintyaboutthebesttacticto

proceedwith–morepowercardsarediscardedasaproportionofthetotalin

80

laterrounds,andthepossibilityistheretotreatcardsdifferently.The

expectationwasthatthiswouldbeframedliketheotherelementsofthetask.So

thequestionbecomes:whynot?

Inthistask,participantswerepresentedwithasituationwherethebasic

mechanics(powercards,aces)werelargelyfamiliartothemasaresultofhaving

playedsimilargamesbefore,somethingsupportedbythequestionnaire

responses.Discarding,however,wasnotpartofthisgenerallyfamiliarparadigm,

asevidencedatleastinpartbythefactitwasnoteasilyunderstoodatfirst–it

wascommonfortheexperimentertoneedtocorrectorexplaintheprocedure

earlyon,andseveralerrorsconcerningthiselementofplaywereretrospectively

notedwhenthevideowasexamined.

Thistiesinwiththeexplanationsuggestedforthedifferencesinframing

betweentheothertwolevels.Aswasnotedprior,there,framingwasoccurring

tosomedegreeatthestrategiclevel.Fordiscardinghowever,participantswere

stillstartingtounderstandtheprocessatall.Noframingeffectoccurredbecause

participantsdidnotunderstanddiscardingwellenoughforittobeinfluenced:

theysimplydidnotmaketheconnection.

However,discardingisnotsocomplexanideathatwewouldexpectpeople

unabletograsptheconceptasanormalprocess–indeed,inpriorresearch

peoplehavebeenframingdoingunfamiliartasks.Thisiswherethesecondpoint

comesin.Becausethereweredecisionsandstrategiestobeimplementedwithin

anunderstoodframeworkandthesecomprisedthemajorityofthetask,thistook

precedenceoveranalysinganewcomponent.Thisfitswiththepre‐existing

researchtheoryoflimitedsearch:thereisafiniteamountofprocessingthatcan

occurbeforeadecisionismade.Hereparticipantslackedthefreecognitive

resourcesnecessarytocomprehenddiscardingsufficientlythatitcouldbe

framed.

Theseobservationstakentogethersuggestthatframingoccurstosomedegreeat

astrategiclevelofthinking,thatplansaremadeandexecutedatleastpartially

basedonthebiasesthataframecanimpart.Thedifferencesinframingeffect

betweenthelevelssupportsthis–asimpleblanketruleof‘trytothrowpower

81

cardsaway’doesnotexplainthatvariation.Ifaccurate,thisprovidesareason

thatitisnecessarytomovebeyondsingle‐decisionparadigmsforstudying

framingeffects,astheyareinsufficienttocapturethepotentialcomplexitiesof

thephenomenatheyinduce.

Finallytheseobservationscreateanumberofimplicationsforexistingtheory.

Firstlytheysupporttheideathatambiguityiskeyinaframingeffectworking,

andextendsthatfindingtoamoretask‐orientatedenvironment.Wecanseethis

bothfromwheretheframewasapplied,butalsoinhowtherewasregression

towardsasharednormbasedonquantitativefeedback.Secondlybywidening

thescopewithinwhichframingeffectsandtheirimpactisconsidered,questions

areraisedabouthowandatwhatpointincognitionaframecanhaveaneffect.

LearningImplications

Thisexperimentprovidessomeinsightintohowlearningmayprogresswhena

framingeffectispresent.Itshouldbenotedatthispointthatthereareseveral

reasonstointerpretthelearningdatawithsomecaution.Playersonlyengagedin

fourroundsofthegame,alimitednumberwhenassessinghowtheparticipants

improved.Thenatureoftheroundsalsoprovidedalimitedamountof

opportunitiesforfeedbackintheformofaroundscore,andthereforealimited

opportunitytoassesshowwellaparticularstrategywasprogressing.

Additionallytherewasvariationbetweenrounds–theconditionsplayedthe

samegamesinthesameorder,butthosegamesweredifferenttoeachother,and

somemayhavelentthemselvestocertaindecisionsorscoresmorethanothers.

Thepointoftheseobservationsisnottosaythatwecannotdrawtrendsfrom

theinformationcollected,butrathertonotethatitislikelyinappropriateto

drawtoospecificconclusionsfromthevariations.Asanexample,boththeAce

usedataandthediscardingdatahaveroundswithslightlyoddpatternsfrom

oneorbothoftheconditions.

However,andwiththesethingsborneinmind,therearestilltwoconclusions

thatcanbedrawnfromtheevidence.Firstly,allthreemeasures(discarding,Ace

useandpower/normalcardchoice)appearedtoshowsomesortofeffect,and

82

secondlyallconditionsalsoappearedtoshowatrendtowardsasharedposition,

ratherthandiverging.

Thesearesignificantbecausetheysuggesttwothingsaboutlearninginafarmed

task.Firstlyitsuggeststhatfeedbackandevidencecanovercomeaframing

effect.Itsupportsthepositionthatitisambiguitythatallowsaframingeffectto

haveaneffect–asfeedbackremovesambiguity,sothestrategyalters.Indeed,

bothconditionssuggestchangeastheroundsgoonforallmeasures,indicating

thatevenwhenthe‘correct’hypothesisandstrategyisprimed,participantsare

stillrefiningandperfectingtheirbehaviouraswouldbeexpected.

Secondly,thisimprovementandthesetendenciesarenotableforthefactthat

theyappeartomovetowardsasharednorm.Inallmeasures,bothconditions

movetowardsthesamepointasanoptimalsolution(whetheritisanoptimal

solutionisopentodebate,buttheconvergenceisstillrelevant).Thetaskwas

shortenoughthattheconvergenceisnotconclusivelyshowntobecompleteby

thetimethegameended,sothereisdefinitelyacasetobemadeforframing

effectsimpactingthetimetakentoreachanoptimalsolution.However,the

overallconclusionisstillpertinent:framingeffectshavenotshownthesolution

todiverge,andthesuggestionthereforeisthatintaskswherethereisanoptimal

statetobereached,framingwillnotaffecttheeventualconclusionreached

providedthereissufficientfeedback.

ModelImplications

Theobservationsinthisexperimentbroadlysupportthemodelasproposed.The

differenceinframeimplementationbetweenthedifferentactivitiesmeasured

canbeexplainedbythestages.Beforethegamebeganandwhenparticipants

werereadingtherules,theycomprehendedthebasicsofthegamefrom

recognizingsimilaritiestoprevioussuchgames.Themainchangesweretothe

scoringsystem,whichaffectedthevalueofthecards,andtheframingprovided

thebasisforthedifferingstrategiesthatweredevelopedasaresult.Sothepre‐

gameformulationproducedframedstrategies,andthereweredifferent

approachestodifferentcardswithinthesestrategies.Feedbackfromboththe

roundscoresandcardsbeingplayedtheninformedthesestrategiesby

83

enhancingcomprehension–primarilytheimportanceofgettingridofpower

cardsifitwasnotinitiallyfullyunderstood.

Thediscardingthatfailedtobeframedcanbeexplainedbythefactthatitwas

notsufficientlycomprehended.Theerrorsthatcamewiththediscardingsystem

supportedthisviewofincompletecomprehension.Itwasonlywiththefeedback

fromplayingthegamethatgreatercomprehensionoftheroleofdiscardingin

thegamecouldbeappreciated,andasaresultonlythenthatformulationcould

produceappropriatestrategiesfordealingwithit.

Thisre‐assessmentofthemodelisshowingsomepotentialpredictivevalidity,

howeveritremainsmoreusefulretrospectively.Questionsthatarisefromthis

experimentareinhowtopredictwhatmaybecomprehendedandunderstoodto

enableformulation–withoutthisknowledgethemodelwillremainmoreuseful

asapost‐hocassessorofeffortstoadaptratherthanpredictingsuccessor

anticipatingpotentialproblems.

Significance

Havingdiscussedtheimplicationsofthesefindingsontheory,andthepotential

futureresearchquestionsitraises,itisworthalsoconsideringwhatsignificance

theseresultsholdasawholefortheoryandeverydaylifeingeneral.

Possiblythemostimportantconclusiontotakeawayfromthisexperimentisthe

apparentlimitsofframingeffects.Itiseasytoreadtheliteratureandassume

thatoureverydecisionandmovemaybedictatedbythemannerinwhichwe

experienceinformation–anassumptionthatfliessomewhatinthefaceof

everydayexperience.Itisnotthatweareunaffectedbyframing,butthatthese

effectstendtomatteratthestartofaprocess.Experienceandfeedbackallowus

toovercomethesecognitivebiased.Framingeffectsarenotforever.

Ofcoursewhilstwesaythat,itisimportanttoconsiderthatsuchasituation

actuallyrepresentsagreatdealofthethingsweencounterandtaskswe

perform.Theexperimentdetaileddescribesasituationthatwasfundamentally

familiar,butwithsomenewelementstoit–adifferentsetofexpectationsonthe

samebasicmechanisms.Thesamedescriptioncouldeasilybeappliedtodining

84

atanewrestaurant,drivinganewvehicleorevenmeetinganewperson.Andas

wecanseefromthedatacollected,framingeffectscanhaveadistinctimpacton

howweapproachatask.Theinitialstrategy,thefirstapproach–theseare

commonlynon‐trivialexperiences,especiallyinsituationswheretheremaynot

betheopportunitytogaintruefeedbackbeforeneedingtoperform–combat

situationsforasoldier,forinstance.Allthetrainingintheworldultimately

cannotaccountforalivefireexperience.Additionally,whilstthefeedbackinthis

caseappearedtocorrectforthesub‐optimalformulationofstrategies,this

occurredmainlyin‐betweenroundswheninformationaboutscoresbecame

apparenttoparticipants.Combatisagoodexampleofasituationwhereuseful

feedbackisoftenofthissort–availableoncetheimmediateexperienceisover

andactionscanbeconsideredatlength,butnotnecessarilyavailableatthetime

andinthechaosofthemoment.

Inthesesituations,thisresearchraisesquestionsaboutthenatureof

instructionsthatshouldbegiven.Specificity,itwouldseem,isimportantnotjust

ingeneraltermsforwhatthesituationis,butinhowthatinformationneedsto

beapplied–thelackofaframingeffectforthediscardingchoiceillustrateshow

havingthebigpicture,eveninthecorrectmanner,manynotbeenough.Smaller

elementsthatshouldbetreatedinthiswaymayfallbythewayside,andto

participants’detriment(discardingwasapotentiallyveryeffectivemeansof

gettingridofpowercards).Thesamesortofconsiderationistruewhendealing

withexceptions.Intheexperiment,Aceswereauniqueformofpowercard‐but

theywerestillapowercardandlow‐valueconditionparticipantsappliedthe

framingsub‐optimallyasaresult.Aspriorresearchhashighlighted,eliminating

ambiguitywouldappeartobekeyforgooddecisionmaking.Itmaybethat

providingpeoplewithgeneralrules–butthenmakingapointofhighlightingthe

importanceofconsideringindividualinstances–isofgreatereffectiveness.

Ofcourse,thosepointsmaketheassumptionthatambiguitycanbeeliminatedto

somedegree,whichisnotnecessarilythecase.Theremaynotbethetimetodo

so,orindeedtherequisiteinformationavailable.Additionally,itmaybethat

framingeffectscanmakegooduseofsuchambiguity–ifacourseofactionis

preferred,itprovidesawaytomakeittheinitialapproachpeopleadoptwithout

85

seemingbiasedintheinstructing.Ifinstructionsarebiasedorperceivedtobeso,

thereisalwaysthechancethatpeoplewillgoagainstthemonprinciple.Indeed,

therearemanysituationswherepeoplemaynotnecessarilytrustthesource

providingtheinformation–intelligentlyframingtheinstructionscouldprovidea

mechanismforinfluencingthepathtakenwithoutseemingtoleadthem.

Thisexperimentalsosuggeststhatitmaybemoreimportanttoframeforthe

criticalthingswherepeoplemaygowrongifambiguityishigh.Thesmaller

thingswhereambiguityislow–inthiscasebasicpowercardsandnormalcards

–won’tbeasaffectedasaresultofthatlowerambiguity.Thekeymayliein

identifyingpotentialpitfalls,andframingforthem.Indeed,thelackofaneffectin

discardingdemonstratesthattherearelimitedthingsthatwillbetakeninwhen

preppingforanewtask.Makingsurethattheessentialpointsaren’tpartofthat,

andhighlightingtheunfamiliar,aresimplestepsthatcouldpotentiallyenhance

performanceincriticalareas.

NewHypotheses

Havingaddressedthehypothesesandexaminedthetheoreticalandpractical

issuesassociatedwiththeseresults,thenextnaturalquestionishowtofurther

thisresearch.

Thisexperimentoffersanumberofobservationsthatcouldprovidethebasisfor

futureinvestigation,anditwillnotbepossibletopursuethemall.However,itis

possibletoidentifysomeofthekeyquestionsraisedtotakefurther.

Firstly,therearegeneralquestionsabouttherepeatabilityoftheseresultsina

differentparadigmandwithdifferentframingmechanismsetc.Whilstthereis

certainlyreasontobeconfidentthatthedatapresentedhereisvalid,thesesorts

ofresultsandspeculationneverthelessdemandconfirmationthatthereisn’t

simplyanordereffectorsituationalbiasatplaythatiscreatingtheobserved

properties.Forthisexperimentandlineofresearchthismeansprimarilythat

anotherexperimentshouldseektoexaminesimilarquestionsutilisinga

differentframingmechanism,andtodosoinadifferentsettingtothatofcard

games.

86

Secondly,thereareanumberofquestionsthatarisefromissuessurrounding

feedback.Thisexperimenthadtwonotablepropertiesconcerningfeedback:a

significantsourceofitwasonlyreceivedattheendofeachround(intheformof

aparticipant’sscoreforthatround)andthatitwasqualitativeandunambiguous

–higherwasworse,lowerwasbetter.Whilstneitherofthesewere

inappropriate,itisalsoeasytoconsideralternativemethodsinwhichfeedback

mightbeobtained;itmightbequalitativeorquantitative,itcouldbereviewed

moredirectlyinlinewithactionstaken,anditcouldbeambiguous.Itiscommon

inreallifetoseeasinglesetofstatisticsinterpreteddifferentlybydifferent

partiesaccordingtotheirprioritiesandbeliefs,soiffeedbackwereambiguous

wouldthesameoptimizationbeseeninatask?Orwoulditsimplybeusedto

confirmthepre‐existingbiasesengenderedbytheframe?

Thirdly,howframingmightpersistalsocreatesquestionsofwhetherthewayin

whichaframeispresentedcanaffectthis.Inthistaskparticipantswereinitially

framed,butnotsubsequentlywhilstundertakingthetask.Itisnothardto

imagineasituationunderwhichframingmightbereinforcedhowever–and

wouldtherepetitionofaframebesufficienttocontinueitsinfluenceontask

decisions?Orwouldfeedbackstillendupasamoreimportantdeterminant,and

repetitionsimplyweakentheeffectoftheframeasitslackofactualpredicative

validitywasshownthroughfeedback?

87

CHAPTERFIVE–FramePositioningandConfidenceinaDescriptiveTask:TheFestivalStudy

Introduction

Previousworkhasestablishedframingeffectsexhibitingdistinctpropertiesin

anongoingtaskparadigm.Thegoalofthischapteristofurtherinvestigatethis

byreportingastudyofframingeffectsinaforcedchoiceexperiment.The

experimentutilizesaprogressingthematicallylinkedseriesofdecisions

conveyingastoryaboutarockfestival.

Thisstudywasdesignedtotestthehypothesesgeneratedbytheprevious

experiment,butalsomovebeyondtheparadigmthusfaremployed(card

games).Itwasalsodesignedtomorecloselyreflectclassicframingapproaches

byreapplyingtheAsianflustatisticalweightingandemployingaforcedchoice

paradigm.Confidencewasalsointroducedasameasureinordertoreflect

graduationindecisionmakingnotreflectedinapureeither/ordichotomy.

Priorresearchhasmadeuseofconfidencetostudydecisionmaking.Participants

havebeenshowntoapproachtasksdifferentlyasaresultofvaryingconfidence

frompriorcontemplation(Koehler,1991),confidencewasseentoaffect

influenceingroupdecisionmaking(Zarnoth&Sniezek,1996)andconfidence

canalsoactasapredictoroftasksuccess(Feather,1968).Hereitwasmeasured

forthesereasons,butalsoasafactorpotentiallyinfluencedbyframing.Itwas

anticipatedthatframedconfidencemaybehigherthanunframed,asthe

(perceived)additionalinformationwouldhelptojustifychoicesmade.

Design

Overview

Ataskconsistingofaseriesof11binaryquestionsthatrelatedtoanongoing

taskwasdesigned.Anarrativewasconstructedaroundtheparticipantmanaging

amusicfestival,duringwhichanoutbreakofavirulent,unidentifieddisease

88

occursandstepsmustbetakentocontrolit.Thebinarydistinctionusedwasone

ofdecidingbetweenusinginternalorexternalsolutions,withtheexactnatureof

thesevaryingaccordingtoquestion.Additionally,aconfidencemeasurewas

takenforeachquestionona7‐pointscale.Onceadecisionwasmade,feedback

wasgivendetailingtheeffectofthatactiononvariousmetrics(money,public

opinionandcasesofdisease).

Twoindependentvariablesweremanipulated;framepositionandfeedback

type.Thetaskwasframedeithertowardsinternalorexternalsolutions,inoneof

threeways.TherewaseitherNoFrame(NF),aframepresentedinthe

instructionshenceforthreferredtoasanOverallFrame(OF)oraframe

presentedinthequestionsthemselvesreferredtoasaQuestionFrame(QF).

FeedbackwaspresentedaseitherNumericdata(N)suchasmoneylost,oras

qualitativestatements(Q)ofthesamething.

Allfeedbackwaspredeterminedandtherewasalinearprogressionthroughthe

task,butparticipantswereinformedthattherewasanelementofchancetotheir

performance,thattheremightnotbea‘good’solutiontoadilemmabutrathera

‘leastbad’oneandthattheiractionscouldaffectlaterevents.Thiswasto

increaseecologicalvalidity.Additionally,allparticipantsunderwentcertain

pretestingmeasuresandcompletedpost‐assessmentquestionnairesassessing

authoritarianism,extraversionandrisktaking(seelaterinthischapterfor

details).

Questions

11questionsweredevisedthatplottedtheoutbreakofapotentiallydangerous

diseaseatafestival.Thefirstfivequestionswererelativelyinnocuous,dealing

withaspectsofsimplefestivalmanagement–lateacts,facilitiesbreakingdown–

whilstthelatter6dealtdirectlywiththegrowingoutbreakproblemandthe

variousissuesthataroseasaresult,eitherdirectlyorindirectly(Seeappendices

thirteen,fourteenandfifteenforexamples,ortheaccompanyingCDforthefull

text).

Eachdecisionwasdesignedsothatthechoiceswerevalidinbothdirections–

internalandexternal.Thesolutionsproposedwereselectiveandasrealisticas

89

thestrictdivisionforcinganeither/orchoicebynatureallowed.Theywere

designedtobeseenasplausibleandviableandthiswastestedthroughpiloting.

Allofthequestions’choiceswerederivedfromreal‐worldoccurrencesand

procedures.Mostimportantlythequestionsweredesignedtobeperceivedto

matterandhaveconsequences.Tofurtherthisend,theywereintentionally

descriptiveinnature;contextualinformationthatdidnotnecessarilyrelateto

thechoiceitselfwaspresentedtogiveasenseofplaceandimmersion.

FramingEffects

TheframeusedwasadirecttranslationoftheAsianfluexampleusedby

KahnemanandTversky(Tversky&Kahneman,1981).Thiswaschosenbothfor

thereasonsthattheycited(statisticalequivalence,reversibilityetc)andalso

preciselybecauseithasbeenrepeatedusedanddemonstratedasrobust.Inthis

case,externalsolutionswereusedconsistentlyasthe30%chanceofsuccess,

andinternalasthe1/3guaranteedtobesaved,whicheverdirectiontheframe

wasappliedin.Forcounterbalancingpurposestherewerebothinternally

favouringandexternallyfavouringframesforquestionframeandoverallframe

conditions.Bothdirectionswereframedidentically,orascloseaswaspossible

withgrammaticallimitationsandconsiderationsofphrasing.

Theoverallframewaspresentedaspartofthetaskinstructionsandwas

describedasageneralproperty–thatexternalsolutionswouldsucceed33%of

thetimeorthatinternalsolutionswouldsave1/3ofwhateverwasatrisk.For

theQuestionFrametheframewaspresentedaspartofthedecisiondescription

attheendandputacrossinthetermsofthequestion(“33%ofthebeerwillbe

saved”)

Feedback

ThreeMetricsoffeedbackwerepresentedforquestions:‘Money’,‘Reputation’

and‘Cases’.Thesewerechosenasimportanttoafestival(moneyandreputation)

orrelatingtothetaskproblem(cases).MoneyandReputationwerepresentfor

theentireexercise,whereasCasesonlystartedoccurringoncetheinitialcases

hadbeenreportedinquestion4.Apatternoffeedbackwaspre‐determinedtobe

asimplepatternofone‐then‐the‐other,inthatfirstaninternalsolutionwouldbe

90

‘correct’andgivepositiveresults,andthenanexternalonewould.Thefirst

questionwasanexceptiontothis,rewardingeitherchoiceequally,ensuringthat

bothframesstartedoffbeingrewardedinthesamewayregardlessofchoice.

Themetricswerebalancedsothatanapproximatelyequalamountof‘money’,

‘reputation’and‘cases’wasawardedortakenawayforinternalorexternal

choices–thatisthatifaparticipantweretousesolelyoneortheotheroption

theywouldreceivethesameamountofpositiveandnegativefeedback,andalso

thesameintensity.Foreachquestionasetamountof‘money’and‘reputation’

wasavailableandthegainorlossofthesedependedonthechoicemade.For

‘reputation’thiswasexactlybalancedwithgainsandlossesvaryingbetween1

and3%foreachquestionequallyforinternalandexternalovertheset.For

‘money’,thegainsandlosseswerebalanced,butnotperfectlyasabove–rather

slightlyrandomnumberswereused‐£4004and£4037ondifferentquestions

forinstanceapproximatelybalancingeachotherbutgivingtheimpressionof

beingrandomlygeneratedtosustaintheillusionofchanceinthetask.

Additionally,therewereapairofquestions(7&8)wherebothchoiceresultedin

numericallosses,withonelosinglessthantheother.Caseswastreatedslightly

differently,inthattheycouldnot‘lose’casesoncetheyhaddeveloped,butrather

thereweresimplydifferentlevelsof‘newcases’presented,andthesewere

similarlybalancedbetweenconditions(seeappendixseventeen).

Theabovedescribesthenumericalcondition.Forqualitativefeedback,the

numericalamountsweredescribedasSlight,Average,SignificantorVery

SignificantGainsorLosses(seeappendixsixteen).

Programming

TheexperimentwasdesignedandruninMicrosoftVisualStudio2010.

Participantsusedanetbookandmousetonavigatethroughthetask.Aninitial

participantnumberboxwasfilledinbytheexperimenter,butfromthispoint

untiltheendofthetaskparticipantshadcompletecontrolofthetask.

Eachquestionwaspresentedasaseparatepage,withthedescriptivetextabove

apairofbuttonsfortheinternalorexternalsolution,withastandard,brief

descriptionofthatchoiceonthebuttons(‘Waitforcar’or‘Startwalking’for

91

example)andaseven‐pointradiobuttonLikertscaleforexpressingconfidence

belowthat.Participantshadtoclicka‘continue’buttontoproceed,andcouldnot

dosountiltheyhadmadeaselectionofchoiceandconfidence(seeappendix

eighteen).Afeedbackpagewasthenpresented,consistingoftwobuttons–‘get

feedback’and‘continue’.Clicking‘getfeedback’wouldcausetheappropriatetext

toappear,andsimilartothequestionpageitwasimpossibletoproceedwithout

clickingtogetfeedbackfirst(seeappendixnineteen).Everyclickperformedin

thetaskpromptedalineofcodetobegeneratedinauniqueexcelspreadsheet

foreachparticipant.ThisdetailedtheQuestionnumber,Pagetype,Eventtype,

Timeandcurrentchoices(forinternal/externalandconfidence).

Pretesting

Eachparticipantunderwentpretesting,fillinginthreestandardised

questionnairesthatmeasuredIntroversion/Extraversion(Francis,Lewis,&

Ziebertz,2006)(seeappendixnine),Authoritarianism(Kelman&Barclay,1963)

(seeappendixeight)andRiskTaking/impulsiveness(Patton,Stanford,&

Barratt,1995)(seeappendixseven).Theseweretakentotestiftherewere

personalitytraitsthatwouldbeconfoundingfactorsfortheexperiments.They

werecontrolledforpost‐hocasitwasimpracticaltodosobeforehand.

Authoritarianismwasmeasuredbecausethetaskpresentedthepossibilityfor

simplydeferringto(outside)authorityoneachchoice.Risktakingwas

controlledforbecauseonesetofchoicescouldpotentiallybeseenasthe‘safer’

option(presumablytheoutsideauthorities).Introversion/Extraversionwasnot

predictedtobeaconfoundingvariable,butratherwastakentoserveasa

baselinenon‐predictivemeasure.

Aftertheexperiment,participantsfilledinabriefquestionnairethattheir

confidenceaboutthetask,whichtypeofsolutiontheyfelttheyhadusedmore

andwhichfeedbackmetrictheymadethemostuseof.Additionallytherewerea

seriesofopen‐endedquestionsabouthowtheyfelttheirperformancehadbeen,

whattheymighthavechangedandtheirgeneralperspectiveonthetask.

92

Grouping&Participants

Theexperimentwasdividedintoequalgroupsbasedonthetwofeedback

conditions(NumericandQualitative)andthreeframingcondition(Neutral,

Over‐FrameandQuestionFrame).Inbothoftheframedconditions,groupswere

counterbalancedtoaccountforframedirection(InternalorExternal)which

addedanadditionaltwogroupsforeachoftheseconditions,makingatotalof

tengroups.

60participantsweretested,withsixineachofthetenconditions.Eachgroup

wasgender‐balancedwiththreemenandthreewomenineach,andallthe

groupswereagebalancedasparticipantswerecollected.Agesrangedbetween

63and19,withamedianof23andameanof26.1.Therewerenosignificant

differencesbetweengroupsonthebasisofage.

Hypotheses

Theexperimenthadthreehypotheses.

Firstlyitwaspredictedthatparticipantsdecisionswouldbeaffectedbyframing.

Boththeoverallframeandthequestionframewouldinfluencethedecisions

made,althoughtheoverallframewouldbelesseffectiveforlaterquestions.

Itwasalsopredictedthatframingwouldaffectconfidence,withframed

decisionsbeingmoreconfidentthanunframed.

Finallyitwaspredictedthatfeedbacktypewouldnotaffectthedecisionsmade

orconfidence.

Results

Theinformationgatheredwasanalysedinturn,primarilyconsistingofthe

pretestingmeasures,decisionsmade,confidenceratings,timingdataandafew

additionalmiscellaneoustests.

PretestingMeasures

Thescoresforeachofthepretestingmeasures(Authoritarianism,

Introversion/Extraversion,Risk)weretotalledandsortedbysubjectand

experimentalresults.Thepopulationofsubjectswasdividedintothetophalf

93

andbottomhalfofresultsforeachmeasureandthesegroupswerethen

comparedaccordingtoexperimentalresults.

Usingconfidenceastheindependentvariable,aseriesofMannWhitneyUtests

wereperformedandnodifferencewasfoundforanyofthefactors.Additionally,

correlationswereperformedfortheaverageconfidenceandpretestingscores.

Norelationshipswerefound.

Whentestingfordifferencesindecisionmaking,aseriesofchi‐squaretestswas

performed.Nodifferencewasfoundfortheintroversion/extraversionmeasures,

orauthoritarianism.Therewas,however,adifferenceinthechoicesmadefor

risktaking,c2(1,N=660)=5.605,p=0.018.

Moreriskadverseparticipantschoseaninternalsolution46%ofthetime,whilst

moreriskseekingparticipantschoseinternal37%ofthetime.Thisindicatesthat

participantssawtheinternalsolutionsasbeingmoreriskythanexternalones,a

reasonablefindinggiventhatthesituationisdepictedasbeingaseriousonethat

wouldnaturallyattracttheattentionofoutsideauthorities.

Asaresultofthisfinding,aKruskal‐Wallistestwasperformedonthe

distributionofrisktakingscoresbetweenthedifferentgroupsintheexperiment.

Itwasfoundthattherewasnosignificantdifferencebetweengroups.This

indicatesthatwhilstrisk‐takingdoeshaveanimpactonthedecisionmade,this

particulartraitwasdistributedevenlythroughtheexperimentpopulation.Asa

result,itcanbeassumedthatalthoughitisapotentiallybiasingfactor,risk‐

takingdoesnotpredictoraccountforanyofthedifferencesobserved.

Decisions

Thedecisions(internal/externalsolution)madebyallparticipantsweretaken

andsortedaccordingtoexperimentalgroupanddecisionmade.Aseriesofchi‐

squaretestswerethenperformedtocomparebetweengroupsforsignificant

differences.TestswereperformedusingtheNoFramedataasabaselineto

compareagainstforallgroups,butwerealsoperformedcomparingbetween

typeoffeedback(NumericandQualitative)anddirectlybetweenframingtypes

(OverallFrame,QuestionFrame).TheproportionsintheNeutralconditionwere

94

50externalto82internal–approximately62%internal.Thisshowsthatdespite

theattempttopre‐balancethequestionstherewasanunderlyingtendency

towardsinternalsolutionsbeforeanyframingoccurred.

NodifferencewasfoundbetweenconditionsforthechoicesmadeintheOver‐

Framecondition,eitherbetweenthetwodifferentframesorcomparingeitherto

theNeutralcondition(Figure5.1).

Figure5.1:NumberofChoicesmade(yaxis)bycondition(xaxis)andchoicetype

(Internal/External)forOverallFrames

SignificantdifferenceswereobservedintheQuestion‐Frameconditionbetween

thetwoframetypes(c2(1,N=264)=45.019,p=.000),andbetweentheinternal

frameandtheNeutralcondition(c2(1,N=264)=7.174,p=.007),andthe

externalframeandtheNeutralcondition(c2(1,N=264)=17.519,p=.000).

Additionally,thepercentagechangeofchoiceswascalculatedforbothframed

(thepercentageshiftindecisionsgiventheNeutralconditionasaperformance

baselineandthereforethedifferentamountofdecisionsthatitwaspossibleto

changegiventheinitiallopsidedness)andwasfoundtobeverysimilar–40%

fortheinternalframeand41%fortheexternalframe(Figure5.2).

95

Figure5.2:NumberofChoicesmade(yaxis)bycondition(xaxis)andchoicetype

(Internal/External)forQuestionFrames.

Thedatawasalsoanalysedbysplittingtheresultsaccordingtofeedbacktype,

butnosignificantdifferenceswerefoundeitheroverallorwithinindividual

conditions.

Theseresultswerethenchartedbyquestion(Figure5.3).

Figure5.3:Percentageof‘external’choices(yaxis)byquestionnumber(xaxis)

andconditiontype(External/Internal/Neutral)forQuestionFramedata.

96

TheOver‐Framedatawasalsographedinthismanner,asshownbelow(figure

5.4).

Figure5.4:Percentageof‘external’choices(yaxis)byquestionnumber(xaxis)

andconditiontype(External/Internal/Neutral)forOverallFramedata.

Comparingbetweenthetwographs,itappearsthattheframingeffectis

consistentintheQuestionFramecondition.IntheOverallFramecondition,there

appearstobenoisierdataforthefirstsixquestions,andrelativeconsensusfor

thelastfive.

Statisticalnote

Itisnecessaryatthispointtotakeamomenttoexplaintheapproachtakenin

regardstosomedataanalysisinboththischapterandthenext.Anoccasional

issuewithdataobtainedforthisthesisisthatthedatafromvarioussourcesdid

notfittheassumptionsofnormalityandhomogeneitythatarerequiredfor

parametricstatisticsevenaftertransformingthedata.

Theexperimentaldesignwasadirectfitfora3x2ANOVAandtheredoesnot

existaconsensusoverthebestwaytoanalysenon‐parametricdatainthisform.

AKruskal‐Wallistestiscommonlyreferredtoas‘thenon‐parametricANOVA’,

butitisonlydesignedforanalysisalongonedimension.TheMann‐WhitneyU

testisawidelyusednon‐parametriccomparisonofmeans,butbringswithitthe

riskofmakingtype1errorswhenrepeatedlyapplied

97

Whereatransformationdidnotresolvetheissueofassumptionsbeingviolated,

anANOVAisperformed,buttheseviolationsnoted.AseriesofMann‐WhitneyU

testsarethenreportedalongthedimensionsoftheANOVAtocomparethedata

setmeansindividually.

InthiswayitisbelievedthattheuseofANOVAswillhopefullyaccountforfalse

positiveresultsfromthemassofMann‐WhitneyUtestsdespitetheviolationof

homogeneity,andtheuseofMann‐WhitneyUteststhattheANOVAresultwas

notinaccuratedespitefailingtomeetassumptionsofhomogeneity.Byengaging

overseveraldimensionsandshowingconsistentresultsitisbelievedthatthe

resultsaredemonstratedtobesufficientlyrobustfordiscussion.

ConfidenceData

Havingexaminedthedirectchoicesmade,theconfidencescoresforeach

participantwerethentakenandsortedbyframetypeandfeedbacktype.The

ANOVAfailedthetestofhomogeneitywithrawscores,andnodata

transformationscouldsuccessfullynormalisethedata.

A3x2ANOVAwithFrame(Neutral,Over‐Frame,QuestionFrame)andFeedback

(Qualitative,Numeric)asbetweensubjectsfactorsrevealedmaineffectsof

Frame,F(2,654)=6.397,p=.002,ηp2=0.19,andFeedbackFrame,F(1,654)=

11.897,p=.006,ηp2=0.12.Thesewerequalifiedwithaninteractionbetween

FrameandFeedback,F(2,654)=26.446,p=.000,ηp2=0.5.

AseriesofMann‐WhitneyUtestswereperformedtocomparebetween

individualgroups.Comparisonswerelimitedtocomparingbetweengroups

whichhadatleastonefactorincommon(frameorfeedback),ascomparing

wherebothweredifferentwouldintroducetoomuchvariabilitytotheprocess.

SignificantdifferenceswerefoundbetweentheNeutralframeandtheOver‐

Frame(U=14108.5,p=.002,Z=‐3.165)andQuestionFrameandOver‐Frame(U

=30870.5,p=.019,Z=‐2.348),howevernodifferencewasfoundbetween

NeutralandQuestionFramesoverall.

98

Figure5.5:MeanConfidence(yaxis)presentedbyFrame(xaxis)andFeedback

Type(Numeric,Qualitative)forallparticipants.Errorbarsshowstandarderror.

Nosignificantdifferencewasfoundcomparingbetweenfeedbacktypesoverall,

butsignificantdifferenceswerefoundbetweenfeedbacktypeswithinall

conditions‐Neutral(U=1284,p=.000,Z=‐4.165),Over‐Frame(U=7526.5,p=

.049,Z=‐1.966)andQuestionFrame(U=6497.5,p=.000,Z=‐3.726).

Withinthenumericfeedbackconditiondifferenceswerefoundbetweenthe

NeutralandOver‐Framegroups(U=2884.5,p=.000,Z=‐3.97),andbetween

theNeutralQuestionFramegroups(U=2434.5,p=.000,Z=‐5.224).However,

nodifferencewasfoundbetweentheOver‐FrameandQuestionFramegroups.

Withinthequalitativefeedbackconditiondifferenceswerefoundbetweenthe

QuestionFrameandNeutralgroups(U=3303,p=.004,Z=‐2.86),andQuestion

FrameandOver‐Framegroups(U=6020,p=.000,Z=‐4.500).Nosignificant

differencewasfoundbetweentheNeutralandOver‐Framegroups.

Theconfidencedatawasalsoanalysedonaquestion‐by‐questionbasis,butdid

notrevealanynotableresults.Thereweredifferencesbetweenindividual

questions,aswouldbeexpected,buttherewerenointeractionwithother

factors.Confidencewasalsotestedaccordingtohowconfidencevariedasa

resultofthechoicemade–inwhetherparticipantsweremoreconfidencewhen

goingwithaframethantheywereagainstit.Therewasnodifferencefound

99

betweenthegroupsforeitherframedgrouporoverall,norwasthereany

interactionwithfeedbacktype.

TimingData

Aspartoftheexperimentalsetup,timingdatawascapturedforeverymoment

whenparticipantsclickedabuttonorotherwiseinteractedwiththeprogram.

Thisdatacanbeusedgiveanideaofthethinkingtimesinvolvedinaproblem,

butisnotstraightforwardtouseforseveralreasons,andnecessitatedtheuseof

severalnormalisingtechniquesthatwillbeexplainedfirst.

Background

Theexperimentalsetuphadparticipantsexposedtoanentirepagewhen

consideringaproblem.Becausetherewasnodistinctionbetweentheperiodin

whichparticipantswerereadingtheproblemdescriptionandtheperiodin

whichtheywerethinkingaboutwhichchoicemightbemoreappropriate,there

wasnodirect‘thinkingtime’metric.Timingdatawas,however,availableforthe

entirepage,thatisthetimetakenfromthepointatwhichtheparticipant

enteredthepagetothepointatwhichtheyleft.Thistimewastransformedfor

thepurposeofstatisticalcomparison.

Readingtime,speedandtextlengthwereallcontrolledfor.Readingspeedwas

assessedbyusingtheinstructionssheetasabaseline.Thetimetakentoreadthe

instructionswastaken,andthendividedbythenumberofwordsreadforeach

condition(astherewereadditionalwordsintheOver‐Framecondition

instructions,andtheQuestionFrameconditionquestions).Thisproducedatime

perword(TPW)metricthatcouldthenbedirectlycomparedbetween

conditions.

Anindependentsamplest‐testindicatedthatscoresweresignificantlyhigherfor

theOver‐Framecondition(M=275.91,SD=107.74)thantheunframed

instructions(M=225.24,SD=63.34),t(34)=2.29,p=.045,d=0.58.Levene’s

Testindicatedunequalvariances(F=4.33,p=.042)sodegreesoffreedomwere

adjustedfrom58to34.Nodifferenceswerediscoveredbetweenfeedbacktype,

aswasexpected.

100

Figure5.6:TimePerWord(yaxis)byframetype(xaxis)andfeedbacktype

(Numeric,Qualitative).ErrorBarsshowstandarderror.

TheresultssuggestthatparticipantsintheOver‐Frameconditionarespending

moretimethinkingabouttheinstructionstheyhavereceived,andnotsimplyas

anartifactofhavingreadmorewords.Secondly,theNeutralandQuestionFrame

conditionsarestatisticallythesameforreadingspeed,suggestingthatthereisa

reasonableexpectationthatthegroupsareaptforcomparisonandtheOver‐

Frameresultisnotsimplytheresultofnaturalvarianceinreadingspeeds.

Thesescoreswerethereforeusedasthebaselineforareadingand

comprehensionspeed.Thattherewasalsocomprehensionoccurringwasnot

consideredaproblem,sincethelevelofnewinformationwasthesameforall

participants,excepttheOver‐Framecondition.Inordertoprovideabaselinefor

thatcondition,theaveragedifferencebetweentheOver‐Frameandallother

scoreswastaken,andtheOver‐Frameresultsreducedbythatamount.

TPWscoreswerethengeneratedfromthequestionpagesforallparticipantsby

dividingthetimetakenbythenumberofwordsinthatgivenquestion.Thisgave

anideaofthinkingtimeforeachquestion,butwerestillpotentiallydistortedby

differentreadingspeeds.Hence,therawTPWscoresfromtheinstructionswas

usedasabaselinetoprojectanexpectedspeed,andthedifferencebetweenthis

score(QuestionTPW)andthebaselinescorewascalculated.Thisdifferencein

101

scorewasthenconvertedtoaproportionofthebaselineTPW,anditwasthis

valuethatwastested.

Analysis

Figure:5.7ProportionChangeinTPWbetweenInstructionsandQuestions(yaxis)

bycondition(xaxis)andFeedbackType(Numeric,Qualitative).ErrorBarsshow

standarderror.

Becausethedatawasconvertedintoapercentage,itwasnotappropriateto

performanANOVAonit.AseriesofMann‐WhitneyUtestsshowedsomeeffect

however.TheNeutralandOver‐Frameconditionsweredifferent(U=15102,Z=

‐2.16,p=.031),asweretheOver‐FrameandQuestionFrameConditions(U=

31327,Z=‐2.01,p=.045).NodifferencewasfoundbetweentheNumericand

QuestionFrameconditions.Therewasnodifferencebetweenfeedbackforthe

NeutralandOver‐Frameconditions,buttherewasonefortheQuestionFramed

condition(U=7340,Z=‐2.212,p=.027).Acorrelationwasfoundbetween

percentageTPWchangeandconfidencebySpearman’srho(r=‐.086,N=660,p

=.027)suggestingthatwhenparticipantsweremoreconfidenttheytookless

timetomaketheirdecision.

Spearman’scorrelationalsofoundarelationshipbetweenpercentageTPW

changeandquestion(r=‐0.174,N=660,p=.000)indicatingthatasparticipants

completedthetasktheytooklesstimeconsideringtheiranswers.

102

Figure5.8:MeanPercentageTimePerWordChangefromBaseline(yaxis)by

Questionnumber(xaxis)

Finally,acorrelationbetweenconfidenceandquestionnumberwasnotfound.

FrameDirectionEffects

Asnotedpreviously,theframedirectionhadaneffect,inthatparticipantswere

lesslikelytochooseexternalsolutionsonageneralbasis,asseeninthebaseline

condition,andthatrisk‐adverseparticipantschosemoreexternalsolutionsthan

internal.

Again,thedatawasinpercentageformandthusinappropriatetobeassessedby

anANOVA,butitwasgraphed,andaseriesofMann‐WhitneyUtestsperformed

onit.

Significantdifferenceswerefoundbetweenconditionsforanexternalframe(U=

6983,p=.005,Z=‐2.787)andbetweenframetypeswithintheOver‐Frame

condition(U=6150,p=.000,Z=‐4.13).Adifferencewasalsofoundbetween

ExternalandInternalframesoverall,(U=27853,p=.000,Z=‐3.991).

103

Figure5.9:MeanPercentageTimePerWordchangebetweenBaselineand

Questionmeasurements(yaxis)bycondition(xaxis)andFrameDirection

(Internal,External).ErrorBarsshowstandarderror.

FeedbackTime

Timingdatawasalsogatheredforthefeedbackdata.Feedbackwasobtainedby

clickingabuttontoseeit,andthenanothertoproceedonceread.Thishadthe

effectofisolatingtheperiodinwhichparticipantswereconsideringthe

feedback,removingtheambiguitythatexistedindistinguishingbetweenreading

timeandthinkingtime.Thelimitedamountofinformationpresentedas

feedbacksimilarlyeliminatedtheneedforreadingtimestobeaccountedforas

therewerenolongstringsoftexttobereadandunderstood.

Therawtimedatawasthereforetaken,andconvertedintoitslogarithmicform

toensurehomogeneityofvariance.A3x2ANOVAwithFrame(Neutral,Over‐

Frame,QuestionFrame)andFeedback(Qualitative,Numeric)asbetween

subjectsfactorsanalysing(logarithmic)timerevealedaninteractionbetween

FrameandFeedback,F(2,654)=4.177,p=.016,ηp2=.013.

104

Figure5.10:MeanLogarithmofFeedbacktime(yaxis)byFrameType(XAxis)and

FeedbackType(Numeric,Qualitative).ErrorBarsshowstandarderror.

AseriesofMann‐WhitneyUtestswereperformedcomparingbetweenthe

individualdatapoints.Asignificantdifferencewasfoundbetweenthenumeric

andqualitativescoresattheQuestionFramelevel(U=6759,p=.002,Z=‐

3.148).Neitheroftheotherlevelsshowedasignificantdifference.

Discussion

Astheprecedingsectionhashopefullymadeclearthisstudyhasprovideda

wealthofdatatobeanalysedandunderstood.Thissectionwillseektotie

togetherthevariousanalysesandmakeclearwhatoverallconclusionscanbe

made.

Firsttheinitialhypothesesthatweresuggestedwillbeevaluated.Followingthis,

specificconclusionswillbedrawnaboutthedataandwhatitseemstotellus

abouthowintegrationoccurs,andalsohowconfidenceinteractswithframing

effectsovertime.Ongoingimplicationsfortheproposedmodelwillthenbe

discussed,beforenewquestionsthatthisstudyhasraisedwillbeaddressed.

Hypotheses

Thethreehypothesescannowbeassessed.

105

Firstlyitwaspredictedthatparticipantsdecisionswouldbeaffectedbyframing.

Thiswassupportedinthecaseofthequestionframe,butnosignificant

differenceswereobservedintheoverallframecondition.Theinconsistencyof

choicesinthefirstsixquestionsinthatconditionpossiblysuggestsaneffectofa

differenttypehowever.

Itwasalsopredictedthatframingwouldaffectconfidence,withframed

decisionsbeingmoreconfidentthanunframed,andfeedbacktypewouldnot

affectthedecisionsmadeorconfidence.Itwasfoundthatframingdidaffect

confidence,butasaninteractionwithfeedback.Theresultsprovedtobemore

complicatedthanthehypothesespredicted,andthiswillnowbediscussedin

moredetail.

Complexity

Beyondthespecifichypothesestherewasabasicexpectationthatframingwould

haveaneffectinthisenvironmentasitdidinthecardgameparadigm.Thiswas

stronglysupported.Effectswereseenbetweenframingconditionsandbetween

feedbacktypesfordecisionsmade,confidencescoresandtimingmeasures.

Howeverasnotedabovetheresultsdifferedfromwhatwaspredicted.Framing

wasonlypresentatthequestionlevelandfeedbackhadanimpactonconfidence

andtimingmeasures.Theresultscontainanumberofinteractions,suggesting

thatoneofthemainconclusionsthatcanbedrawnisthatofcomplexity,andthat

theresultsinthisareagobeyondsimplecausalrelationship.

Theresultsfromtheconfidencemetricaresignificantinthisobservation.Firstly

becauseitisapotentially‘hidden’attribute–thatitwasobservedherebecause

itwaslookedfor,butmayalsohavebeenafactorinpreviousworkandgone

undetected.Thisprovidesevidencethatframinghaspropertiesthatneedtobe

understoodintermsofanongoingscenario,andalsoinbroadertermsthan

simplytheeither/orchoicedichotomytheyhavegenerallybeenstudiedin.

Secondlyitshouldnotbeconcludedthatthisisthereforethetotalityofhow

framingcanaffectthedecisionmakingprocess,butratherevidencethatframing

couldpotentiallyimpactonmultiplefactorsbeyondjustthedecisionmade,of

whichconfidenceappearstobeone.Resultsfromtimingdatasupportthisidea,

106

thatdifferentcognitiveprocessesareoccurringasaresultofframingand

interactionswithfeedback.Therelativesimplicityoftheeffectinsingle‐choice

examplesdoesnotextendtoamoredynamicsystem.Andthisexperimentwas

relativelycontrolledandconstrained–itmustbeanticipatedthatmore

complicatedrelationshipscouldexistinscenarioswithstillgreaterecological

validity.

FramingPositionEffects

ContrastingtheneutralandQuestionFrameconditions,aneffectisreadily

apparent‐theNeutralconditionprovidedabaselinereactionthattheQuestion

Frame‘stretched’inthedirectionofthatframe.Whatwasnotexpectedwasthat

itmaintainedthatpullovertheentireexperiment–therewasnoevidenceof

framefatigue,orparticipantsbecoming‘wise’totheconstantframetheywere

beingexposedto.Fromthepreviousexperiment’sresultsitwasanticipatedthat

overtimeparticipantswouldrelymoreonfeedbackthantheframe(astheframe

wouldbecometransparentlybiasedoncerepeatedenough)andreverttowards

theNeutralbaseline,buttherewasnoevidenceofthis.

Additionallyitwasexpectedthattheframewouldbemostpotentfortheinitial

problems,butthiswasagainnotthecase–ifanythingittookacoupleof

questionsfortheframetostartsignificantlyaffectingdecisions.Giventhatthis

framehasbeeneffectiveinasingle‐decisioncontextpreviously,itseemsmost

likelythatthisinitialfailureoftheframeisduetotheongoingscenario

paradigm.Whatappearstobeoccurringisthattheframeaspresentedtakes

timetobeintegratedintotheoveralldecisionmakingapparatus(providingyet

moreevidencethatthiswas,infact,seenasawholetaskratherthanaseriesof

individualdecisions).Thisexplanationwouldalsoaccountforthenon‐failureof

theframelateron,whenrepetitionwouldhavebeenexpectedtolessenits

effects.

TheOver‐Frameconditionfailedtoframeparticipantsatall,butdidappearto

haveaneffect,astheinitialsixquestionchoiceswereunpredictablebetween

conditions.ThiswasdespitetheQuestionFrameparticipantsmirroringthe

baselinepattern,andover‐frameparticipantsshowingthatsamemirroringlater

107

on(alsoimplyingthattheeffectfadedwithtime,consistentwithitbeingaresult

oftheframe).TheeffectoftheOver‐Framemaythereforehavebeentodisrupt

thedecisionmakingprocessforthefirstfewquestionsofthetask.Thequestions

thisraisesiswhywouldthishappen,andwhynoframingoccurred.

Itishypothesisedthatthiswasduetonewinformationaffectingthedecision

makingprocess,butnotbeingclearenoughtobesystematicallybiasingor

framing.Ifwebelievefromthequestionconditionthatittooktimeforthebiasto

befullyintegratedintothedecision‐making,thenitwouldfollowtheconverse

couldbetrue,andinthiscasetheframewasneverfullyintegratedand

understood.Inadditiontoonlyoccurringonceasopposedtorepeatedframing

(asinthepreviousexperiment)theframewasbynecessitypresentedinabstract

termsof‘externalorinternal’solutions.Theinformationwasnotcontextualised

anyfurtherorlinkedtoanythingspecificinthequestions.Sowhilstparticipants

wereawarethattherehadbeenadditionalinformationimparted,theymayhave

beenunsureexactlyhowtoapplyit.Theymayalsohavebeenconfusedabout

whichsolutionwas‘internal’andwhich‘external’–althoughitwasintendedto

beapparent,notlabellingtheactualsolutionsasactuallybeing‘theinternal

solution’mayhavecauseparticipantstobeunsureofhowtheframeapplied.

Whatthesedifferentconditionsreallypointtoistheneedforintegrationin

orderforframestobeeffective.InthecaseoftheQuestionFrame,thecondition

tookacoupleofquestionsfortheinformationtobeintegratedandasaresulta

coupleofquestionsfortheframingtobepredictive.IntheOver‐Frametheframe

neverbecameintegratedforwhateverreason,althoughitwasknownbythe

participantssoithadtheeffectofconfusingthedecisionmakingprocessasa

resultofalackofintegration.

Integration

Thisstudyprovidesfurtherevidencethatthetraditionalunderstandingof

framingeffectsandboundedrationalityisinsufficienttoexplainactivityinmore

dynamicenvironments.Thatshouldnotbetakentosaythatpreviousresearchis

notuseful;clearlytheAsianfluframingutilisedinthisstudy,andtheseriesof

framingmechanismsemployedinthepreviousexamplearedrawnfrompre‐

108

existingliteratureanddemonstratethattheyarestilleffectiveinongoingtasks.

However,thewayinwhichframesworkinthisdifferentcontextclearlyhasa

numberofuniquepropertiestoitthatdemandfurtherstudy.

Theemergingpattern,asnotedabove,appearstobethatintegrationiskey.That

is,thatbothataskandtheframemustbeprocessedandunderstoodinorderfor

theframetohaveaneffectonthetask.Evidenceofthiswasseenintheprevious

experimentwheretheframewasnotappliedtodiscardingwhenitcouldhave

been,thenfurtheredherewhereframingtooksometimetobeestablishedinthe

QuestionFramecondition,andalackofintegrationdisrupteddecisionmakingin

theOver‐Frameconditionatthestartoftheexperiment.Integrationisprovingto

beakeywayforexplainingifframesareeffective(orineffective).

Thismakessenseonabasiclevel–itisnecessarytounderstandinorderforitto

influenceyourdecisionmakingafterall.Howeverinalltheexamplesgiven,it

wasnotthattheinformationfailedtobeunderstoodatall.Indeed,inthecard

gamestudydiscardingwasunderstoodasamechanismandimplementedwith

onlysmallmis‐stepsattimes.Similarlyinthisexperimentparticipants

understoodtheinstructions–theydidnotaskforclarificationandexpressedno

confusionafterwards.Whatisgoingonisnotasimplefailuretoprocess,oreven

afailuretounderstandonabasiclevel,butratherrepresentsafailuretograsp

theimplicationsoftheinformationandapplyitappropriately.

Thesignificanceofthisfindinghasseveralaspects.Firstlyitactuallyidentifiesa

largepartofwhywewouldanticipateframingeffectstohaveadifferentimpact

inongoingscenarios–theyhavealotofmovingpartsandcomplexity.The

significanceofthisshouldnotbeunderestimated;ifintegrationatarelatively

highleveliskey,thebusierandmorecognitivelydemandingtheenvironment

thegreaterthepossibilitythataframecouldgetlostinthemilieu.Itmaybethat

framingfailstohaveaneffectnotbecausetheframeitselfisbadlydesignedor

incapableofaffectingsomething,butinagivencontextitsimplydoesnot

generateenoughattentiontobeeffective.

Thisraisesthequestionofhowframesareattendedto,andthereforeintegrated

intoaparticipant’sunderstanding.Fortunatelythisexperimentprovidesauseful

109

exampleofjustthiswiththeQuestionFrame.Herethesameframewasfully

integratedintothequestion,bothintermsofdescribingtheproportionsinterms

oftheproblemathand,butalsointermsofbeingpartofthetextthat

participantswereengagedwithreadingforanunderstandingoftheproblem.

Theinformationwasthere,itwasavailableanditwaspartoftheprocess

already.Thisraisesquestionsabouthowseparateaframecanbefromthe

informationitisrelevantto.

Additionallythereariseissuesinregardstopredictabilityandforecastingof

behaviour.Oftenwhenapplyingpsychologicaltheoriestopracticalsituationsit

isnecessarytohedgeprobabilitiesanyway–ifexposedtothisstimulus,70%of

peoplewillrespondinaparticularway,or60%ofparticipantsgenerally

respondfavourablytoaparticularsortoftherapy.Howeverwhatthis

experimentillustratesisthatwithframingadifferentsortofcalculationapplies.

Thequestionisnotonlyhowparticipantswillreacttoagivenframe,butalso

whethertheframewillbeintegratedandthusappliedatall.

Inthisexperimentitwasaperfectlyreasonableprediction,basedonprevious

experience,thatinsertingaframeintotheinstructionswouldbesufficientto

createanoticeableandstatisticallysignificantdifference.Thatthiswasnotthe

casewasunexpected,butinamannerthatisperfectlyconsistentwiththe

developingunderstandingoutlinedinthisthesis.However,thenatureofthat

understandingisthatitisdifficulttopredictaheadoftimeexactlywhatwillbe

integratedornot.Asetofpropertiescanprobablybeassembledtoaidwiththis

task,butgiventhateveninthisrelativelycontrolledenvironmentitwashardto

do,itislikelythatincreasinglyrealisticenvironmentswouldprovideincreasing

levelsofchallengeforthatprediction.Asthecomplexityincreasesthepossibility

thatsomeotherfactorwithinterferewithexpectedintegrationincreasesalso.

Asaresultofthis,itseemsprudenttosuggestthatthisisseenasatwo‐stage

processforsuchpredicting.Theeffectivenessofaframeshouldbeevaluatedas

onefactor,butasaseparate(althoughinteracting)factor,thelevelofintegration

shouldalsobeassessed.Inthisexperimentitwastheintegrationlevel,notthe

typeofframethatprimarilyaccountedforthedifferencesbetweenconditions,

110

giventhattheframesweremathematicallyidentical.Thedangerthisillustrates

isthatcaremustbetakennottorejectaframingapproachasineffectivedueto

theframeitself,ratherthanalackofintegration.

Integrationcanthereforebeseenasanewdimensiontobestudiedforbounded

rationality.InthesamewaythatKahnemanndescribesapartiallistofproperties

thatcanaffectavailabilityfordecisionmaking,itisnothardtoenvisionalistof

similarlydefinedpropertiesthatwouldstarttomapthelandscapeofwhat

affectsintegrationforframingeffects.Indeed,itwouldbethoroughly

unsurprisingifthesepropertiesalsoturnedouttorepresentmoregeneric

propertiesofperceptionanddecisionmaking.Whatframingcouldrepresent

here,then,wouldbethemeansbywhichintegrationcouldbestudied.Givena

consistentbiasthatisknowntoexistwithanestablishedframe,variablelevels

ofpotentialintegrationcouldbesetandtheireffectivenessgaugedbytheir

effectivenessinframing.Indeed,itwouldbeinterestingtoknowifintegration

and/orframingarebinarypropositions,orifitwouldbepossibletocreatea

partialorlesserframingeffectthroughpartialintegration.

Confidence

Thesecondimportantoverallobservationtocomeoutofthisstudyconcernsthe

confidencemeasure.Itwasbothreadilyacceptedandunderstoodby

participants,aswellasdisplayingeffects.Thesedemonstratethatitwasauseful

andrelevantfactortobemeasuring,aswellasapparentlyaccuratelycapturing

whatitwasintendedto,lendingconfidencetoitsappropriateness.Some

conclusionscanbedrawnfromitsuse.

Firstly,confidencevariedsystematicallybycondition.Thebroaderimplicationof

thisissimplythatwhenframingaconceptinordertodriveopinion,itislikely

thatconfidencewillbeimpactedatthesametime.Decisionsmaybeaffects,but

thischangewillcomewithadditionalconsequences‐peoplemaybemoreorless

enthusiasticaboutthechoicetheyaremaking,andmoreorlesswillingtotake

risksasaresultofit.Whenframingopinion,simplydeterminingthedirectionin

whichadecisionwillnowgoisnotsufficienttopredicttheoutcomeofthe

111

actionsthatwillbeundertaken.Framingwillaffectnotjustwhatisdone,but

alsohowitisdone,andtheseadditionalfactorsarejustasimportant.

Noting‘additional’factorspluralinthepreviousparagraphwasnotanerror.

Thatconfidenceisaffectedistheonlystatementwecanbeconfidentof

currently,buteverythingaboutthatresultsuggeststhatotherelementscould

havesimilarproperties.Itisreasonabletohypothesise,ashasbeendoneearlier,

thatconfidenceisnottheonlyfactorthatislikelytobeaffectedbyframing.Butit

isalsotruethatthefactorthatwedohavesolidevidencefor–‘confidence’could

itselfbeunpacked.Itwasavariablethatwasdeliberatelyleftbroadandfor

interpretationbytheparticipants,butitwouldnotbedifficulttoimaginethatit

mightbeparsedintomorespecificaspectsofthatconcept.Alternativelythe

behavioursitmightinfluencecouldbeseparatedanddifferentiallyexamined.In

theriskquestionnaireusedinthisexperiment,differenttypesofriskfactorsuch

asphysicalorfinancialwereidentifiedandavailabletoberatedseparately.With

thisdataset,parsingtheresultsfurtherbythatmetricwouldhaveresultedin

lowpowerandpotentiallyunevengroups,butfurtherworkmightfindthat

framingmorespecificallytargetsfinancialconcernsthanitdoesphysicalones,

forinstance,andthatthisaffectstheconfidenceasaresult.

Whatisalsonotableaboutconfidenceisthatitdidn’tsimplyvarybycondition,it

interactedaccordingtofeedback.Thesamepointsaboutavarietyoffactorsthat

mightaffectconfidencecouldbemadeaboutfeedbacktype,anditshouldbe

notedthatthisisfurtherevidenceofthepotentialcomplexityofframingina

dynamicenvironment.Howeverregardless,themoresignificantresultisthat

framingdidnothaveagenericraisingorloweringofconfidenceeffect.Thisis

anotherexampleoftheneedtocontextualiseanyunderstandingwhenlookingto

makepredictionsaboutresponses,orrelativeconfidence.

Ifthisunderstandingcanbecontextualisedandmaderobustenoughforagiven

situation,theunderstandingcouldbeusedtosystematicallyaffectthe

performanceofactorsinagivensetting.Fromthedataaboveweknowthat

framingcanaffectconfidence,andweknowthatresponsetimecorrelateswith

confidence–themoreconfidentyouarethefasteryoumakeadecision,andthe

112

lessconfidentthelongeryoutake.Itisnothardtoseehowthiscouldbeapplied

in,forinstance,acombatscenario.Ifaframecanbeintroducedtotheopposing

forcethroughtheuseofpropagandaorothermeansitdoesnotevenhaveto

actuallyaffectthedecisionsthatthepeoplewhoreaditmake.Theycouldmake

thesamedecisionsatthesameplaces,butdosoeverysoslightlyslower,asa

resultoftheframe.Andinacombatsituationthosecriticaldecisions–whento

move,wheretomove,whethertoopenfire–canliterallybelifeordeath

dependingonsplitsecondtiming.

ImplicationsfortheModel

Theimplicationsthisworkraisesforthemodelareessentiallysupportive.The

stepofintegration,inparticular,islookingmoreandmoreimportantasstudies

continue.Thisraisesthepossibilitythatasastepitis,infact,toosimplistic.The

informationintheinitialmodelisunderstoodsimplyasaneither/orstate,but

increasingevidenceisthatthisisnotthecase.Thingscanbeperceivedand

integratedtoadegree(suchasthediscardingrule,ortheOver‐Frameinthis

example)andnotgoontoinfluencedecisionmaking.Participantswereclearly

awareofsomethingssothereforetheymusthavebeenintegratedonsomelevel,

butnotsufficientlyforthatunderstandingtohavetheexpectedinfluence.

Recognitionofthecomplexityofthisstepwillbenecessary,some

discriminatorymechanismfordetermininghowandwhydifferentelementsare

integratedtoadifferentdegree.

NewQuestions

Thisexperimentraisesanumberofquestionstobeaddressed,aswellas

openinguppotentialavenuesoffutureresearch,someofwhicharetoowide‐

rangingtobeaddressedbythisthesisatthispoint.

Themostbasicquestiontobetakenforwardsisoneofintegrationandfuture

influence.Inthisexperimentmuchhasbeenmadeofthedifferencein

integrationbetweenthetwoattemptedframings,withthesuggestionthatthisis

trueataplanninglevel,withtheframehavingbeenintegratedintodecision

makingbiases.Ifthisistrue,thereshouldbeaneffect(oreffects)seenasaresult

ofremovingtheframeandposingthesamesortsofquestions.Ifthereisreally

113

integration,lingeringframeeffectsshouldbeseen.Additionally,todatethe

framingeffecthasbeenestablishedonlywhenpresentedaspartoftheproblem

tobesolved.Giventhatthisisunlikelytobethecaseintherealworld,ifthe

framecanbepresentedasasecondarysourceofevidenceandbeintegratedinto

thedecisionmakingstilltherewillbegreatercauseforconfidenceatthe

effectivenessofutilisingthisunderstandinginrealworldsituations.

Secondlytherearefurtherquestionsofapplicabilityandethnographicvalidityto

address.Betweenthecardgameandthisstudy,thephenomenahavebeen

robustlyestablished,andstepscanbetakentoapplytheunderstandingtoan

ongoingareaofresearch.

114

CHAPTERSIX–FramePersistenceandCyberInfluenceasaFramingMechanism:TheHerbalStudy

Introduction

Previouschaptershaveexaminedtheeffectofframingonstrategicbehaviourin

tasks.Thischapterwillre‐utilisethepreviouslyemployedseriesofforced

choicesandconfidencemeasures,whilstemployingadifferentframing

mechanismemployedinamoreecologicallyvalidmannerandexploring

whethereffectspersistoncetheframeisremoved.

Setting

Thesamebasicparadigmwasemployedasthepreviousexperiment,withthe

significantdifferencethattheframingmechanismwasremovedfromdirect

associationwiththeproblemdescription.Asocialmediafeedwaschosentofulfil

thisrole,beingbotheasilyseparablefromaproblemdescriptionandasourceof

potentialinfluencewithsignificanceintherealworld.

Itisacommonassumptionthatsocialmediaplaysasignificantroleindriving

behaviour.Examplesofthisincluderelativelyinnocuousactivitiessuchasthe

coordinatedmass‐buyingofasongtogetittonumberoneintheUK(News,

2009),andmoresignificantglobaleventssuchasthe‘ArabSpring’seriesof

uprisingsandunrestinthemiddleeast(Howard,2011;Saletan,2011)andthe

UKriotsof2011(Halliday,2011).

Researchhasnotaddresstheideathatsuchsitescanbeframing,buthave

concludedtheyareinfluentialtosomedegree.Studieshaveexploredhowusers

shareandpromotephysicalexerciseviathesite(Kendall,Hartzler,Klasnja,&

Pratt,2011),howacademicsciteonit(Priem&Costello,2010),andevenhow

Governmentsuseit(Wigand,2010).Therehavealsobeeneffortstounderstand

themechanismsdrivingsuchinteractionandtheireffects.Studieshavelookedat

usingittoexaminecurrentattitudesandbeliefs(Marshall&Shipman,2011),

andquestionshavebeenpersistentlyraisedaboutwhethertheinformation

115

beingsharedisaccurateornot(Castillo,Mendoza,&Poblete,2011;Mendoza,

Poblete,&Castillo,2010)andestablishedthatinfluencewithintwitteris

distributedandnotlimitedto‘authoritative’sources(Bakshy,Hofman,Mason,&

Watts,2011).Forthesereasons,socialmediapresentsareal‐worldexampleofa

sourceofinformationthatispotentiallyinfluentialandcouldplausiblybe

framing.

Design

Theexperimentconsistedoftwoparts:aseriesofquestionnairesanda

computerprogramthatparticipantscompleted.

Therewerefourquestionnaires,threeofwhichwereadministeredpriortothe

experiment,andonethatafterwards.Thethreebeforehandconsistedoflikert

scaledquestionsthatmeasuredattitudestoalternativemedicines(seeappendix

twenty),introversion/extraversionandrisktaking(Francisetal.,2006;Patton

etal.,1995)(seeappendicessevenandnine).TheI/Eandrisksheetswerethe

samemeasuresusedinthepreviousstudystandardisedfrompriorresearch.

Riskandattitudetoalternativemedicinesweremeasuredaspotentiallybiasing

factors.Introversion/extraversionwasmeasuredasabaseline:itwasnot

expectedthatitwouldhaveaneffectonthetask.Thealternativemedicinesheet

wasconstructedspecificallyforthisworkastherewerenostandardmeasures

available,andwasintendedasaroughguide.Itwasadministeredonthe

assumptionthatpre‐existingbiasestowardsthesubjectmatterwouldexist,

althoughtheexperimentwasdesignedsuchthatthisshouldnothavebeena

factor.Afinalquestionnairecoveringuse‐ofandattitudestowardssocialmedia

wasadministeredattheendoftheexperiment(seeappendixtwenty‐one).

Method

Thetaskconsistedofaseriesofthematicallylinkedbinarychoices,pairedwitha

confidencescale.Therewere18questionsintotal,dividedintothreesections:an

initialelevenquestions,afinalfiveandthentwo‘rethink’repeatedquestions.

Thefirstsectionwouldconsistoftheframedquestions(apartfromintheneutral

condition),withtheframingeffectachievedbyamocked‐upTwitterfeed.There

wouldthenbean‘event’;aframednon‐responseeventfollowedbythefinalfive

116

questions,wheretherewouldbenoframing.Afterthis,twoquestionswouldbe

re‐presentedtotheparticipants.

Foreachchoice,thecomputerscreenwouldshowaparticipantthreegrey

panels,withabuttonbeneatheachlabelledas‘showtweets’‘showdecision’and

‘makechoice’respectively(seefigures7.1‐7.3).Participantsbeganthesectionby

pressingthestartbuttontotheleft,whichwouldfirstdisplaythetweets.

Participantsthenhadtoviewthedecisionnextbyclickingonitsbutton,atwhich

pointasitwasrevealedthetweetswerere‐concealed.Afterthistheycould

proceedtothedecisionmakingsection,whichconsistedoftwobuttons(onefor

eachcompany)andasevenpointLikertscalemeasuringconfidence.Participants

werefreetoviewwhicheversectiontheywishedforaslongastheyliked,and

returntothemasmanytimesastheywished,butatanyonetimeonlyone

sectionwasvisible.Everytimeanybuttonwaspressed,theprogramrecorded

timing,choiceandotherrelevantdata.

117

Picture6.1:Screenshotofanexampletestscreen,withTwitterfeedcurrently

visible

Picture6.2:Screenshotofanexampletestscreen,withthescenariotextvisible

Picture6.3:screenshotofanexampletestscreen,withchoicebuttonsvisible

118

Thesettingofthetaskplacedtheparticipantintheroleofabuyerofalternative

medicineproducts(specificallyherbalremedies)foracooperativegroupof

shops.Foreachdecision,participantswererequiredtochoosebetweentwo

fictionalcompaniesthattheycouldorderfrom.ThesewereQuetia,locatedinan

Antipodeannationandrepresentingslightlyhighercostbutgreaterqualityand

Astor,locatedinAsiaandrepresentingslightlycheaperproductsandgreater

authenticity(seeappendixtwenty‐twofortheexperimentalinstructions).These

distinctionswereintentionallygivenasmildandwerenotintendedtobe

biasing,butrathertoaddagreatersenseofrealismtothetask.Theseriesof

decisionsthroughtheexperimentdescribedbothaseriesofsmall,unconnected

dilemmasandchoices,butalsoanoverarchingnarrativeaboutacontaminated

batchofaproductthatbothcompaniesproducecausingsickness(seeappendix

twenty‐fourforanexampledecision).Theeventdescribedtheeventualoutbreak

ofwidespreadproblemsassociatedwiththisandwasframedinthemannerof

theAsianfluexample(seeappendixthirty).Theremainingfivequestionsthen

dealtwithrepercussions,differingreactionstotheproblemandcleanup.

Progressionthroughthequestionswaslinear:allparticipantsreceivedthesame

questionsinthesameorder.Theyweretold,however,thattheirresponsesand

decisionsaffectedwhathappenedandthequestionsthatwereaskedasaresult.

Thiswasdoneintentionallytomotivateparticipantstothinkofthetaskasa

singletaskratherthanaseriesofindividualdecisions.

Feedbackwasprovidedaftereachchoicewasmadeaccordingtotwometrics,

retailerconfidenceandprofit.Bothweredescribedqualitativelyasvariationsof

‘small/medium/large’lossorgain.Theexactcombinationsofthesemetrics

variedbetweenquestionsinordertogivetheillusionofrandomchance,which

participantsweretoldbeforehandexistedbutinrealitytherewasnone.Both

conditionswerebalancedsuchthatifaparticipantchoseonlyonecompanyor

theother,theywouldevenouttohavethesameresult(thiswastrueforboth

setsofquestions,beforeandaftertheevent).Similarly,theactualfeedback

variedwithwhichchoicewas‘better’onalinearbasis,A‐Q‐A‐Qetc.The

119

exceptionstothiswerethefirstandlastquestions,whichrewardedequally

regardlessofparticipantchoices.Thereasonforthiswasthatwithboth

questions,itwasdesiredthatparticipantswouldfeeltheyhadmadethe‘right’

choicewhichevertheypicked.Particularlyforthefirstquestionitwasfeltthat

participantsshouldnotbegintheexperimentbeingpunishedforachoice.The

effectofthiswasthataparticipantthattheoreticallychoseallofonecompany

wouldseetheexactsamefeedbackoverallthataparticipantwhochosetheother

companywould(seeappendixtwenty‐threefordetails).

Framingwasachievedviaamocked‐uptwitterfeed.Itwaschosentousetwitter

forseveralreasons.Firstlyitisarecentandwell‐coveredwebsite,ensuringboth

generalfamiliarityevenamongnon‐usersaswellasreflectingarecenttrendin

onlinesocialnetworkingtowardsbroadcasting.Secondlyitiscommontosimply

‘follow’peopleontwitterforinformationwithoutbeingfriendswiththemand

knowingthempersonally(asisoftenthecasewithfacebook).Thismakesit

moreappropriateforthetaskof‘informationgathering’.Thirdly,therelative

simplicityofitsinterfaceanddisplaymadeiteasiertoincorporateintoan

experimentwithoutseemingtotallyunnatural.

Theframeitselfwasconstructedalongthelinesofheuristicelicitation,as

describedbyKahnemanandTversky(Kahneman&Tversky,1973).Inthat

experiment,apersonalitydescriptionofdubiousqualitywasshowntobegiven

significantweightindeterminingprobablefieldofstudyforastudent.Inthis

experiment,aninformationofdubioussourceandveracity(thetwitterfeed)was

tobeusedtoguideparticipant’sdecisions.Participantswereinformedthatthe

feedrepresentedpeoplebeingfollowed,butthattheyhadnogreaterauthority

thanthat.

Eachquestionwasaccompaniedbyanon‐interactiveimageofatwitterfeed(see

appendicestwenty‐fivethroughtwenty‐sevenforexamples).Allimageswere

generatedbycreatingthetwitteraccountsinquestion,givingthemnames,

genericprofilepicturesandthenhavingthem‘tweet’theappropriate

informationinagivenorderbeforetakingascreenshot.Foreachquestion,the

twitterfeedshowedfivetweets,fromthesamefivetwitteraccounts.

120

Theinformationwithinthesetweetswasdeterminedsystematically.Neutral

conditiontweetsweredeliberatelychosentohavenothingtodowiththe

experimentoranyaspectofit.Occasionallyatweetwouldcommentuponthe

informationfromthedecision,butnevertogiveanopinionoranyactual

informationaboutit.Forinstancewhenthedecisionrelatedtothefactthat

customerswerebuyinglessherbalmedicine,oneofthecommentswas

‘EveryoneseemswaryofHerbalmedicinethesedays’–asimplere‐statingofthe

decisiontocome,andnotsomethingthatshouldaffectthedecision.Theyalso

containedthenewstweets,asdescribedbelow.

Thefivetweetsthatappearedinaframingtwitterfeedconsistedof:

1) Anewstweet,statingthedecisionasnewsandprovidinga(non‐

functional)linktoastory.

2) APro‐frametweet,restatingthepro‐rationalemadewithinthe

description.

3) AnAnti‐frametweet,restatingtheanti‐rationalemadewithinthe

description.

4) Asecond,novel,pro‐frameopiniontweet

5) Atweetgivingastatementofpersonalpro‐framebehavioureither

enactedoranticipated.

Themainproandantiframetweetswereidenticalbetweenconditions,although

theyswitchedrolesdependingwhichsidewasbeingframed.Thenewstweet

alsostayedidentical,meaningthattheonlyinformationthatactuallychanged

betweenthetwoconditionswasthesecondaryoption,andstatementofaction.

Intheneutralcondition,nobiasinginformationwasincludedeitherway.

Theorderthattheaccountsappearedinthefeedwasrandomized,andthenkept

constantforeachquestionbetweentheconditions.Theorderinwhichtheframe

informationappeared(andthuswhichaccountwassayingit)wasalso

randomisedandkeptconstantbetweenconditions,meaningthateachcondition

wasseeingthesameorderofproandantiframetweets.Thenewstweet,

naturally,wasthereforeinthesamepositionbetweenallconditions.

121

Hypotheses

Firstlyitwaspredictedthatframingwouldbeseeninthisexperiment,thatthe

twitterfeedwouldsuccessfullybiasparticipantresponsesintheintended

direction.

Secondlyitwaspredictedthatframingeffectswouldbecontinuetobeseenonce

theframewasremoved,aswouldbeconsistentwiththeintegrationtheory

proposedinthepreviousexperimentwhichproposedthataframebecame

integratedintodecisionmakingprocesses.

Thirdlyitwaspredictedthatsystematicdifferenceswouldbeshownin

confidence,andothersourcesofdata,betweenframedandunframed

participants.Itwaspredictedthatframedparticipantswouldbemoreconfident

thantheirunframedcounterpartswhenmakingdecisions.

Finallyitwaspredictedthatthenon‐response‘event’wouldframesubsequent

choices,alsoconsistentwiththeintegrationtheory.

Results

Theresultsfromthisexperimentaretakenfromanumberofmeasures,

primarilythechoicesmade,theconfidenceinthosechoicesandtimingdata.

PretestingData

Allparticipantsweregivensurveystocompleteasdetailedabovemeasuring

theirattitudestowardsalternativemedicines,risktakingpropensity,familiarity

withsocialmediaanddegreeofintroversion/extraversionaswellasgathering

generaldemographicinformation.

48participantsintotalweretested,dividedequallyintotherelevantconditions.

Therewereanequalnumberofmaleandfemaleparticipantsineachcondition

andtheexperimentasawhole.Theageofparticipantsrangedbetween19and

46,withameanageof27,andmedianof26.Mostparticipantswereinsomeway

involvedwiththeuniversity,althoughtherewasamixofundergraduateand

122

postgraduates.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesbetweenanyofthegroups

intermsofagecomposition.

Asubsetofthe48participantswasconductedatdistanceduetodifficultywith

obtainingparticipantsin‐person.Thisinvolvedparticipantsrunningthe

computerprogramonaPCattheirlocation,andfillingouttherelevant

questionnaireformsinorder.Itwasensuredthatallparticipantswereusingthe

sameequipmentasthosetestedinperson,andwhilstthetestwasbeing

administeredtheywereobservedviaone‐wayvideoconferencingsoftwareto

ensurethattheydidnottakeabreak,drink,eatorengageinanyotheractivities

thatwouldhavebiasedtheirresults.Thissubsethadameanageslightlybelow

theaverage,havingamedianandmeanageof24.Theparticipantswereevenly

distributedbetweenthe6conditionswithoneineach,andtheirresultswere

collectedandcomparedtothein‐persongroupresults.Nosignificantdifferences

werefoundinthetimetakenfortasks,decisionsmadeorconfidence,andasa

resultitwasconcludedthatconductingtheexperimentatdistancehadno

significanteffectonthetask.

Thedifferentgroupsweretestedbetweenforthesurvey‐measuredtraits.No

significantdifferenceswerefoundbetweengroupsforanyofthemeasures

obtained.Itwasconcludedthatpreexistingbiaseswithinthegroupswouldnot

biasanyoftheresultsobtained.

Theneutralconditionparticipants’answerstothefirst11questionswerethen

usedtoseeiftherewasacorrelationbetweenanyofthefactorsandthechoices

made.Thiswasdonebecausethetraitscouldstillbepredictive,evenifthey

wereevenlydistributedandthusnotbiasingtotheexperimentaldesign.The

neutralconditionalonewasused,becausetheframedconditionswould,bytheir

verynature,bebiasingoverandbeyondthatwhichcouldbepredictedbythe

traits.Nocorrelationwasfoundbetweenthenumberoftimesaparticipant

choseAstorandeitherattitudetowardsalternativemedicine,or

introversion/extraversion.Acorrelationwasfound,however,betweenrisk

takingandAstorchoicesusingSpearman’sRhor(16)=.567,p=.022.This

123

indicatedthatparticipantssawQuetiaasthe‘lessrisky’choicebetweenthetwo

companies,somethingthatwillbereferencedlater.

Choices

Forthepurposesofthissection,the‘choice’inquestionreferstowhichcompany

waschosentobuyfromforeachquestion.

Totalswereamassedforthefirstelevenquestionsineachcondition:Framedfor

Astor,framedforQuetia,(subsequentlyreferredtoaseitherAorQframes)and

Neutral.Eventconditionswereignoredasafactor,sinceuntilthatpointall

conditionswereidentical,andframingonlyoccurredupuntiltheevent.

Itwasfoundthatparticipantswereframedinanapproximately7:3ratio

(framedchoicetounframedchoice)inbothdirections.Intheneutralcondition,

participantsweresplitapproximately50‐50betweenthetwochoices.

Figure6.1:ParticipantChoices(A/Q)(yaxis)bycondition(A/N/Q)(xaxis)forthe

firstelevenquestions

Aseriesofchisquarecalculationswereperformedonthedata,anditwasfound

thatboththeAframe(c2(1,N=352)=13.78,p=.000)andQframe(c2(1,N=

352)=19.99,p=.000)choicesweresignificantlydifferenttotheneutral

condition(andthustoeachother).Thissuggeststhattheframingwassuccessful

124

ininfluencingthedecisionmadeandthattheframewasapproximatelyequalin

powerinbothdirections.

Thisdatawasalsovisualizedbypresentingthedatabyquestion:

Figure6.2:PercentageparticipantchoiceofA(yaxis)byquestionnumber(xaxis)

forfirstelevenquestionsbycondition(A/N/Q)

Thesamecollatingofdatawasperformedforthelast5(unframed)questions.

Firstthedatawasdividedaccordingtotheframeapplied.

Figure6.3:Participantchoices(A/Q)(yaxis)bycondition(A/N/Q)(Xaxis)forthe

finalfivequestions

125

ComparingeithertheAorQframeswiththeneutralconditiondoesnotproduce

asignificantresult,howeverdirectlycomparingtheAandQframesissignificant

(c2(1,N=352)=4.97,p=.026).Participantswerealsocomparedwhensplitby

theeventframe(QuetiaframedorAstorframed),howevernosignificant

differencewasfound.

Thedatawasalsochartedaccordingtothedifferencebetweenthefirst11and

lastfivequestionstoshowrelativechangetowardsQuetiabetweenconditions.

Figure6.4:PercentageDifferenceinchoicesmadebetweenthefirstelevenandlast

fivequestions(yaxis)byframe(xaxis),shownaspercentagechangetowards

Quetia.

TheproportionalchoiceofAwasthengraphedforthelastfivequestions(Figure

6.5below).

126

Firgure6.5:ParticipantchoiceofA(proportion)(yaxis)byquestionnumber(x

axis)forfinal5questionsbycondition(A/N/Q)

Finally,thesameanalysiswasappliedspecificallytothelastquestionofthemain

experiment,question16.Thiswasdonebecausethatparticularquestionasked

Figure6.6:Participantchoices(A/Q)(yaxis)bycondition(A/N/Q)(xaxis)forthe

finalquestion

participantstomakeafinalchoiceofwhichofthecompaniestheywouldchoose

tobuyoffforayeargoingforwards.Consequently,itcanbeseenasa‘final

preference’.

127

Itwasfoundthatalthoughtherewasnosignificantdifferencebetweenthe

Neutralconditionandeitherframe,therewasasignificantdifferenceattheone‐

tailedlevelbetweentheAandQframesusingFisher’sExactTest(p=.041).The

lownumberofresponsesmadeFisher’sExactTestmoreappropriatethanaChi

Squareinthiscircumstance.

Confidence

Theoverallconfidencescoreresultspreandpostevent(firstelevenverseslast

five)werecomparedforeachcondition.

Figure6.7:Averageconfidence(yaxis)bycondition(A/N/Q)andquestionset(x

axis).Errorbarsshowstandarderror.

A3x2ANOVAwasperformedonthedatawithFrame(A,N,Q)andquestionset

(First11,last5)asbetweensubjectfactors.Maineffectswerefoundofquestion

set,F(1,762)=7.10,p=.008,andframe,F(2,762)=3.73,p=.024.Thesewere

qualifiedbyaninteraction,F(2,762)=3.75,p=0.24.AseriesofMann‐WhitneyU

testsfoundthatinthefirst11questionstherewasnosignificantdifference

betweentheAandNframeconditions,butthatQframedconfidencewas

significantlydifferenttobothAframed,U=13037,p=.008,Z=‐2.65,and

Neutralconditions,U=13397,p=.03,Z=‐2.17.Betweenquestionsets,onlythe

Aframewassignificantlydifferent,U=5203,p=.001,Z=‐3.45.Inthelast5

questions,BoththeA‐frame,U=2552,p=0.24,Z=‐2.26,andQ‐Frame,U=

128

2637,p=0.48,Z=‐1.98,weresignificantlydifferenttotheNeutralcondition,and

identicaltoeachother.

Choice

Astor Quetia

A Frame 5.00 4.79

Neutral 4.83 4.79 Condition

Q Frame 4.20 4.67

Table6.1:MeanConfidenceforparticipantchoicesbyconditioninfirsteleven

questions.Allfiguresaccurateto3sf

Confidencewasalsoexaminewithinchoicesmadeforthefirst11questions

(table7.1above)Ascanbeseenfromtheabovetable,confidenceinQuetiadoes

notvarygreatly(orsignificantly),whetherframedorunframed.Confidence

does,however,varysignificantly,U=1923,p=.000,Z=‐3.878,inAstorwhen

framed.

Thiswasrepeatedforthelastfivequestions:

Choice

A Q

A 4.26 4.27

N 4.43 4.92 Condition

Q 4.22 4.35

Table6.2:MeanConfidenceforparticipantchoicesbyconditioninfinalfive

questions.Allfiguresaccurateto3sf

Nosignificantdifferenceswerefoundbetweenchoicesforthesequestions.Since

thevarianceappearstobemainlyintheAstorchoicesthathypothesiswastested

bygraphingtheaboveinformationforeachchoicetypebetweenquestionsets.

129

Figure6.8:Confidencescores(yaxis)forAchoicessortedbyframe(A/N/Q)and

questionset(xaxis).ErrorBarsshowstandarderror.

Figure6.9:Confidencescore(yaxis)forQchoicessortedbyframe(A/N/Q)and

Questionset(xaxis).ErrorBarsshowstandarderror.

ThesechartsappeartoshowdivergenceinthefirstelevenquestionsforA

values,thenconversanceinthelastfive.ThepatternisreversedforQvalues,

whichareroughlyequalforthefirst11questions,thendivergeforthelastfive.

Thedatawasthensortedaccordingtoconfidencewhenachoiceismadethat

goesalongwiththeframe(pro‐frame)andagainstit(anti‐frame).

130

Figure6.10:Meanframedparticipantconfidence(yaxis),organizedbyquestion

set(xaxis)andframerelativechoice(Pro/Anti).Errorbarsshowstandarderror.

Thereisasignificantdifferencebetweentheconfidenceparticipantshavewhen

makingthechoicetheyhavebeenframedtowardsoragainst,U=10705,p=

.019,Z=‐2.351.Bothgroupsfallinconfidenceonceframingisremoved,butonly

thepro‐framefallissignificant,U=9391,p=.004,Z=‐2.873.

Confidencewasthenchartedbyquestion.

Figure6.11:MeanParticipantConfidence(yaxis)byQuestionnumber(xaxis)for

eachcondition(A/N/Q)

131

Althoughthedataissomewhatnoisy,hereweseethattheconfidenceoftheA

andQframesalmostmirroreachother,andappearstomatchupwiththe

patternofchoicesbyquestionasseenintheprevioussectiontoadegree(Figure

6.2).

Therelativelackofnoisewhenunframedcanalsobeseeninthelastfive

questions.

Figure6.12:MeanConfidencescores(yaxis),byframe(A/N/Q),forthelastfive

questions(xaxis)

TimingData

Timingdatawasobtainedforallparticipantsaspartofthecomputerprogram.

Timeswerecapturedatanypointthataparticipantclickedonabuttonormade

achangeinsomeothermannerthatcausedtheprogramtoact.Theexperiment

wasdesignedtoisolatetheconstituentpartsofathedecisionmakingprocess–

Tweets,Descriptionandchoicebutton–sothatonlyonewasviewableatatime,

creatingadirectmeasureofhowmuchtimewasspentwitheach.Itisassumed

thattimespentwithagivensectionisanindicatorofattentionandcognitive

resourcesbeingused.

Althoughparticipantscouldgobackandforthbetweensections,thisanalysis

createsacumulativevalueofthetotaltimeforthepurposesofanalysis.The

numberoftimesasectionisviewedwasrecordedseparately.

132

Abaselinereadingspeedwasobtainedbyusingtimingdatafromthe

instructionspage.Althoughnotsimplyarawmeasureofreadingspeed(asthere

wasobviouslyacomprehensionaspecttothetask),itwasconsistentforall

participants.Forthedecisionsdata,wordcountswereobtainedforeach

questionandusedtocontrolfordifferencescreatedbyvaryingtextamounts.

Wordcountdifferenceswerenotaccountedforinthetweetssection,fortwo

mainreasons.Firstly,the140characterlimitprovidedlimitedpotential

variabilitybetweenconditions,andwordcountsweremaderoughlyequal.

Secondly,controllingfortextamountmakestheassumptionthatparticipants

willreadallthetext–reasonableforthedecisiontext,butinappropriatefor

twitter.Morethanafewparticipantsremarkedthatatonepointoranotherthey

wereeitherskimmingorignoringthetweets,andthenatureofatwitterfeedis

suchthatparticipantsmightwellchoosetoonlywanttoreadcontributionsfrom

oneperson,orconverselyignoreanother.Becausebothofthesefactors

contradicttheassumptiononwhichword‐countweightingwouldbeundertaken

itwasnotapplied.

ChoiceSelection

Thetimingdatainthissectionwasthetimespentphysicallyclickingthebuttons

thatindicatedthedecisionthattheyhadmade.Consequentlytherewasnotext

orotherinfluencinginformationtobeconsidered:foreachandeveryquestion

thesectionwasidentical.Therotetask‐basednatureofthissectionofthetask

providesausefulcomparisonpointwiththeinformation‐processing

requirementsseenintheothertwosections.Thedatawasskewed,asifoftenthe

casewithtimingdata,andwaslogtransformedtoaccountforthis.

A3x2ANOVAwasperformedonthedatawithFrame(A,N,Q)andquestionset

(First11,last5)asbetweensubjectfactors.Amaineffectwasfoundforquestion

set,F(1,762)=23.492,p=.000only.AseriesofMann‐WhitneyUtests

confirmedthattheonlysignificantdifferencewasbetweenquestionsets,U=

48494.500,p=.000,Z=‐5.217.Thereisaslightcorrelationbetweenquestion

numberandtimetakenr(766)=‐.340,p=.000.Chartingthedatasuggeststhat

133

thiseffectisdowntotaskfamiliarization.Removingthefirstthreequestions

removesanystatisticallydetectableeffect,supportingthisconclusion.

Figure6.13:Totaltimeinmsthatthe‘inputchoice’sectionisopen(yaxis)by

questionnumber(xaxis).

Thereisaslightcorrelationbetweenconfidenceandtimetakenr(766)=‐.186,

p=.000(seeFirgure6.13below)suggestingthatcertaintyaboutachoicepredicts

howquicklyitismade,aswouldbeexpected.

134

Figure6.14:Meantime(logtransform)takentomakeachoice(yaxis)by

confidencerating(xaxis)forallparticipants.

DecisionTextSection

Thetimingdataforreadingthedecisiontextwastreatedasdescribedabove.It

wasadditionallyconvertedtoitslogarithmicvalueinordertofulfillthe

requirementsofparametricanalysis.

Comparingtheamountoftimetakentoreadthedecisiontextbetween

conditions,itwasfoundthattherewasnodifferencebetweentheframed

conditions(AandQ).A2x2ANOVAwasperformedonthedatawithFrame

Status(Framed/Unframed)andquestionset(First11,last5)asbetweensubject

factors.Amaineffectwasfoundforframestatus,F(1,762)=18.015,p=.000

only.However,bothquestionset(F(1,762)=3.164,p=.076)andaninteraction

(F(1,762)=3.342,p=.064)wereclosetosignificance,andthetestfailed

Laverne’stestofhomogeneity.

Examiningfrequencydistributionsforthisdata,itwasobservedthatAlthough

theoveralldatawasdistributedinarelativelynormalfashion,individual

componentsofthedatasetweremoreerratic.Datawasstillinagenerally

normalpattern,buthadmultiplepeaksatthesametime.Thisaccountedforthe

failureofthehomogeneitytest,butalsoindicatedthatthenear‐positiveresults

meritedfurtherinvestigationastheproblemswerecharacteristicofadataset

thatcouldhavebeennormallydistributedwithmoredatapoints.

135

Figure6.15:Logofmeanadjustedtime(xaxis,0.04increments)frequency(yaxis)

bycondition(A,N,Q)forfirst11questions

Figure6.16:Logofmeanadjustedtime(xaxis,0.04increments)frequency(yaxis)

bycondition(A,N,Q)forlast5questions.

Consequently,aseriesofMann‐WhitneyUtestswereperformedonthedifferent

datapermutations.Significantdifferenceswerefoundbetweenframedand

unframedconditionsoverall(U=55529,p=.001,Z=‐3.453),inthefirst11

questions(U=27607,p=.042,Z=‐2.039)andinthelastfivequestions(U=

136

4772,p=.001,Z=‐3.211).Significantdifferenceswerealsofoundbetween

questionsetsoverall(U=56592,p=.018,Z=‐2.375)andbetweenquestionsets

intheneutralconditionalone(U=5572,p=.008,Z=‐2.673).However,no

significancedifferencewasfoundbetweenquestionsetsintheframedcondition.

Nodifferenceswerefoundbetweenthedifferentframeconditions(AandQ),and

thereforeframedresultsweretreatedasasinglecondition.

Figure6.17:MeanValuesoflogAdjustedtime(yaxis)byquestionset(First11,

Last5)(xaxis)andCondition(Framed,Neutral).Errorbarsshowstandarderror.

Figure6.18:Logofmeanadjustedtime(yaxis)takenforeachcondition(A,N,Q)

toreadthedecisiontextforeachquestion(xaxis).

137

TweetTimes

TimingdatafortheTweetviewingwastreatedinthesamemannerasdescribed

atthestartofthissection.Itwasalsoconvertedtologarithmicforminorderto

beabletomakeuseofparametricstatistics.

AswasfoundintheDecisiontimingsection,thedatawasbothinneedofbeing

transformed,andyetcorrectingtheskewdidnotcorrectthelackofhomogeneity

ofvariance.

Figure6.19:Frequencydistributionofrawtimedatainms(xaxis)bycondition(A,

N,Q).Frequencytakenin2500msbins

138

Figure6.20:Frequencydistributionoflogcorrectedandreadingspeedadjusted

timingdata(xaxis),bycondition(A,N,Q).Frequencytakenin.05bins.

Therefore,asbeforeanANOVAwasperformedonthisdatawhichwasthen

checkedandsubstantiatedbyaseriesofMann‐WhitneyUtests.A3x2ANOVA

wasperformedonthedatawithFrame(Astor‐framed,Quetia‐Framedor

Neutral)andquestionset(First11,last5)asbetweensubjectfactors.Amain

effectwasfoundforframe,F(2,762)=50.767,p=.000andquestionset,F(1,

762)=135.029,p=.000.Therewasnointeractiondetected,andthetestfailed

Laverne’stestofhomogeneity.

AseriesofMannWhitneyUtestsconfirmedthefindingsfromtheANOVA.

Overalldifferenceswerefoundbetweenquestionsets(U=33034,P=.000,Z=‐

10.642)andalsobetweenframedandunframeddata(U=38588,p=.000,Z=‐

9.298).Nodifferenceswerefoundbetweenthedifferenttypesofframe(A/Q)at

anypointsothedatasetswerecombinedforthepurposesoftheseanalyses.

Significantdifferenceswerealsofoundbetweenquestionsetsforframed(U=

11500,p=.000,Z=‐10.737)andneutral(U=4639,p=.000,Z=‐4.372)

conditions.Similarly,differenceswerefoundbetweentheconditionsinboththe

first11(U=15603,p=.000,Z=‐9.302)andlast5(U=4370,p=.000,Z=‐

4.004)questionsets.

139

Figure6.21:Meanlogadjustedtime(yaxis)byquestionset(xaxis)and

experimentalcondition(Framed,Neutral).Errorbarsshowstandarderror.

Eliminatingquestions1‐4asacclimatizingtrials,thereisstillasignificant

differencebetweentimespentwiththetweetsbetweenthefirst11andlastfive

sections(U=3164,p=.000,Z=‐3.782).Thissuggeststhatthedropisnota

statisticalartifactofaninitiallearningcurve.

Thisdatacanalsobeviewedby‐question,asbelow.

Figure6.22:Mean(adjusted)timespentonthetweets(yaxis)foreachquestion(x

axis),bycondition(Framed,Neutral)

Effectscanalsobeobservedinthenumberoftimesthatparticipantsviewthe

tweetsectionofthetest.

AscanbeseenfromFirgure6.20below,overthecourseoftheexperiment,

participantsintheframedconditionsconsistentlyreturntothetweetdatamore

thanparticipantsintheneutralcondition(U=52958,p=.000,Z=‐5.302).There

isnostatisticaldifferenceinthetwoframedconditions.Thisdifferenceholds

truewithinthefirst11questions(U=26054,p=.000,Z=‐3.568)andthelast

five(U=4696,p=.000,Z=‐4.327).Withinconditions,theframedparticipants

donovarybetweenquestionsets,whilsttheneutralparticipants’valuesfall

significantlyforthelastfivequestions(U=6032,p=.008,Z=‐2.665).

140

Figure6.23:Meannumberofviews(yaxis)ofthetweetdatabyquestion(xaxis),

bycondition(A/N/Q)

RethinkData

Asthelastpartoftheexperiment,participantsweregiventwoquestionsfrom

theexperimenttoreconsider.Theyweretoldthattheywerebeinggivena

randomquestion,althoughinactualitythequestionswerethesameforall

participantsandconditions;questions3and4.Allinformationgivenwasthe

same,exceptthattherewerenotweets,andthusnoframingdeviceofanysort

thistimearound.Thisdatawasthenanalyzedbycomparingittotheoriginal

questiondata.Becausethedatasetwassmall,onlyalimitednumberoftests

wereperformed.

Decisions

Thechoicesmadeoriginallywerecomparedwiththosemadethesecondtime

around,asdemonstratedbelow.Nosignificantdifferencewasfoundbetweenthe

twoconditions.

141

Figure6.24:ParticipantChoiceofCompany(A/Q)(yaxis)inOriginalandRethink

conditions(xaxis)

Thedatawasthensplitaccordingtotheframingthatwasusedfortheeventthat

splitthe11and5questionsections.TheconditionsinthiscasewereproQuetia

(Q+)orproAstor(A+),fororiginalandrethinktrials.Therewasnodifference

betweentheconditionsineithertheoriginalorrethinktrials.Comparing

betweentrials,therewasnodifferenceintheA+condition,howeverintheQ+

conditionbetweenoriginalandrethinktrailtherewasasignificantdifference

underFisher’sExactTestattheonetailedlevel(p=.048)

142

Figure6.25:Participantchoices(A/Q)(yaxis)inQ+conditionsfororiginaland

rethinktrials(xaxis)

ConfidenceData

ConfidenceDatawassortedandtreatedasdescribedpreviously.However,no

significantdifferenceswerefoundbetweengroups.Confidencedidnotvary

betweenoriginalandrethinktrialsoverallorwhensplitbyframe,questionor

eventtype.Italsodidnotvarywhenparticipantsthatchangedtheirmindwere

comparedagainstthosethatstayedwiththesamechoice,orwithinthosegroups

betweenthetwotrials.

However,thisnullresultdoesmeanthatparticipantconfidenceisequaltothat

intheoriginalsetofquestions‐evenfortheframedconditionswhich,as

demonstratedearliersufferedalowerconfidenceoncetheframeswereremoved

forthelastfivequestions.Thissuggeststhatthereissomepermanencetothe

decisionsastheyaremadeintermsofbelief;participantsonaveragemaintained

thesamelevelofconfidenceastheyhadbefore.

TimingData

Timingdatawastreatedasdescribedpreviously,althoughtheanalysisdidcall

fordifferentapproachesthanforconfidence.Timecouldnotbedirectly

comparedbetweentheoriginalandrethinktrialssinceparticipantsatthelatter

pointhavealreadyreadthedecisionwhenitwasoriginallypresented.Even

allowingfortheideathattheywouldreaditagain,theirperformancewouldstill

beexpectedtobequickersimplythroughfamiliarity.Instead,analysiswas

performedbetweenconditions(frame,eventetc)andthentheseresults

comparedbetweentrials.

Nosignificantdifferenceswerefoundfortimingdatarelatingtothechoice

sectionofthetask.

Thetimetakentoreadthedecisiontextwasthenanalysed.A3x1ANOVAwas

performedonthedatawithFrame(A,N,Q)asthebetweensubjectfactor.Amain

effectwasfoundforframe,F(2,92)=7.400,p=.001.AseriesofMannWhitneyU

testswerethenperformedbetweentheindividualgroups,andsignificant

143

differenceswerefoundbetweenAandQ(U=338,p=.019,Z=‐2.336)andA

andN(U=249,p=.001,Z=‐3.396).ThissuggeststhatparticipantsintheA

conditionweretakinglongertothinkabouttheirchoicethantheother

conditions.Intheoriginaltrials,nodifferencescouldbefoundbetweenanyof

theconditions.

NosignificantdifferenceswerefoundwhencomparingbetweentheA+event

andQ+eventconditions.

Extremists

Inthecourseofconductingthestudyseveralparticipantscommented

afterwards,whenaskedverbally,thattheyfelttheirresponseswerenot

appropriatefortheexperiment.Onecommentedthat“Idon’tthinkyou’llbeable

tousemydata”.Uponaskingwhattheymeantbythis,thissubsetofparticipants

commentedthattheyhadstrongunderlyingviewsaboutalternativemedicine

anditsvalue,andasaresultdidnotpaymuchattentiontoanyoftheinformation

thatmighthaveswayedthemonewayortheother.Insteadtheiranswerswere

mademainlybasedontheirpreexistingbeliefsaboutthetopic.

Theseadmissionswerenotedwhenmade.Theirdatawasthenexamined

individually,anditwasfoundthatinadditiontotheirspontaneousself‐reported

biastheyconformedtotwootherproperties:

a) Theywereinthetoporbottom5%ofrecordedscoresforattitudes

towardsalternativemedicine

b) Theirscoreswereover80%infavourofonecompanyfortheframed

portionofthetestawayfromthedirectionthatwouldbepredictedbythe

frame,orinthedirectionoftheirbiasinthecaseoftheneutralcondition.

Nootherparticipantsmetboththeserequirements,andcombinedwiththeself‐

reporting,itwasconsideredsufficienttojustifytreatingthegroupasaseparate,

emergentsetofparticipantsandexcludethemfromthemainstudy.Ofthe

group,twowerepro‐AstorbiasedandinQ‐frameconditions,andthreewere

pro‐QuetiabiasedwithtwoinaneutralconditionandoneintheAstorframe.

144

Itshouldbemadeclearatthispointthatthiswasanunexpected,emergent

groupofparticipants,andassuchwerenotcounterbalancedorcontrolledforin

anyway.Someanalysiswasperformedandispresentedbutshouldberepeated

undertighterexperimentalcontrolbeforeanyconclusionscanbedrawn.

Thattherewasaneffectatallisinteresting.Participantchoicesinthetask

reflectedtheirbeliefsinalternatemedicine:iftheybelieveditwasagoodidea,

theychoseAstor.Iftheythoughtitwasbad,theychoseQuetia.Thisisdespitethe

factthattherewasnologicalreasontomakesuchadistinction,andthepresence

ofaframe.Thispossiblyindicateslimitationstotheabilityofaframetoaffect

somepeople’sdecisionswithinparticulartopics.

Thedatawassortedbyclassingthechoicesmadebytheseparticipantsaseither

‘pro’or‘anti’theirinnatebiasratherthanleavingthemasAandQ,since

differentparticipant’sbiaswasindifferentdirections.Thesewerethenscaled

intoapercentageamountinordertocomparebetweenthefirst11andlast5

questionsets(asthesesetscontaineddifferentnumbersofdecisionstobe

made).Nosignificantdifferencewasfound.

Figure6.26:Percentageofchoices(yaxis)for(pro)andagainst(anti)inherent

beliefsinextremistsforthefirst11andlast5questions(xaxis)

Confidencewasthencomparedtothegeneralpopulation,anditwasfoundtobe

higherforextremists(U=26739,Z=‐1.970,p=.049).Therewasnodifference

145

betweenquestionsets(U=598.5,Z=‐.963,p=.336)althoughthismaybedue

tothesmallsamplesize.

Figure6.27:Meanconfidence(yaxis)fornormalparticipantsandextremistsby

questionsets(xaxis).ErrorBarsshowstandarderror.

Therearesimilarresultsforthetimingdata.Extremists,likenormalparticipants

takelesstimewiththetweetsovertime,whichcanbeseenbothasacorrelation

betweenquestionnumberandtimetakeninthefirst11questions(r(55)=‐

.4.21,p=.001)andalsowhencomparingthefirst11questionswiththelast5as

sets(U=308,Z=‐3.939,p=.000).However,theyalsotakesignificantlylesstime

thanthenormalparticipantswhencomparingbetweenbothcompletegroups(U

=25438,Z=‐2.533,p=.011).Therewerenodifferencesbetweenthenormal

conditionandtheextremistsinhowmuchtimetheyspentwiththedecisiontext.

146

Figure6.28:Adjustedtimetaketoreadtweets(yaxis)byQuestion(xaxis)for

normalparticipantsandExtremists

Withinthetimingdatathereisalsosomelimited,non‐significantindicationthat

theremaybeadifferencebetweenextremistswhenframedorunframedinthe

amountoftimetheyspendreadingtweets.Asmallsamplesizeandunbalanced

groupsmeanthattherearenofirmconclusionstobedrawn,butitappearsthat

asinthenormalgroups,participantsthatseeframingdataspendlongerwithit

thanifunframed(U=592,Z=‐1.729,p=.084).

Figure6.29:Meanadjustedtimespentreadingtweets(yaxis)byquestionset(x

axis)forframedandneutralextremists.Errorbarsshowstandarderror.

147

Thenatureofthisdatasetisthat,asnoted,itisincomplete,uncontrolledand

potentiallyunreliable.Certainlyitwillnotbeuseasthebasisforanyin‐depth

analysisforthesereasons.Thereareindicatorsthatthiscouldformthebasisfor

futureresearch.

Discussion

Approach

Asevidentfromtheprevioussection,thisexperimentgeneratedalargeamount

ofparsabledata,withtheassociatedlargenumberofpermutationsthatcanbe

considered.Richnessandmultidimensionalitywassomethingthatwas

intentionallypursuedforthisexperimentinthebeliefthatcross‐modal

assessmentisfundamentallymorereliablethansingle‐measureforthissortof

study.Asthissectionwillhopefullybearout,thisapproachhaslargelybeen

justifiedasmultiplesourcescanbeseentocorroborateeachotherwhen

identifyinglargerabstract‐leveloveralltrends.Wheninvestigatingsomething

relativelyunmappedandnotyetunderstoodsuchasthistopic,thebenefitsof

andreasonsforthisapproachshouldbeself‐evident.

However,thisapproachisnotwithoutitsproblems.Dataoverloadisone

exampleofthis,andthedifficultlyinidentifyingclearresultsinaseaofdata.

Typeoneerrorsareanother;thegreaterthenumberofanalysesperformedthe

greaterthechancethatatleastonetestisafalsepositiverises.Inthisanalysisit

isalmostastatisticallyinevitabilitythatonesuchresultexistswithinthedata

presentedduetothesheernumberoftestsperformed.Thissectionwill

thereforeattempttoaddressthesetwoissuesbynotgenerallyfocusingon

individualresults,andratherbeconcernedwithdrawingouttheoveralltrends

andlargerimplicationsthatcanbeseenfrommultiplemeasures.Thisshould

servetoclarifyanypotentialdataoverload,andtonotplaceunduesignificance

onanyonefinding,avoidingdrawingconclusionsfromasinglefalsepositive.

HypothesisTesting

Beforeaddressingthespecifichypothesisstatedearlier,itisworthaddressing

theimplicithypothesisofthethesisasawhole.Specifically,thisexperiment

148

providesfurtherevidencethatframingeffectsbothexistwithinatask‐based

environmentandhaveuniquepropertiesthatmakethemaninterestingspecific

casetobeconsidered,andthatstrategicadaptationcanbedrivenbycontext.Itis

believedatthispointthattheseprincipleshavebeenestablishedbeyonda

reasonabledoubt.

Thefirsthypothesisstatedthatframingwouldstillbeobservedwiththenew

approach.Thedatafromtheexperimentupheldthisexpectation.Despite

changingthetypeofframeemployed(opinionratherthanstatistical),the

positioningoftheframe(separateratherthanintegrated),andthelevelof

ambiguityandethologicalvalidity(atwitterfeedcontainingdifferingopinions)

framingwasshowntocontinuetobepresentinthesamemanneraspreviously

seen–manifestingasdeviatingfromthe‘neutral’baselinebyabroadly

consistentamountinthedirectionoftheframepresented.Additionally

confidencewasalsoseentovarywiththesefactorsasbefore–againsuggesting

thatthisisabroadercognitivephenomenathanbeingconstrainedtoaparticular

framepresentation.Thereremainbroaderissuestoaddressintheareaof

ecologicalvalidity,anditistruethatthisexperimentusedthesamebasic

paradigmasthepreviousonesothereisdoubtlesslyfurtherworktobedone

movingbeyondthatconstraint.Butthevaryingthemostimportantaspects–the

typeofframingandpositioningofit–haveproducedbroadlythesameresults.

Thesecondhypothesisstatedthatframingwouldcontinuetobeseenonceitwas

removedpartwaythroughtheexperiment.Thiswasalsosupported.The

importanceoftheseresultsrelatedirectlytothepreviouschapter’sresults

whereOver‐Framedparticipantsdidnotshowframinginthewaythatthe

Question‐Framedparticipantsdid,andalsohowinthecardgametaskframing

wasshowntoexistasadirectresultofframingthatoccurredatthebeginningof

thetask.Theseresultssupporttheoverallhypothesisthattheseresultscanbe

explainedbyintegration,oralackthereof,oftheframe.

Theseresultshaveshownthatframingcanhaveapersistenteffectinthissortof

paradigmoncethedirectframehasbeenremoved,sothelackofframinginthe

previousexperimentislesslikelytobeamethodologicalquirk,andmorelikely

149

tobetheframegoingun‐integrated.Becauseitwaspresentedintheinstructions

itwasneveractuallymaderelevanttothetaskinthewaythattheother,

effectiveframeswere(includingtheinstructionsinthecardgame,whichwere

task‐basedasopposedtoscene‐setting).Thissupportstheideathatoneofthe

mostimportantpartsofframingispresentationoftheframeinsuchawaythatit

isnotonlyattendedto,butalsoseeninawaythatisrelevanttothetaskdecision

beingconsidered,andtiesintotheimportanceofthemodel’sintegrationstage.

Additionally,itappearsthattheactualimpactofframingisinitiallynoisyfor

boththisexperimentandthepreviousone,suggestingthatitmaytaketimeand

repetitionforthisintegrationtooccur.Finally,theactualeffectsoftheframe

onceremovedweresignificantlyweakerandlesspronouncedthaninthefirst

elevenquestions.Thiscanbeatleastpartiallyexplainedbytheexperimental

construction,butalsoimpliesthatanyframingwillbeweakerwhennotdirectly

reinforced.Sothisalsosupportsthepriorsuggestionfromthepreviouschapter

thattheintroductionoftheframedidhaveaneffect,butthatitwasmoreto

causeconfusionanduncertaintythansystematicallyaffectthedecisionmade.

Thethirdhypothesispredictedthatconfidenceandothermeasureswouldbe

affectedbyframingasseeninthepreviousexperiment,withframedparticipants

beingmoreconfidentthanunframed.Thiswassupportedbythedata.The

complicatedinteractionswillbeexploredindetaillater,butthegeneral

expectationthatframingwouldaffectthingsotherthanjustwhichchoicewas

madewhenmakingadecisionwasbornout.Confidencewasalsoseentobe

affectedbytheremovaloftheframe,andbywhetheraparticipantwentwithor

againsttheframe.Thishassignificantimplicationsforframingeffectsindynamic

andcomplexenvironmentswheremultiplefactorssuchasthiswillbeatplay.

Thefourthhypothesisstatedthatthemid‐experimentframewouldbeexpected

toframefuturedecisionsfromthatpoint.Thiswasnotsupportedbythedata.

Thisfindingdoes,however,actuallytieintothepreviousobservations.Again,it

canbearguedthattheissuehereisintegrationoftheframe,althoughinthiscase

relativeintegration.Informationwasprovidedandframed,butparticipantsdid

notintegrateitintotheirunderstandingordecisionmakingprocess.Thiswas

150

trueevenintheneutralconditionwhichhaduntilthispointbeenexposedtono

framing,soitisnotsimplyacaseofoneframeoverrulinganother.

Theimplicationisthattheinformationwasnotseenasimportantforbasinga

decisionupon,ormoretothepointthatparticipantsalreadyhadtheinformation

thattheywouldbemakingadecisionaboutitwith.Atthatpointallparticipants

hadbeenexposedtoagreatdealofinformation,framedorotherwise,aboutthe

situation.Thisframesimplywasnotsignificantenoughtoguideadecisionone

wayortheother,somethingthatmustbeattributedtothecontextitwasin,

sincetheactualframingwasmodeledontheAsianfluexamplethatisknownto

beeffectiveinthismanner.Sopriorexperienceisgoingtoberelevantinframe

impact,andsufficientexperiencecanmeanthataframeisineffective.Againthis

speakstotheimportanceofintegration.Thisresultiscomplicatedbythe

apparentretrospectiveframingseenintherethinkquestions,however.Itshould

benotedthatthiswasasingle,relativelysmallresultthatneedstobe

investigatedfurther,althoughitdoessuggestoneintriguingpossibility:itmaybe

possibletoretroactivelyframehowpeoplefeelaboutthedecisionsthatthey

havealreadymade.

Iftherewasasingle,overridingconclusiontobedrawnfromtheseresults,it

wouldbethatframingiscomplicated.Admittedlythisissomethingofatruism–

thesheeramountofresearchandworkputintothefieldistestamenttothefact

thatthisisalreadyappreciated,butitbearsfurtherconsideration.Researchhas

generallybeenconcernedwithidentifyingthefactorsthatcanbeframed,what

differentsortsofframingthereare,andhowthesecanbemanipulated.Noneof

thisissimple,butwhatthisdataillustratesisthatevenwhathaspreviouslybeen

understoodisnottheextentofthecomplexityofthearea.Evenwhen

participantsmaygounframed,whenthereisnosignificantdifferenceinthetype

ofchoicemadeasaresultofexposuretoaframe,participantscanstillbe

affectedbyframes–intheirconfidence,intheamountoftimetheytakewitha

taskand(itmustbepresumed)inotherdimensionsthatthisexperimentdidnot

measure.

151

BroaderThemes

Havingaddressedsomespecificquestions,thisexperimentalsoraisesanumber

oflargerissues.Theresultsofthisexperimentactuallygobeyondspecific

findings;whatisnotableisthefactthatdifferentmeasurescorroborateeach

other.Thesespeaktolarger,broaderthemesthatcanbedrawnfromthework.

Broadlyspeakingthesethemesare:SocialMediaasaframingdevice,Framing

EffectsbeyonddecisionsandFramingEffectPersistence.

SocialMediaasaFramingDevice

Asnotedabove,themainhypothesisofthisexperimentwasnotdisproven:

participantswereframedbytheusedofsocialmediainanongoingtask‐based

environment.Thisframingwasconsistent,didnotdecaywithfeedback,andonly

lessenedwhenremoved.

Superficiallyitmightappearthattheseresultsshownothingmorethanthings

thathavebeendemonstratedwithadvertisingoverthelastsixtyyearsorso:that

people’sdecisionscanbeinfluencedbytherightinformation.Buttodrawthat

conclusionwouldbetomisswhatisspecificaboutframesandparticularly

applicabletosocialmedia.Framesarenotconsciouslyunderstoodtobebiasing;

theyareinternalizedandrationalizedtobetheactor’sownlogicaldecision–

somethingthateventhemostsophisticatedadvertsdonotgenerallyachieve.At

theirbest,peoplearestillconsciouslyawarethatsomeoneistryingtoinfluence

themfromthenatureoftheinteractionwithanadvert.Additionally,thiscontent

andthemannerinwhichitisgeneratedis‘crowdsourced’andorganicrather

thancentralizedanddirected,asisthecasewithadvertising.Framesarenot

simplyopinionsorinformation,butoftenperspectives,interpretationsand

philosophies.Thisresearchillustratesthingsaboutthehowcommunity‐

generatedopinionscanaffectdecisionmakingandspurbehaviours.

Theseresults,particularlytheevidenceofpersistingalteredopinionsoverthe

courseofthetasksuggestthatwecanstarttounderstandsomeofthepreviously

citedreal‐worldexamplesofactivity.Aconventionalmodelofinitiatingsuch

behaviourwouldrelyuponcentralcoordination,buttheaboveresultssuggest

thatduetonewtechnology,userscannowspontaneouslygeneratesuch

152

behaviour.ItisnothardtoseetheLondonriotsinthislight,wheremessages

spreadontheBBMnetworkhavebeensuggestedtoplayalargerolein

organizingthedisruptions.Aquestionthathasrepeatedlybeenaskedis‘whydid

peopleactlikethis’andthisresearchsuggeststhattheanswerlies,atleast

partially,inframingofthedecisions.Theeffectmightbesmall–asthelatter

removed‐framequestionssuggested–butitwouldonlytakeasmallpercentage

ofthethousandsthatsawthemessagestoswellnumbersoverthetippingpoint

beyondwhichthebehaviourbecomesself‐perpetuating.Wealreadyknowfrom

othersourcesofresearchthatpeoplethinkdifferentlyinagrouptotheiractions

asindividuals,andthatthecompulsionto‘gowiththegroup’isareal

psychologicaleffect(Esser,1998).Framedmessagesofthismannercouldbe

easilyseenascreatinga‘group’dynamicfordecisions,andonceenoughpeople

hadmadethechoicetoparticipantthateffectwouldonlysnowballwiththe

visibleevidenceofotherstakingpart.Inmanywaysitissimilartomore

conventionalpoliticalmovements,where‘momentum’isseenaskey.In2008,

BarackObamawasnotthefrontrunnerfortheDemocraticnominationfor

president,butearlyvictoriesinparticularlyIowapushedthenarrativethathe

wasarealcontender,atwhichmoreandmorepeopledecidedtostartdonating

andvolunteeringforhiscampaign(ascanbeseeninthepublicallyreportedFEC

filingsforwhendonationsspiked).Itisnothardtoseefromthishowslight

alterationsinbehaviourchoicesduetosocialmediaframescouldpotentially

haveveryrealconsequences.

Knowingthatsocialmediacanbeframingshouldbeanimportantfactorin

understandingpatternsofinfluenceandeffectwithinthesenetworks.Thiswork

suggeststhatpurelylogicalinformationandconnectionsareinsufficientin

understandingtheseinteractions.Semanticsearchforkeywords,forinstance,

saysnothingaboutthecontextinwhichthosewordsareused.Moreover,

framing–whichasdemonstratedcanaffectplanninganddecisionmakinglet

aloneopinionformation–isallaboutcontext.Aglassbeinghalffull/halfempty

isanobviouslyframedstatement,butsimplycheckingfor‘glass’asatrend

wouldeithermisstheuseinwhichitisbeingapplied,ortheothersideofthe

argument.Similarly,astorycanbewidelyreported,butthemannerinwhichitis

153

reportedtopeoplewillbeofasmuchimportanceastheinformativecontentthat

itpossesses.Indeed,sinceoneofthelimitationsoftwitteristhe140character

limitthatprecludeslongposts,thisbecomesevenmorerelevant.Althoughlinks

tolongerarticlesarewidelyusedonthesite,thereisnoguaranteethatpeople

willactuallyclickonthese.Peoplewhoarefollowingthefeedwillseethetweet

however,andperhapsmostsignificantly,peoplethatdonotcaretoclickona

furtherlinkwouldonlybeexposedtotheframe,whilstalsoimplicitlypickingup

thattheinterpretationisbackedupbywellsourcedmaterial.

Havingobservedthatsocialmediabothcanbeframing,andalsopresents

numerousstructuralandculturalcharacteristicsforenablingthattooccur,a

questionarisesofthepotentiallymoreethicalnature;oneofitbeingusedfor

controlorinfluence.Framingcannotonlyinfluencepeopletomakeaparticular

choices,butwilldosoinwayswherethepeopleframedthenpost‐hoc

rationalizeitasbothrationallybasedandself‐motivated–thepotentialfor

abuseisself‐evident.Onpausingtoconsiderthishowever,itbecomesapparent

thatwhilstthepotentialisthere,therearealsosignificantstructuralbarriersto

itbeingactuallyusedinsuchamanner.

Peopleonsocialmediasiteschoosewhomtheytalktoandwhattheyfollow:

theycancontroltheirviewinghabits.Attemptstoforcepeopletopayattention

tosomethingthattheydonotwanttointhosesituationsoftencomesacrossas

forcedandthusrejectedratherthanwillinglyengagedwith.Sinceoneofthe

prerequisitesofframingisthatparticipantsdonotseetheframeasbeingbiased

orslantedthisisanobviouschallengetobluntattemptsatpersuasion.Twitter’s

useof‘promoted’trendingtopicsforadvertisingrevenueillustratesthis:users

dogenerallyengagewiththetopic,butnotalwaysinaflatteringorbeneficial

light.Heavy‐handedattemptstoframeasituationorinformationwillbeexposed

tothesameissues.

Additionally,thesetupinthisexperimentactuallydemonstratedthatsingular

examplesofaparticularframedonotstopdecisionsbeingpulledintheopposite

directionviatheweightofopinion.The‘counter’tweetframingintheopposite

directionwaspresentinallquestions,butframingstilloccurredregardless.Ifa

154

singularpieceofframingwereattemptedtowardsaparticularend,thedatahere

suggeststhatthiswouldnotbesufficienttoalterbehaviourifotheropinions

werealsopresent.Framedinformationwouldhavetobeplantedonalarger

scalefrommultiplesources,aproblemthatthenoverlapswiththeissueofuser

control.Gettingpeopletofollowenoughsourcesthatwereproducingenough

consistentinformationinordertocreatedsignificantinfluencewouldbe

difficult.Thismaygosomewaytoexplainingsomeofthetroublethat

authoritarianregimeshaveincontrollingsocialmediainthesamewaythatthey

dotraditionaloutlets,ashasbeenseenintheaforementioned‘ArabSpring’.

Becauseofthelackofcentralizedcontrolandprimacyofuser‐directedattention,

understandingtheroleofframinginsocialmediamaybemoreeffectivefor

trackingandforecastingthanforinfluencing.

Contrarily,however,itdoessuggestthatthereisthepotentialforsingle,

influential,andtrusteduserstobepowerfulframedrivers.Populartwitterusers

canamasshundredsofthousands(orevenmillions)offollowers,andtheir

activitycanalreadybeseentoshapeopinion.Sometimesknownasthe

‘twitterati’,anexampleiscomedianandactorStephenFrywhosetweetshave

beenassociatedwiththefailureoftheBlackBerryStormasahandsetinthe

UK(Cellan‐Jones,2008).Onamoreregularlevel,itiscommontoobserve

celebritymentionsengenderingtheadoptionofparticular‘hashtags’orcreating

trendingtopicsasaresultoftheirtweets.Combiningthisresearchwithan

understandingofthesignificantpeopleontwitter(oranothersocialnetworking

site)throughnodetheoryandyoucouldpossiblygeneratetheillusionofan

‘organic’onlinereactionsufficienttoactasaframe.

Theconfidencedatagivessomemoreinsightintohowthisexperiment’sfindings

mayapplyintherealworld.Thisexperimentemployedaforced‐choice

dichotomy,butgenerallyineverydaylifeitiscommonforchoicestohave

multipleoptions,evenifmanyofthemgounusedorunconsidered.Ifnothing

else,mostchoiceshaveatleastthethirdoptionofsimplydoingnothingatall.

Theconfidencedatacangiveusanindicationofhowparticipantsfeltabouttheir

choicesbeyondtheoptiontheychose,implyinghowlikelytheymightbeto

155

actuallydothatthing,whatlevelofefforttheymightputintoitortheirgeneral

attitudeiffacedwiththatproblem.

Firstlyitseemsclearthatcontextiskey.Individualquestionsproducedpolar‐

oppositetrendsinconfidencebothacrossallparticipantsandcomparing

betweenconditions,suggestingthatwhilstthebehaviourthatmaybeprimedby

socialmedia,implementationwillvarywithwhatisbeingasked,whenandwhy.

Thisservesasareminderthatwearestilldiscussingaffecting‘realchoices’–

wherepeoplefeeltheyhavearealdecisiontobemade.Framingandother

factorswillnotbeaspotentifthedecisionisclearlylopsidedortheparticipant

hasstrongpreexistingbeliefs,asthedatafromtheextremistsshowedus.Of

course,importantdecisionsareinvariablythosethataredifficultbecausethere

aremultipleviableoptions,sothisshouldnotbetakenassuggestingthatthis

dataisoflimitedvalue.

Confidencedatagivesussomeideaofhowlikelypeoplearetopursuethe

choicestheymakeinthisexperiment.Forinstance,itseemsthatifapersonis

framedinaparticularway,theywillloseconfidenceintheirdecisionswhenthis

frameisremoved–eveniftheconsensus‘goodchoice’isstilltheonetheywere

previouslypursuing.Morebroadlyhowever,thissuggeststhatframesare

importantevenifpeopleseemunaffected.BetweentheA‐frameandNeutral

conditionsinthelast5(unframed)questionsthereisnosignificantdifferencein

thechoicesmade–butthereisasignificantoneinconfidence.Theframeis

affectingaparticipantbeyondtheactualchoiceobserved‐participantattitudes

havebeenaffected.Thisimpliesthatframesfromsocialnetworkscouldhavean

impactonactionsinwaysthatarenotnecessarilymeasuredbysimply

monitoringchoicesmade,andthattheimportanceofframingmayexistinthe

shiftingoftheseattitudeswhilstnovisibledifferenceisbeingmadetoactual

behaviourinitially.Longbeforeactionsareactuallytaken,onlineframingcould

changemoods,shiftperceptionsandsetthegroundworkforthepointatwhich

actualbehavioursalter–anideareflectedinthevolatilityoftheconfidence.

Whereotherwiseconfidencewasrelativelysmooth,ifframeditbecame

significantlymorevariable.Thebehaviourseenintheexamplesdiscussedreflect

this‐inbothcases,passionsweresuddenlyignitedunexpectedly,andhave

156

generallyleftcommentatorswonderingwhyandhowthiscouldsuddenlyoccur.

Theconfidencedataheredoesnotdirectlyspeaktoallthepotentialcausesof

these,butitdoesindicatethatframesinteractingwithdecisionsraisethe

possibilityoftheseunexpectedlyrapidshiftsinopinionandconfidence,which

wouldseemtobeacharacteristicofthesegrassroots,decentralizedmovements.

Afinalfactorthatshouldbeconsideredwithalltheseobservationsishowthe

datashowsalastingeffect,forbothframeandconfidence,aftertheframehad

beenremoved.Theseeffectsarenotsimplyconditionalonproximateexposure.

Itcannotbeassumedthatsimplybecauseapersonorgroupisnotengagingwith

socialmediaatthattimemeansthattheywillbeunaffectedbyit.Eventheactof

havingbeenremovedcouldbeasignificantfactor–seethedropinconfidence

whentheframewastakenawayintheexperiment.Addtothisthegrowing

modernpervasivenessofsocialmediaingeneral,andthepotentialforsimple

accesstothisinformationtodrive,changeandgeneratebehaviourisclear.

FramingEffectsBeyondDecisions

Asthefinalpointfromtheprevioussectiontouchedupon,oneofthemost

significanteffectstobeobservedinthisstudywasconfirmationofthepreviously

observedeffectthatframingcanhaveonnon‐decisionfactors.Thatisthatwhere

researchintoframingeffectshasnaturallycenteredonthewaythattheycan

swayadecisioninaparticulardirection,thisseriesofstudieshasillustratedthat

thisisnotthelimitoftheimpacttheyhaveonparticipants.

Thiscanbeseeninseveraldatasourcesforthisstudy.Firstly,ashasalready

beennoted,confidencewasaffectedaccordingtobeingframedorunframed.

Effectscouldbeseenbetweenframesaccordingtowhetherchoiceswere

supportedoropposedbytheframeinthefirst11questions,sothereissome

evidencethatthisisaboutdirectionaleffects,butatthesametimeauniform

effectcouldbeseenbetweenframedandneutralparticipantsinthelast5

questions.Inotherwords,framingitself–thesimpleactofframingregardlessof

thedirectionorotherfactors–canimpactaparticipant’sconfidence.

Confidenceisaparticularlyrelevantmetrictoconsiderinthissortof

experimentalsetupandtheoreticalquestion.Asanexampleofwhy,consideran

157

imaginarygorge,spannedbyaricketyropeladderofthesortseeninpulp

adventuressuchas‘IndianaJones’.Inourexample,bothIndyandhiscompanion

forthisadventurechoosetocrossthebridge,buttheydonotsharethesame

amountofconfidenceabouttheirEndeavour.WhereIndystridesconfidently

across,hiscompanionhasdoubtsandproceedsagreatdealslower.Clearly,in

thisexample,bothpeoplehavemadethedecision–tocrossthespanusingthe

ropebridge–buttheirdifferentlevelsofconfidencemeanthattheyapproach

thesameprobleminadifferentmanner.Similarly,ahypotheticalsoldier

operatinginawarzone,maybetoldtocheckaseriesofbuildingsforenemy

combatants.Intelligenceinformshimthatthisareahasnot(unlikemanyareas)

beenseededwithlandmines.Whetherhebelievesthatintelligenceornotwill

clearlyaffecthowhisapproachesthesweepofthebuildings,andthedangershe

prioritizesbeingawareof.Thesamedecisionismade,inbothcases.Butthe

mannerinwhichthatdecisionisimplementedvariesaccordingtoconfidence.

Thisbecomesdoublyimportantwhenwerememberthatvariancecanbeseenin

confidencelevelswhenthereisnodifferenceinthedecisionbeingmade.Bothin

thelastfivequestions,butalsointhequestion‐by‐questiondatafromthefirst11

questionswheredecisionswerestillbeingframed,thereissignificantvariance

inconfidencecomparedtoifthedataisunframed.Sowhetheraparticipantis

framedornotbecomesinsomewaysirrelevant–theircognitiveprocessingwill

havebeenaffectedbytheveryfactthatsomeoftheirdatawasframedandeven

makingthesamechoicestheyarelikelytoresponddifferentlytoanunframed

participant.

Andthiseffectisnotlimitedtoconfidence.Similarly,effectscanbeseeninthe

differencebetweenthetimetakeninreadingthedecisiontext.Here,participants

arereactingdifferentlytoidenticaltext,asaresultofhavingbeenframed,and

participantsalsoreturntoframedinformationmorehavingreaditonce.The

resulthereisthattheactofframingsomethingcanbeseentoaffectthewayin

whichanactiscarriedout:moretimeisdedicatedtothinkingaboutthe

problem,thetimespentondifferentsectionsofthetaskisdifferentand

differentlydistributedasapercentageoftheentiretime.Again,thisprovides

moresupportingevidencetotheargumentthatframeshaveanimpactbeyond

158

thedecisionitself.Iftheonlyplacethattheeffectwasseenwasintheconfidence

measureitmightbepossibletoarguethatitwasanartifactofthatsingle

measure.Evidenceofabroadertendencyhoweverwouldseemtodisprovethat

theory.Evidenceofdifferenttimingpatternsseeninotherwiseidenticaltext

suggeststhatframingisaffectingthewayinwhichthetaskisbeingorganized

andattentionprioritized.Thereseemstobeevidenceofdifferentstructural

approachestothetaskasaresultofframing‐andonethatpersistsafterthe

frameisremoved.

Itispossiblethatpeoplecouldbepresentedwithframedinformationandstill

makethesamechoicethattheywouldhaveinanunframedscenario.Obviously,

wecannotidentifywhatthesechoiceswouldbe–bydefinitionwecannot

observebothaparticipant’sframedandunframedchoices.However,thefactthe

framingdidnotresultina100%choicefavouringoneortheotherdirection,itis

logicaltosuggestthattherearesomedecisionsthatwereunaffectedbythe

framing.Itistobeexpectedthatthiscouldbetrueforareal‐worldtaskaswell.

However,theevidencepresentedheresuggeststhatonsomelevelitdoesnot

matteriftheactualdecisionisaffectedbytheframing.Thesimpleactofhaving

beenframedwillaffectpeople’sperformanceinataskinotherways.Onapurely

cognitivelevel,decisionmakingcantakelongereventhoughthedecisionmade

doesnotchange.

Thisexperimentdemonstrates,essentially,thatframingcanhaveaneffecton

processaswellasoutcome.Andthereareanumberoftasksthatrelyonthis

process,andwillbeaffectedbyitifataskisframed.Anytaskwherespeedand

quickdecisionmakingareimportantforinstance.Indeed,itshouldbe

rememberedthatframingisnotaneither/orpropositioninthesensethatitis

eitherthereornow.Allinformationisframedtoonedegreeortheother;even

‘neutral’informationisdistinguishedbyitslackofframeandactuallyquitea

difficultstatetoachieve.Amajorityoftheinformationweencounterandshare

withotherpeoplewillbeframedbyitsandourverynature.Humanstendto

impartinformationwithqualifiersandsecondaryinformationatthesametime,

informedbyouropinionofagiventopic.

159

Consequentlytheimplicationsofthisexperimentarenotsosimpleastobedealt

withas‐and‐whenframingispresent;mostinteractionswillinvolveframed

informationinsomecapacity.Whatthisevidencesuggestsisthattherearea

multitudeofsituationswhereitcouldbebeneficialtodesignfortheeffectsthat

framingwillbeknowntohaveontasksbeingperformed.Itcouldbeusedtonot

simplyenhancedecisionmakingorleadinaparticulardirection,buttoguidethe

methodologyemployedinimplementationofplansalso.

FramingEffectPersistence

Oneoftherecurringobservationsthatthisthesishasmadeistodowiththe

permanenceofframingbeyondasinglequestion,andthisexperimentprovides

furtherevidenceforthat.Previousresearchhasgenerallyassumedthequestion

offramingrelatesdirectlytowhatisbeingframed–indeed,mostoftheclassic

demonstrationsofframingconcernsingledecisionparadigmsthat,bydefinition,

ceasetocontinueonceadecisionisgiven.

Thisexperimentdemonstratesthatthatviewisinsufficienttoaccountforthe

impactofdecisionframing.Thatmultipleaspectsofcognitiveprocessingbeyond

justthedecisioncanbeaffectedhasalreadybeendiscussed,butadditionally

participantscontinuetobeinfluencedinthedecisionsthattheymakeoncethe

frameisremoved.Confidenceisaffectedasadirectresultofhavingbeen

previouslyframed,decisionstakelonger,sourcesofframeddataareregarded

longerandmorefrequently.Alloftheseresultpoint,indifferentways,tothe

sameconclusion:thatframingeffectsdonotstopatametaphorical‘water’s

edge’ofaquestiontheyrelateto.

Thisisnotsurprisingtosomedegree,butitisneverthelesssignificantbecauseof

theconsistencyandwidthoftheeffectsthatcanbeobserved.Firstly,prior

framingaffectsfuturerelateddecisions.Whilstsomewhatexpected,thisitworth

makingparticularnoteofbecauseitestablishesthattheframeinformationis

beingintegratedintoalargeroverallmentalmodelofaproblem.Ratherthan

beingcontext‐specificandnon‐transferable(asmighthavebeenassumed)it

seemsthatitisbeingestablishedasrelevantgeneralknowledgeandcontext.In

otherwords,theframeisaffectinghowtheinformationitconcernsis

160

understoodandencodedforfutureuse.Giventhatframesareunderstoodto

generallybeundetectedbythepeoplethatarebeingframed,thissuggeststhat

long‐termunderstandingcanbeaffectedbyframing.

Again,thisissomewhataswouldbeexpected.Thenatureofinformationand

learningissuchthatitwouldbesurprisingifpeopledidnotintegrate

understandingbasedonthewaythattheyhadexperiencedit.Regardlessthough,

thisprovidesevidencethatframingisafactorforboththeencodingand

understandingofinformation,andalsothatitmattersinataskbased

environment.Framingsomethingforoneinstancewillaffectfuturedecisions

madeaboutthatsamefactor.

However,somecautionisdueheretoo.Whilstthereweredifferencestosupport

thathypothesis,theyweresmalldifferences.Thegeneraltrendofthedecisions

madewastowardsQuetiaregardlessofhowthequestionswereframed(ornot

framed)uptothatpoint.Framesshouldnotbeseenasbeingsuperordinateto

contextandothertendencies.Indeed,thequestion‐by‐questionanalysisofthe

first11questionchoicesshowsthatframeswerenotsettingthedirectionthata

givenchoicewentin,butratherstretchingthegeneralpatternthatalready

existedinthatdirection.Thissameprinciple–guidingbutnotdefining–canbe

seeninthesmall‐but‐significantdifferencesofthelastfivequestions.

Regardless;thesesmallbutsubtledifferencescontinuetoexist.Asaresultof

framing,futurechoicesareaffected,asisconfidenceandtimespentondifferent

sectionsoftheexperiment.Framesmaybeacaseofsubtleguidanceratherthan

massconversion,butinsomewaysthatmakesthediscoverymoresignificant.

Again,framesaregenerallyinternalizedasbeingaperson’sownchoiceand

opiniononcefollowed,andtheydonotrelyuponalogicalargumenttopersuade.

Thismeansthatpeopleexposedtoframingofaparticulardirectionwillcontinue

tobeinclinedtowardsthatdirection,butmoreduetofeelingsomethingrather

thanthinkingit.Andthismaywellmaketheiropinionshardertomoveinthe

future.Itcanberelativelyeasytologicallydisproveafalseassumption,butmuch

hardertodisputesomethingfelt‘fromthegut’.This,afterall,isthereasonwhy

peoplehavesuperstitionsandfolktheories.Anexampleofsomethingthatis

161

widelybelievedbutactuallyuntrueisthetheoryof‘hothands’inbasketball,

whereaplayerwhosinksathreepointer(alongrangeandrelativelydifficult

shot)isthoughttobemorelikelytodosointhefuture.Statisticalanalysishas

shownthatthiswidelyheldopinionisactuallyfalse–butitisstillwidelyheld.

Thatframingaffectsthelikelihoodtochoosesomethingandtheideathatit‘feels

right’ratherthanalogicalreasonforpickingitactuallyimpliesthatitmaybea

moreusefulformofpersuasionandopinionsetting.Whilstitseffectsmaywell

besmall,whenintegratedtheyarealsopersistentduetopersonalintegration

andopinion,potentiallyatleast.Obviouslythisparticularpropertyofframing

effectsseemslikely,butdefinitelyrequiresfurtherinvestigation.Having

establishedthatframingpersistsasafactoraffectingmanythingsbeyondthe

questionitself,manysuchquestionspresentthemselvesforfutureinvestigation.

162

CHAPTERSEVEN–AdaptationandFramesinTasks:DiscussionAndSpeculation

Thedrivingconcernbehindthisthesisrightfromthestarthasbeenattempting

tobetterunderstandhowpeoplemakedecisions,andspecificallyhowthey

utilisecontextwhilstdoingthat.Aswithmostresearchofthisnature,thesearch

foranswershasopenednewquestionsandexpandedbothunderstandingofthe

answer,andalsotheproblemspaceasitprogressed.Realprogresshasbeen

seeninbothunderstandinghowdecisionmakingisguidedbycontext,and

wherethelimitsofboundedrationalityasameansofexplainingthisbehaviour

exist.Theintentofthischapteristodrawtogetherthevariousrelatedstrandsof

thisunderstandingintoacohesivewhole.

Firstly,therewillbeabriefrecapofthecontext,issuesandmotivationforthis

research,sothattheworkcanbebetterconsideredasawhole.Themodelthat

wasoriginallyproposedinchapterthreewillthenbere‐introducedandits

usefulnessdiscussed.Themainthemesfromtheresearchwillbepresentedas

extensionstotheconceptsofIntegrationandFormulation.

Fromhere,theimplicationsforboundedrationalityandframingwillbe

consideredandatheoryofboundedrationalityintaskspresented.Implications

andapplicationsforthistheoryandtheworkasawholewillthenbeconsidered

beforeconcludingwithsomesuggestionsforpotentialfuturework.

Introduction

Thisthesishasbeenconcernedwithhowpeoplemakedecisions.Primarilyithas

beenfocusedonhowcontextaffectsdecisionandcaninfluencechoice.Forthat

theconceptofboundedrationalitywasusedtomodelsystematicvariationsin

informationthatdidnotvarylogically.Inthisway,thethesishasusedthetwo

relatedpropertiestoexamineeachother.Byplacingboundedrationalityinthe

domainoftaskperformance,itslimitshavebeenevaluatedandnewfindings

made.Conversely,studyinghowdecisionmakingreliesuponcontexthasutilised

163

theframeworkofboundedrationality.Thetworelatedconceptshavebeenused

toexpandandbetterunderstandeachother.

Thisprocesshasinevitablyinvolvedthenarrowingofscopeandcarefully

controlledexperiments.Thisfocusingofscopeshouldnotbetakentolessenthe

breadthofthefindings,however.Theresultsareconsistentwithidentifying

abstractpropertiesthatshouldremaintruethroughvariedinputand

circumstance.Whatthischapterseekstodoistoexplorehowthetworelated

understandingshavebeenexpanded,andtopresentthatunderstandingasa

whole.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatthequestionsbeingaskedwere

inevitablyinterconnected.Sobetterunderstandingofthemodelofadaptation

comeswithsomeunderstandingoftheroleofboundedrationalitywithinthat,

andviceversafortheunderstandingofboundedrationality.Thetwoare

interrelatedconceptsanditwouldbeamistaketotrytoseethemasbeing

entirelyseparate.Afterall,weareanimalsthatarerationalwithinour

boundaries,adaptingtotheconstraintsofatask.

Approach

Inthecourseofthisinvestigation,awealthofdataandfindingsweregathered,

whichprovidessomeproblemsintermsofunderstandingthedataasawhole

anddrawingcohesivefindingsfromit.

Whensuchalargeamountofdataisproduced,thedangerofmakingatypeone

error(falsepositive)isparticularlyhighforatleastoneresultMostofthetests

usedinthisthesishadaconfidencebaselineof.05.Therefore,oneintwenty

testswouldintheorybedowntochance–andthereweremorethantwenty

analysesdone.Thatsaid,manyoftheresultsreportedfarlowerconfidence

thresholds,andcross‐analysiswithinagivenexperimentshouldalreadyhave

theoreticallyloweredthechanceofthaterrorbeingcommitted.Additionally,the

purposeofthissectionistodrawtheexperimentstogetherandidentifythe

generaltrendsandconsistentobservationsthatrunthroughoutit,further

lesseningthechancethattypeoneerrorscouldbeinfluencingtheconclusions

beingdrawnhere.

164

Aconsequenceofthisapproachisthatsomeparticularresultsseenelsewherein

thethesiswillnotbementionedinthissection.Someofthesearepossibly

artifactsoftheparticularcircumstancesinwhichtheyweregenerated.Others

potentiallyrepresentmoregenerallyapplicablefindings,butrequireadditional

researchbeforetheycanbeattributedtotheseunderlyingphenomena.

Regardless,theiromissionshouldnotbeseenasarejectionofthatwork,but

simplythatfurtherworkisneededtoinvestigatethem.

TheModelofAdaptation

Overall,thereweretwomainthemesthatemergedfromthiswork;evidencefor

howinformationwasprocessedinthefirstplace,andthenhowthatinformation

wasusedtocometoadecision.Theseobservationsmatchedupneatlywiththe

IntegrationandFormulationstagesfoundintheoriginalmodeldetailedabove,

althoughitshouldbestressedatthispointthatthisconnectionwasnotedafter

thetrendshadbeenidentified–thiswasnotacaseofconfirmationbiasatwork.

Thefollowingsectionwilldetailtheexpandedunderstandingofthesetwo

processes.

Figure8.1:Ageneralmodelofcognitiveadaptationtoanovelproblem

165

Throughthisthesis,thegeneralpatternofresultshasbeentosupporttheinitial

hypothesisdevelopedinthepreliminarystudyaboutmodellingadaption.The

basicstagesthatweresuggestedhavelargelyhelduptoscrutinyinprovidinga

basicaccountingofperformance.Theresultsthatwereseencouldbeexplained

intermsofthosestages,anditprovidedausefulframeworktoseparatebetween

thedifferentpartsofprocessingwhenreasoninginatask.

Whatthemodeldoesparticularlywellistoprovideaframeworkuponwhichthe

effectsofframingcanbestudied.Ithelpstoseparateoutthecomponentsofthe

process,andtodrawoutthecomplexitiesthatemerge.Whilstthefourinitial

stagesremainuseful(perhapsunsurprisingly,sinceitwasintentionallybroad)

thedetailofknowledgeinthosesectionshasatthesametimeincreasedgreatly.

Itisthisthatwillbeexaminedinthenextsection,particularlyforthesectionsof

formulationandintegration.

Beforethat,however,twopointsofcriticismshouldbenoted.Firstly,therewill

benoattempttomovebeyondthebasicmodelestablishedinchapterthree–

beyondthedeepenedunderstandingofthestagesdetailedbelow.Thisis

intentional.Thethrustoftheresearchinthisthesiswasnotintendedfora

specific,cognitiveprocessinglevelofcognition,andthedatathatdoesexistto

enablethatsortofreasoningisnotcomprehensiveenoughtojustifyaspecific

retooling.Itisbelievedfromthedatathattheaboveiscertainlyanover‐

simplification,butfurtherresearchisneededtoidentifyexactlyhowthe

modulesinteract,ormightbemorecorrectlyconstructed.Thereisalsoawealth

ofadditionalcognitiveresearchthathasalreadybeendone,whichcouldserveto

aidthatprocess,whichfallsatleastalittleoutsidethecurrentscopeofthis

work.Itisenvisionedthatfutureresearchwouldbeabletore‐applythisgeneral

understandingintomorespecificmodellingcriteria.

Secondly,noexpansionwillbemadeoftwoofthestages:feedbackand

implementation.Thatisnottosaythattheyarenotimportant,butsimplythat

thisthesisdidnotprovideenoughinformationtojustifyabroadrethinkofthese

generalcategories.Indeed,muchresearchalreadyexistsforthequestionsthat

couldexpandtheseareas:signaldetectiontheorywithframing,andmotor

166

controltheoriesinimplementationtonametwo.Itwassimplydecidedto

restrictthefocusofthisworktothestagesthattheevidencefromthisthesis

saysthemostabout.Again,itisanticipatedthatfutureresearchandinputfrom

otherdisciplinescouldhelptoexpandthosebetterthanthisthesisusefully

could.

Integration

Thefirstconsistentlyobservablefactortoemergefromthestudieswasthe

importanceandunanticipatedcomplexityofintegration.Integrationasitwas

initiallyenvisionedinthisthesisreferredtotheprocessofdiscriminationthat

occursbetweenperceptionandprocessing,determiningwhatperceivable

informationisthenmadeavailabletobeprocessed.Itwasseenasacognitive

mechanismfortakingtheamountofinformationthatisavailableintheworld

andfilteringitdowntothatwhichisusedfordecisionmaking.Itisapparent

fromcommonexperiencethatpeoplearecapableofmissingthingsthatareright

infrontoftheireyes:tosomehowmissthatpenthey’relookingforevenasit

restsonthedeskinfrontofthem,ortheclassicexampleofsearchingfruitlessly

forapairofglassesthatarealreadybeingworn.Integrationwouldbethestage

atwhichthisoccurswheretheperceivedinformationisencodedandpassedon

(ornot).

Thatthisstagewouldbeimportantsoundslikesimpleconfirmationofthat

whichwouldbeexpectedfromcommonintuition;inordertohaveaneffect

informationmustbydefinitionbeunderstoodinthefirstplace.Howeverwhat

wasanticipatedwasthatthisprocesswasneutral,systematicandobjective,at

leastinregardstosemanticinformation.Sincethesystematicdifferencesinthis

setofstudieswereprimarilyattheconceptualratherthanperceptuallevelit

wasbelievedthatthiswouldhavenoeffectontheprocessofintegration.

Consistentevidence,however,pointstotheideathatintegrationextended

beyondthissimplisticrepresentationandnecessitatesarethinkingofthe

process.

167

ExperimentalEvidence

Thefirstevidencethatintegrationwasimportantformorethansimple

discriminationwasseeninthecardgameexperimentwheredifferentstrategies

wereappliedtoelementsofgameplay.Selectiveapplicationoftheframe

betweendifferentcardtypes(normalandpower)wasobserved,whichwas

interestingonitsownmeritsbutforthepurposesofthissectiondemonstrates

theeffectofintegrationhavingoccurredandthenaframeapplieddifferently

accordingtounderstandingofthetask.Additionally,however,therewasno

effectseeninhowcardswerediscarded.Discardingwasanappropriateplacefor

framingtooccur,andadditionallyalearningeffectoccurredmovingplay

towardsoptimaluse,soitcouldnotbesaidtobesimplybeyondunderstanding

ortooobtuse.Insteaditappearsthattheframinginformationwassimplynot

appliedtothisaspectofthetask.Sotheframehasdefinitelybecomepartofthe

planningprocess,asevidencedbytheeffectselsewhere,butthisisnotageneric

orgeneraleffect,sinceitdoesnotextendtothediscardingrule.Thissuggests

thatintegrationofthediscardingmechanismwasuneven–integratedinto

generalplay,butnotintonovelapplicationsorlearningprocesses.

Thefestivalexperimentthensupportedtheideathatintegrationwasimportant,

albeitinadifferentway.Forthefirstcoupleofquestionstheanswersgivendid

notfallintothepatternthatwaspredictedbyframing,orshowsubstantial

differencesbetweenconditionswhentheydid.Althoughtherewaslater

compliancewiththepredictionsmade,thisinitialperiodofnon‐compliancewith

theframingcanbeexplainedalongsimilarlinesasthecard‐discardingnon‐

adoption:therelevanceoftheinformationthattheframeisprovidingisnot

immediatelyappreciated.Thisgradualadoptioncanactuallybeseentohavea

parallelinthepreviouscardgameexperimentwherethenumberofacesplayed

whenanalternativewasavailableroseinthesecondround,despitethegeneral

trendbeingtowardslessplay.Againthissuggeststhatintegrationoftherelevant

informationwasnotcompleteinitially,andthereforetooksometimetobecome

partofanoverallstrategy.Inbothcasestheinformationoftheframewasnot

immediatelytreatedasrelevanttothedecisionmakingprocess.

168

Thefestivalexperimentprovidedmoreevidencefortheimportanceof

integrationwhencomparingbetweentheOver‐Frameandquestionframe

conditions.Wherethequestionframeparticipantstooktimetointegratethe

frameinformationintoastrategy,theOver‐Frameparticipantsdidnotintegrate

theinformationatall,althoughtheyshowedsignsthattheyknewitwasthere.

Asaresult,theyproducedachaoticpatternforthefirstcoupleofquestions

wheretheirresponseswereunpredictablebeforefallingbackintoaconsistent

patternwiththeneutralcondition–demonstratingthatitwasthisadditional

informationthatmadetheinitialdifference.Again,thisispotentiallyexplained

bytheideathattheinformationwasnotsufficientlyintegratedtoberelevantto

thedecisionmakingprocess.

Finallytheherbalstudyshowedthesamepatternofintegration,takingafew

questionstobeconsistentlyapplied,thatwasseeninthefestivaltask.This

providesconsistencyofobservationbetweenbothexperimentsandframing

types.Additionally,inthefestivalexperimentitalsoshowedlastingstrategic

integrationinthefinalunframedquestions.Thislatterpointisimportant

becauseitsupportswhatwouldbeexpectedbytheconceptofintegrationinto

strategicplanning–thattheeffectwouldstickaroundandberelevantafterthe

specificsupplyingofinformationwasremoved.Particularlybecauseinthis

instanceitwouldbeunlikelytobebiastowardasimplehabit(thatparticipants

hadgottenusedtopickingoneside),astheeventinthatexperimentsuggested

thatabadoutcomehadarisenasaresultofthatveryhabit.Additionally,

integrationhelpstoexplainwhytheeventinthatexperimentdidnothavethe

anticipatedeffectonfuturedecisions–theinformationinitwasnotintegrated–

orattheveryleastnotasmuchasthepreviousframes.Asaresultitwasnon‐

predictiveofresponse.

IntegrationRethought

Whatallthissuggestsisthattoseeintegrationassimplybeingaperceptualand

systematicmatteristooverlookanimportantpartoftheprocess.The

differencesthatarebeingobservedarenotlinkedtoperceptualmechanisms;all

evidencethusfaristhatthatremainsconsistent.Buttheevidencealsosupports

thetheorythatthereisasemanticelementtointegration.Differentstrategic

169

decisionsarebeingmadeaccordingtowhatisunderstoodaboutthetask,and

framescanonlybeappliedwhereitisunderstoodthattheinformationappliesto

thatelementofatask.Integrationisnotsimplytherawinformationthatisthen

passedontoprocessing,butalsothemeansbywhichthatinformationis

processedintoaformthatwereasonwith.Integrationonthislevelisthe

differencebetweenseeingateapotandknowingthat‘thiscanbeusedtomake

tea.’Notethatthisisnotignorance;inallcasestheparticipantsunderstoodthat

theinformationcouldbeappliedtothatarea,itisthatwhendecisionmaking

occurredthatapplicationwasnottakenintoaccount–ithadnotbeen

integrated.

Thisisalsonotsimplyacaseofalearningeffect.Inthecaseofthecardgameit

wasillustratedthatwhathappenswhenaframeisnotinitiallyintegratedand

thenneverre‐presented–ithasnoeffectandnevertookhold,evenwhenthe

discardingmechanicwassubsequentlyunderstood.Intheothertwostudies,

therewasnolearningeffecttobehad.Frameswerenotpredictiveofsuccessnor

didtheypunishnon‐compliance.Ifthisevidencewasduetoalearningeffect

thenthefeedbackshouldactuallyhaveestablishedtheirrelevanceoftheframing

mechanism,butinsteadtheframebecamegraduallymoreinfluentialinaffecting

decisions.Theinformationoftheframewasgraduallybecomingmoreimportant

inthecourseofthetask–itwasbeingintegratedmorecompletely.

Theseresultsdonotprovideafullaccountingofwhyandhowinformationis

integrated,buttheydoestablishbeyondreasonabledoubtthatintegrationisan

importantfactorforframinginongoingtasks.Thequestionthatthisnaturally

raises,therefore,iswhyintegrationhasnotbeennotedasimportanttodatein

single‐choiceparadigms.

Theanswerisactuallyverysimple–thereisalotlessthatcanoccurinasingle

decision.Thereisonequestion,onedecisionandoneresult.Asaconsequence,

thingsareeitherframingortheyarenot,andhavenochancetobeeffective

downthelineorinthefuture.Ifthereisnodiscernableresultastheresultofa

framethenitwouldbeassumedthattheframewassimplynotbiasing–whichis

thereforeoneofthemostimportantthingsthisresearchhastosayforprevious

170

research.Thisexperimenthasestablishedthatframesarenotnecessarily

appliedinstantly,butthatinataskenvironmenttheycanbecomeembedded

afterafewiterations.Theassumptionthathasexistedpreviously‐that

somethingiseitherframingoritisnot‐isdirectlychallenged.Ifthefirstfew

questionsofthefestivalexperimentweretakenontheirown,noresultwouldbe

foundforframinginthequestionframecondition–anullresultusingtheAsian

flumethodologyofframing,arobustandwell‐establishedtechnique.Whatthis

impliesisthattheassumptionthatweknowwhatisframingandwhatisnotmay

verywellbefarfromaccuratebecauseoftherelianceonthesesingle‐decision

mechanisms.Ifframingcanrequiretimetobecomeeffective,ifframingcanwork

overtime,thentheassumptionthatwhatworksinasingledecisionholdstrue

forwhensuchdecisionsaretakeninanongoingdynamicenvironmentseems

self‐evidentlyerroneous.

Anotherissuetheconceptofintegrationraisesisthelackofrangeinmeasuring

effectsinpreviousresearch.Thecardgamestudyshowedthismostpotently

withthecompletelackofframinginthediscardingelementofthetaskand

highlysignificantframingfortheplayingofAces.Whilstinformationwasframed,

andthishadaneffect,itdidnothaveaneffecteverywhere.Integration

anticipatesthissortofresultandprovidesanexplanationforit.Ifthiswerea

single‐decisionexperimentanddiscardingtheonlyvariablebeingmeasured

however,itcouldquiteeasily(anderroneously)havebeenconcludedthatthere

wasnoframingeffectoccurring.Again,seriousquestionshavetoberaisedabout

theappropriatenessofthesingle‐decisionparadigmthathasbeensoprevalent

todate.Notthattheresultsarenecessarilyuntrue(clearly,thebasicprinciples

offraminghavebeenreappliedhere)butratherthatthereisthepotentialthatit

hasbeenguiltyofaseriesoftypetwoerrors,findingnoresultwhereinfact

theremaywellhavebeenonethattheexperimentaldesignswerenotequipped

todetect.

Theenhancedunderstandingofintegrationaddsasignificantdegreeof

complexitytotheconceptofframing.Whilstthesuperficialobservationthatthe

informationneedstobeunderstoodtobeusedisobvious,theideathataframe

canhaveaneffectinoneareabutnotanotherisnot,andtheenhanced

171

understandingoftheprocessesexplainshowthiscanoccur.Framinghas

generallybeenseenasaneither/orproposition,buttheevidencefromthese

studiesisthattherecanbeanelementof‘both’tothatequation.Framingmay

notnecessarilyaffecttheareasthatitisexpectedto,andmayimpactonareas

thatwerenotanticipatedbythesamemeasure.Thekeyhereisthatanullresult

seenfromasinglemetricmaynotindicatealackofframing,oralackofeffect.

Furtherconsideringtheimplicationsofthisforprevioustheory,therearesome

parallelswiththeconceptofaccessibilityasnotedbyKahnemannandTversky.

Accessibilityistheconceptofhowavailablecertainpropertiesareindifferent

contexts;anambiguousfigurethatcaneitherbe‘13’or‘B’giventhesurrounding

contextforinstance(Kahneman,2002).Integrationtouchesuponsomeofthe

sameideas–thatunderstandingcandifferaccordingtohowinformationis

processed–howeveritisdistinctastheyworkatdifferentlevels.Accessibilityis

definedbyinformationthathasbeenintegratedbecausethatinformationis

beingunderstooddifferently.

Whereintegrationdiffersisthatthereisinformationthatcouldbepotentially

biasingbutthatisnotprocessedtoenablethattooccur,orthatanareawhich

couldbebiasedissimilarlynotunderstood.Anyknowledgeorinformationhas

thepotentialtohaveaneffectonaperson’sthinkingorreasoning.Integration

doesnotconcerntheeffectivenessoftheinformationitself,butrathertowhat

degreethatinformationhasbeenunderstoodinordertobeinapositionto

influencethinking.

Consider,forexample,adriverwholivesneartoaschool.Ononesideofthe

schoolistheentrance,andasiscommonthisparticularroadiscoveredwith

slowsignsandwarnings.Thedriverreactstothiscontextualinformationby

slowingtheiraveragespeed,andpayingmoreattentiontocheckforstray

childrenwhomightrunacrosstheroad.Ontheothersideoftheschoolthereare

noslowsignsorwarnings,butthereareholesintheplayingfieldfencesand

hedgeswherechildrenmightseektotakeashortcuteithertoorfromschool.

Wouldthedriverbeexpectedtoslowdownandbecarefulonthisroadtoo?

172

Severalfactorswouldcomeintoplayhere,obviously.Butthebasicbehaviour

canbeexplainedasamatterofintegration.Atarelativelylowlevelof

integration,thedriverwouldnotconsiderslowingdownorpayingmore

attention–theydosointheroadwiththeentranceduetothecontextual

information,butthatinformationhasnotbeenfullyprocessedandasaresult

theyaresimplyreactingtothesurroundingenvironment.Atahigherlevelof

integration,however,adriverwouldpossibilitybeexpectedtotakemorecare

onthesecondroadaswell,becausewhilstthedirectenvironmentisnolonger

cuingthatresponse,theassociationof‘thereisaschoolnearby,Imustslow

down’hasbeenmadeintheirmind.Inthiswaydifferinglevelsofintegrationcan

bepotentiallypredictiveofbehaviouralresponses.

Integrationisthereforeredefinedasbeingthedegreetowhichinformationis

availabletobeusedinformulation,beingconstrainedbybothperceptualand

cognitivelimitations.

Formulation

Thesecondsignificanttrendinthedatathatthisthesispresentsistheeffectof

framingeffectsonfactorsbeyondandindependentofwhatdecisionisreached.

Theimplicationsofthisaresignificant,andprovidetheevidencethatframing

influencesdonotsimplyinfluencetheoutcomeofadecision,butratherthe

mannerinwhichthatdecisionisreachedinthefirstplace‐formulation.Frames

affectdecisionmakingarchitecture,themannerinwhichdecisionsarereached

atall.

ExperimentalEvidence

Thatframeshaveaneffectbeyondsimplyshiftinganopinioncanbeseenacross

thestudies.Primarilyitcanbeobservedintheconfidencemeasuresforboththe

herbalandfestivalexperiments,whereconfidencewasshowninbothcasestobe

directlyaffectedbyframing.Importantlyinbothcasesitwasshowntovaryboth

comparedtoaneutralcondition,andalsowithinframing,whereanotherfactor

interactedwithit–feedbackasthemostnotableinstanceinthefestivalstudy.

Participantsreacteddifferentlytofeedbackasaresultofhavingbeenframed

comparedtotheneutralcondition.Thissuggeststhatitwastheactofframing

173

thatwascreatingand/orenablingthedifferences.Itwasnotthattherewas

simplymoreinformationavailable,sinceparticipantsreactedinadifferent

mannerbyframedespitehavingreceivedthesamelevelofadditional

information.Similarlyinbothexperimentsthepresenceofaframeaffected

decisiontimemeasuresaboveandbeyondanydifferencessimplyassociated

withadditionalwordsoradditionalsemanticcontenttobeprocessed.This

resultisparticularlysignificantbecauseitwasdemonstratedthatthese

systematicdifferencesinadditionalfactorsariseevenwhentheactualdecisions

beingmaderemainedconstant.Notonlythis,butintheherbalstudywherethe

decisionwasseparatedfromtheframingdevice,participantstooklongertoread

thedecisionsectionandthinkaboutthechoicetheyweremaking.Froma

classicalpointofview,framesshouldinfluencetheinclinationofapersonto

makeonechoiceoranother,particularlyopinion‐basedframessuchastheonein

thatexperiment.Noadditional,usefullogicalinformationwasintroducedtothe

processsoitshouldnotbeexpectedtoseeanincreaseinprocessingtimeforthe

decisionitself‐unlessthewayinwhichthatprocessingisoccurringhaschanged.

So,weknowthatframinghasaneffectonfactorsbeyondsimpledecision

making,framingaltersthewaydifferentfactorsinteract,andadditionally

framingcanhaveaneffectonadditionalfactorswithoutactuallyframing

anything.

FormulationRethought

Thisissignificantforseveralreasons.Firstandforemostitissignificantbecause

ittellsusthatthedecisionthatwasmadeisnottheonlythingthatmatterswhen

framingoccurs,andconsequentlyshouldnotbetheonlythingthatismeasured

aswasnotedabove.Anotherimplicationhoweveristhatwhentakentogether

thisdataactuallysuggestssomethingthatgoesfarther‐thatframedinformation

isaffectingthewayinwhichinformationisprocessed.Atraditionalviewofthe

meansbywhichadecisionisreachedisrelativelymechanisticandinput‐output

determined.Arangeofoutputsispossible,butduetodifferentinput,likea

programmablerobotthatwillgotoavarietyofdifferentdestinations.Whatthis

suggestsisthatframingactuallyaltersthemeansbywhichthosesame

instructionsarecarriedout.Inthecaseofthatmetaphoradifferentvehicle

174

altogetherisbeingusedinsteadthatmightstruggletogouparamp,ormore

successfullytraversesomesandasaresult.

Itistherangeofresultsobtainedthatsuggeststhisistrue.Ifinformationwas

beingprocessedinthesamewayinframedandunframedexamplesandsimply

differinginoutput,youwouldexpecttoseeconsistencyintimetaken(after

accountingforwordlengthandsemanticcontent)sincethesamebasic

processingfactorswouldbeperformed.Thatconsistencycanbeseenwithinthe

conditionbetweenquestions,butitcannotbeseenbetweenframedand

unframeddata.Similarlyyouwouldexpecttoseeconsistencyofthereaction

withinconfidencetofeedback.Youmightseeadifferencebetweentheframed

andunframedconditions,buttherelationshipbetweenthedifferentfeedback

typesshouldbeconsistentwhenframedorunframed–unlesstherelevant

informationisbeingtreateddifferentlyasaresultoftheinformationbeing

framed.

Itisforthesereasonsthatitseemsmostlikelytosuggestthatinformationis

actuallybeingprocessedanddealtwithdifferentlyasaresultofbeingframed.

Thatthemannerinwhichtheinformationispresentedhasshapedthemethod

bywhichitisassessedanddisseminated.Rememberthatwithframing,and

indeedboundedrationalityingeneral,thepointisthattheinformationitselfis

generallyofthesamelogicalcontent.Itisthecontext–thebounds–which

resultsinthatinformationbeingassesseddifferently.Whatthisresearch

suggestsisthatitisnotsimplytheconclusionsthatarereachedwhichare

different,butalsothemannerinwhichthoseconclusionsarereachedwhich

varies.

Itshouldbenotedatthispointthatitisunderstoodthattheargumentabout

formulationbeingmadehereisnotconclusivelysupported.Itisbelievedthat

thisevidencemakesthisexplanationthemostlikely,andthatpreviousresearch

supportstheplausibilityofthisframeworkbutadditionalworkisneededto

provideagreaterdegreeofcertainty.However,whatshouldcertainlybeclear

regardlessofthisisthatframeshaveagreatdealofimpactontheformulation

stage.Notjustthatitmighttakeslightlylongertoprocesstheadditional

175

information,butthattherearesubstantialdifferencesinthewayinwhich

informationishandled.Evenifthehypothesisaboutdifferentialprocessingis

notsupported,theimplicationthatframesdohaveaparticulareffecton

processingbeyondthesimpleintroductionofinformationisevidenceofa

significanteffectonitsown.

ReboundedRationality

Thetrendsdetailedaboveshowthatbothintegrationandformulationare

significantlymorecomplicatedascognitiveprocessesthanwasfirstassumed.

However,inusingboundedrationalitytoexploretheconceptofadaptationin

tasks,thatframeworkhasalsobeenusedtomakeobservationsaboutframing

effects,andboundedrationalityasawhole.Whattheevidencesuggestsisthat

thereisaneedtorethinkandreassessboundedrationalityasatheory.

Theoriginalmodel’sinitialpropositionwasthatintegrationdeterminedwhat

wasunderstood,whichthenfedintoplanningprocesseswhichgaveanoutcome

inthemanneroftraditionalinput‐outputmechanisticmodels.Thisresearchhas

demonstratedthatthisisanover‐simplificationofbothprocesses,butmore

significantlyitchallengedseveraloftheassumptionsthattheoriginal

predictionswerebasedon.Framingwasshownnottobeaneither/or

proposition,buttotaketimeinagivencontext.Itwasshownthatsingle

decisionswerenotsufficienttoassesstheimpactofaframeandthatdifferences

occurredoutsidethatmetric.Itwasshownthatfeedbackmatteredandtherefore

thatpreviousexperiencemustalsoberelevant.Alloftheseobservationsrun

contrarytotheimplicitassumptionsofboundedrationalityasawhole,and

framingeffectsspecifically.

Reassessingpreviousworkthemostsignificantflawthatpresentsitselfisthe

overlyreductionistapproach.Amajorityofpriorresearchreliesuponscenarios

constructedwheretwothingsaretrue:thereisasinglechoicetobemadeor

judgmenttoberenderedindiscreteterms,andthatoncethetaskiscompletethe

studyends.Assimplethoughtexperimentsthisapproachisfine,andindeed

therearemanyinstancesineverydaylifewhereadecisioncanberepresentedin

theseterms.Theproblemwiththisapproachis,ofcourse,thatwhilstthat

176

individualdecisioncanwellbemodeledinthatmanner,doingsoremovesthe

complexityofthesurroundingscenariothatalsodeterminestheoutcome.Asan

example,considerthepenaltyshootoutinafootballmatch,andspecificallythe

Englishnationalteam’sperformanceintheminmajorcompetitions.England

havesomethingofareputationforexitingtournamentswhenamatchgoesto

penalties–despitethefactthattheplayersinvolvedintakingtheminevitably

arefamiliarwiththeprocessandfarmoresuccessfulatscoringinpracticeand

wheninactionfortheirclubs.Whydoesthisoccur?Whilstnodefinitiveanswer

canbeoffered,thegeneralassumptionisthatpressurenegativelyaffectsthe

players–especiallysinceonceareputationforlosinginthatmannerhasbeen

establishednervesseemallthemorelikelytokickin.

Thisillustratestheproblemwithareductionistapproachtodecisionmaking.

Theactionsinboththecases(clublevelandinternationals)arethesame,butthe

contextwildlydifferentinawaythatwillproducewildlydifferentresults.And

evenifthesinglepointrepresentationdoestrytocapturethissortofdifference,

thereisstillasignificantgapbetweentakingthefirstandfifthshotsinsucha

contest.Priorinformationisimportant,asiswhatcomesnext.Ultimatelythe

obvioussolutionistoapproachthetaskaspartofawholeratherthanseparate

outitsindividualparts–andthisresearchhasdemonstratedthatbeinginan

ongoingtaskbringsspecificproperties.

Theironyofstatingthisisthatthepointofboundedrationalityhasalwaysbeen

toseedecisionmakingasbeingdeterminedbythesetofcircumstancesitis

madein:cognitive,social,perceptualandsoforth.Whatthisevidencesuggestsis

thatwecanaddanothercategorytothatlist–experimental.Byadoptingthese

standardmethodologiesdecisionmakingstudyitselfhastodatebeen

significantlybounded.

Anoteofcautionshouldbesoundedhere.Boundedrationalityhasshownitself

tobeausefultoolboxforbothprovidingbetterrepresentationsofhuman

decisionmakingthanexistedbeforeit,andalsoforsupplyingthebasisonwhich

decisionmakingwasunderstoodforthiswork.Thisthesisofferssomenew

perspectivesandillustratessignificantareasinwhichthecurrenttheoryis

177

insufficient,butthatshouldnotbemisreadasbeingacompleterepudiationof

theexistingbodyofworkoutofhand.Existingtheoryisausefulbaselinetowork

from–indeed,theframesthatwereusedinthisthesiswereintentionallydrawn

frompreexistingworkforjustthatreason.Asanunderstandingofthemechanics

ofjudgmentsanddecisionmakingitremainsboththeoreticallyandpractically

relevant.Thefactthat,broadlyspeaking,theAsianfluframesuccessfully

influenceddecisionmakinginatask‐basedscenarioactuallyillustratesthatprior

workisnotrenderedirrelevant,simplyshowntobeinsufficient.

RationalityinTasks

Havingestablishedthatitisnecessarytoredefineboundedrationalityforan

expandedworldview,thissectionwillpresentaframeworkfordoingjustthat.

Aswouldbeexpected,thebasiccomponentsofthistheoryhavealreadybeen

explainedintheprevioussectionsandthereforewillnotbeundulyrepeated.

Itisworthnoting,however,thatthisis,andintendstobe,astartingframework.

Thisworkdoesnotpresumetoofferadefinitiveanswertothequestion,butto

furtherunderstandingandenableadditionalknowledgetobepursuedasa

result.Severalareasforexpansionandadditionalworkwillbedetailedinthe

subsequentsectionforpreciselythispurpose.

Thecoreofthistheoreticalre‐structuringisthedivisionofframingeffectsinto

twocomponents;framingandactuation.

Framing

Framingisanyvariationinpresentationofinformationthathasthepotentialto

resultinalternationstotheprocessingofinformationanddecisionmaking.

Previouslyframingreferredtostructuralalterationstoinformationpresentation

thatdidhaveaneffectondecisionmaking.Thisdefinitionexpandstheideaof

framingtoencompass‘non‐effective’framingintentionally.Itremovestheissue

ofsuccessfromadefinitionofframing,andmoreusefullydefinesframingas

simplybeingthevariationwithininformationpresentation.

Actuation

178

Actuationisdefinedasthesuccessorfailureofaframetohaveanimpacton

cognitiveprocessing.Itadoptsmanyofthepropertiespreviouslyassociatedwith

framingasawhole.

Notethatthedefinitionisstilldivorcedfromsimplybeingconcernedwith

decisionmaking,sotheadditionaleffectsandimpactsthatframinghascanstill

beconsideredunderthebannerof‘framing,’astheyshouldbe.

Actuationisitselfdefinedbyanumberoffactors,listedbelow.Thesearethe

primaryfactorsthathavebeenidentifiedbythiswork,althoughitisanticipated

thatthesearenotacomprehensivelistandotherelementsmayalsoemergeas

theresultoffutureresearch.

Potency–Theabilityofaframetoimpactdecisionmaking.

Thisfactorwouldencompassamajorityofpreviousresearch,whichwouldbe

seenasbeingconcernedprimarilywithscenarioswherehighpotencyframes

wereappliedtolimitedtrialenvironments.Italsoenablesthegenerally

appropriateprimaryfocusofmostresearchtobemaintained.Thedistinction

alsoallowsforthepossibilityoflesspowerfulframeswhichmightbeineffective

insingle‐decisionscenarioshavinganeffectwhenimplementedoveralonger

period.

Positioning–Thelocationoftheframerelativetoinformationgathering.Covers

proximitytoframedconcept,aswellasrepetitionandreviewability.

Thisfactorisnecessarytoaccountforthefactthatwhereaframeispresentedis

ofsignificance.Theherbalstudyestablishedthatframesdidnotneedtobe

directlyembeddedintherelevantinformation,buttheworkalsodemonstrated

theimportanceofrepetitionforsomeframes,andthatthesamepositionin

differenttasksmayproducedifferentresults.

Noise–Thelevelofadditionalinformationintheenvironmentthatmayobscure

orotherwisepreventaframefrombeingnoticed.

Thisfactorisreflectiveofthefactthatthecomplexityofthetask,or

environment,canaffectapplicationoftheframe.Thiswasseeninthevariable

179

applicationinthecardgametask.Ittouchesonissuesofattentionand

perceptionaswell,asthesecouldalsopresentbarrierstoframeadoption.

Internalization–Thedegreetowhichaframehasbeenintegratedintoindividual

processing.

Recognizingthatframesretainsomeoftheirinfluenceevenoncetheystopbeing

presented,thisfactormakesadistinctionbetweenaone‐offchoicethatleadto

animplication,andanassociationthathasbeensolidifiedinaparticipant’smind.

EffectScopeThedegreetowhichnon‐primaryeffectsarealsocausedbythe

frame.

Thisfactorconcernstheadditionalmeasuresthatwerenotedbythisthesis.They

aretakenasindicatorsofdifferencesbeingmadeattheprocessinglevel.This

factorisdifferenttotheotherssinceitisobservationalratherthanpredictive,

butimportantastheconfidencemeasuresshowed.Confidenceisnotanticipated

tobetheonlyfactorrelevanttothispoint,butitisusedasanexampleofafactor

thatisbothrelevantanddemonstrablyaffectedbyframing.

Theeffectofthisre‐definitionofframingeffectsisthatthetheorynowprovides

therequireddimensionstoaccountfortheresultsobservedintheworkofthis

thesis.Atthesametimeitdoesnotcontradictoreliminateanypreviouswork.

Allthesingle‐pointdecisionworkthathascomebeforeisstillrelevantandcan

beunderstoodwithinthisframework–however,nowadditionaleffectscanalso

beaccountedfor.

Applications

Thisresearchhasawiderangeofpotentialpracticalapplications.Thereare

threemainwaysinwhichthissectionwilldiscusshowitcouldbeused:

engineeringdesiredbehaviour,avoidingundesirablebehaviourandpredicting

behaviour.Inalloftheseexamplestheprimaryapplicationofthistheoryasit

standsrightnowwouldbeasaseriesofguidelinestobeaddressedbyexpert(or

possiblyinformednovice)specialists.Ratherthanprovidespecificcriteriaof

whatshouldbedoneingivensituations,thetheoryasoutlineaboveprovides

categoriestoassessandaddressasnecessary.Inthiswayitcanbebestthought

180

ofasadiagnostictoolakintocognitivewalkthroughorothersuchusability

guidelines,anditisnoaccidentthattheapplicationofthisresearchissuggested

inbroadguidelinesratherthanspecificremediesorsolutions.

EngineeringBehaviour

Framesandboundedrationalitylosetheireffectivenessiftheyaremadeexplicit

ornoticedbytheparticipantinsomeotherway.Theframesinboththefestival

andherbalstudiesinparticularrelieduponparticipantsacceptingtheunreality

ofthesituationthat,forinstance,the1/3automaticsuccessoftheAsianflu

examplecouldapplytoeverysituation.Thatisnottosuggestthatframesdonot

existintherealworld;theyclearlydoandhavebeenshowntoworkinsuch

situations.Thepointisthattheframesworkedpreciselybecausewithinthe

context(theboundsofthesituation)theyappearedintheywereplausibleand

appropriate.Thechallengeofapplyingthisworktotherealworldisnotonlyin

findingappropriatesituationstouseitin,butalsoinfindingawaytoapplyit

thatdoesnotbecomeself‐defeating.Somethingthatthisthesishasaptly

demonstratedisthattheeffectofframesveryagreatdealaccordingtothe

contextthattheyareplacedin–tasksoversingledecisions,positionandsoforth.

Itiscertainlybeyondthescopeoftheevidenceinthisworktoprovidealistof

exactlyhowandwhyframeapplicationmayvaryinagivencontext,sotheroleof

anexpertbecomesnecessarytotranslatethegeneralabstractunderstanding

intocontext‐specificapplications.

Anexampleofwhereitcouldbeusedtoengineerdesiredbehaviouristheworld

ofonlineadvertisingandselling.Heretheobjectiveisobviouslytohavemore

consumersclickthroughtoawebpagefromanadvert,andthentomake

purchasesoncetheyhavedonethis.Whatmakesthistheoryspecifically

applicabletothisareaisthatonlineinteractiontakesplaceinahighly

engineeredenvironment.Whilstagreatdealoftheinteractioncannotbe

predictedaheadoftime–realworlddistractions,differingmonitorsetups,etc.,

etc.–forthemostparttheenvironmentthatanytwopeopleexperiencewhen

visitingagivenwebpagewillbelargelyidentical.Evenwithpersonalizationmost

sitesruna‘theme’andagivenlayoutthatallusersexperienceinthesamebasic

way.Thisallowsformorepreciseapplicationoftheprinciplesanddesignto

181

emphasizethem.Ofparticularinterestwouldbetheconceptofinternalization,

becauseitissuchadesirableoutcomeiftheobjectiveistosellsomething(and

particularlyforengenderingrepeatcustomers).Tryingtoensurethatthebasic

conceptsofpurchasingtheproductorusingaserviceareinstilledwould

arguablybemoreimportantthanactualclickthroughorsales,initiallyatleast.

Ifitmanagestoimpartahabitorbehaviour,thatwillbefarmoreusefuloverthe

longrunthanaone‐timesuccessfultransaction.

PreventingBehaviour

Acounter‐exampleofwherethissameinformationcouldbeusedtoprevent

mistakesbeingmadeasaresultofframedinformationwouldbehigh‐density

decision‐intensiveenvironmentswithhighconsequences,suchasbattlespace

managementorairtrafficcontrolrooms.Inthesesetupshigh‐skillindividuals

makeconstantdecisionswhichoftencarryhighpenaltiesifamistakeismadeor

afailureoccurs.Ideally,adecisionmakerinthiscontextwouldbeprovidedwith

therelevantinformationinthemostusefulmannerandthenallowedtomake

thatdecisionotherwiseunbiased.Thedangeristhattheinherentbiasesthat

peoplecarrywiththemcouldcausethedecisionstobebiased,ascould

inadvertentframingoftheinformation.Itisnotimplausiblethatinformation

comingintoabattlespacecoulditselfbeframedevenifthatframingis

unintentional.Soldiersconveyinginformationfromafrontlinemaynotbe

reportingwithcompleteobjectivity,afterall.

Inthiscontexttheresearchcouldbeusedasaguideforwhattoavoidinorder

tolessenthechancethatinformationisbeingframedorbiased.Anadvantageof

re‐conceptualizingtheconceptofframinginthewaythathasbeendoneisthatit

treatsallinformationpresentationaspotentiallyleading,andthereforedoesnot

requirethat‘frames’arespecificallyidentifiedtobedealtwith.Ratherthe

factorsinvolvedinactuationcanbespecificallyaddressed.Ofparticularinterest

forthiswouldbeinternalization.Studyingsystemstobeawareofwhether

participantsareinternalizingbiasedchoicesfortheirdecisionmakingisboth

quantifiablyachievable(pastdecisionscanbetrackedagainstprojected

baselines)andshowntobenewlyrelevantbythisresearch.Previoustheory

wouldhaveassumedthatagivendecisionhadthesamechanceofaffectinga

182

choiceinitsfirstor60thiteration,butasthisthesishasshownevenwell

establishedframescantaketimeto‘comeonline.’Thusthetheorywould

supportlookingforongoingandemergingbiases,aswellasdetectingmore

subtleframeeffects,andprovidingsomeinsightintohowtoaddressthese–

simplychangingthewaytheinformationispresentedwillnotbeenoughasby

thatpointthetendencywillbeintegratedintoawayofthinking.

Additionally,thistheorywouldpotentiallybeabletolinkotherphenomenaback

toframing.Aswasdemonstratedinthethesis,framingcanhaveaneffecton

confidenceevenwhentheactualdecisionsbeingtakendonotchange.

Battlespacemanagementrequiresconfidencetoundertake–beinganarenathat

isbydefinitionfilledwithdangerandpotentialflaws,confidenceisanecessary

qualitytogiveappropriateorders,anddangerousbothinitsabsenceandalso

whenthereistoomuch.Overconfidenceorunderconfidencewouldbe

somethingthatcouldbothbenoticed,andthenpotentiallyascribedtothe

framingthatwaspresent.Thissortofsecondaryreaction,andbeingabletolook

foritcouldbepotentiallyimportantsinceitmightrepresentawayto

systematicallyaddresswhatwouldotherwisegenerallybethoughtofasa

‘character’flawratherthananenvironmentaleffect.

PredictingBehaviour

Thethirdmannerinwhichthisresearchcouldbeappliedisinunderstanding,

analyzingandpredictingbehaviourpatterns.Ashasbeenraisedalready

elsewhereinthisthesis,anareawithagreatdealofpotentialforthisiscyber

influence,andspecificallysocialmediaasaconduitforthat.

Withtheinfluencethatsocialmediacurrentlyhasinsociety,andtheexpectation

thattheunderlyingprinciplesthatdriveitwillcontinuetobeinfluentialinyears

tocome,thisisanareawherethereisagreatdealavailabletobeunderstood

andthereisgoodreasontodoso.Whilstthedataitprovidesissomewhathard

toreadattimesduetothesheervolumeanddifficultyassociatedwithpicking

outtherelevantinformation,theactuationfactorslistedaboveprovideagaina

frameworkforbothunderstandingbehaviourandpredictingit.

183

Thisactuallyprovidesagoodexampleofanareawhereadaptabilityiskeyfor

thetheory.Clearlythereareagreatdealofspecificcontextualissuesthatarisein

theareaofcyberinfluence–interactivityofframes(opinion),asynchronous

communication,dynamicenvironment,personaltiesandaffiliationetc.Context

specificityissomethingthatshouldbeembraced,andtheoverarchingprinciples

usedasaframeworkratherthanadefinitiveanswer.Indeed,specificsocial

networksaregoingtohavespecificnormsandinteractionparadigmsthat

conflictwithothersevenutilizingthesameplatformforcommunication.On

twitterthehashtag#tcot(standingfor‘topconservativesontwitter’)is

commonlyusedbyconservativepoliticaloperativesasadefaultsothatother

userscansimplysearchforthattagtoseewhatisdrivingthedayintermsof

storiesonthatside.Thereisnoequivalentexampleinsuchwidespreaduseon

theliberalside,whichtendstoappropriatehashtagsforagivendayandevent.

Thepointisthatthisisaclearorganizationaldifferencebetweentworelatively

similar(politicallydriven)groupsonthesamecommunicationplatform.In

termsofthetheory,theuseofthe#tcothashtagwouldenableaframingtweetto

gainrelativelystrongpositioninginawaythatwouldnotbepossibleina

differentgroup.Contextiskey,butagaininthisexamplethetheoryprovidesa

wayofunderstandingthelikelihoodofthatframingspreadingorbeing

internalized.

Anotherpotentialapplicationofthisworkisthatitcouldbeusedtoactually

identifywhenpeoplehavebeeninfluenced.Oneofthemainissuesthatframing

andtheoriesofcyberinfluenceandotherworkfaceisdeterminingwhenan

attemptedinfluenceisactuallyworking.Forlaboratoryworksuchasthis,

controlgroupsandbaselinescanbeestablished,butinmoreecologicallyvalid

situationsitisoftenimpossibletocomparebetweengroupsinthisway,soitis

hardtoknowifanapplicationisactuallyworkingornot.

Butthisresearchdoesprovideameansoflookingatthatproblem.Ithasshown

thatdecisionmakingisnottheonlyfactorthatcanbeaffectedbyframing,but

alsoconfidenceandreactiontimes.Additionaleffectsarenotablewhen

participantsaresuccessfullyframed,anditistheseadditionaleffectsthatcan

providethebasisforestablishingifaframehasbeensuccessfulornot.Inatask‐

184

basedenvironmentwithhighmonitoring,reactionanddecisiontimescanbe

monitoredforchangesagainstabaselinereadingfrompreviousperformanceon

thattask.Alternatelywhenconsideringanareasuchascyberinfluence,thereis

thepotentialtousethefactthatfeedbackisavailableinthatarea.Peoplearenot

simplyconsuming,butalsobroadcasting,andthesemanticcontentoftheir

publishedcontent,aswellastheirnoticeableactions,couldprovideinsightinto

howtheirconfidencelevelshave(orhavenotbeen)affectedbyexposuretothe

framedmaterial.Inanycase,theexistenceofsecondaryeffectsenables

additionalstreamsofinformationtobeusedinunderstandingifinfluencehas

occurredornot.Theseshouldbeabletobeemployed,alongwithothermethods,

inanattempttotriangulateananswerfrommultidimensionalsources.

Autonomy

Finally,itisworthconsideringtheimplicationsthistheorycouldhaveforthe

designofautonomoussystems.Whilstthereissomeobvioustheoreticaldistance

betweenthisworkandartificialintelligenceatthispoint,atthesametimeitis

believedthatthisframeworkcouldprovidesomebasisforinnovativeworkthere

aswell.

Previouslyframeswereconsideredprimarilyintermsoftheirpotencyas

definedbytheirinteractionwithpeople.Accountingforthisinanartificial

settingwasalwaysgoingtobedifficultbecauseofthecircularnatureofsucha

process–ifyoucanonlydefineaframebyinteractionwithaperson,thena

humanhastobeintheloopforanautonomoussystemtoseeitremovingthe

autonomyfromthecalculation.

Thisworkdoesnotentirelysolvethisissue.Potencyisstillaqualitythatremains

somewhatdefinedbypeople.Howeverotherfactorsofactuationaremore

quantifiable.Thestructureofdifferentialinformationrepresentation,asaframe

isnowdefined,canbeobjectivelymappedanddiscriminatedbetweenonabasic

level.Similarly,positioningcanbedefinedintermsofinformationlocationand

theunitsbetweenthosepoints(pageviews,distanceonascreen)ascansome

environmentalnoise(additionalwindows,colourvariety,etc.)Thiscannot

provideforallthecomplexitythatgoesintoframinganymorethanthetheory

185

pretendstodefinitivelyrepresentthearea.Butwhattheydoprovidearethe

workingbasicsforunitsofframingtobebuiltupandunderstood.Automated

systemsmightnotbeabletoactuallydetectorunderstandframing,butby

developingandapplyingintelligentalgorithmsthatlookforthesequalities–and

specificallycombinationsofthesequalities–thenthereemergesthepossibility

offramingevents,informationorscenariostobedeveloped.Anautonomous

systemcouldmonitorinformationflowandhighlightforahumanoperator

whereinformationmightbeframinganopinionsothatthatoperatorcanmakea

distinctionforthemselves.Framestendtolosepotencyoncetheyarespecifically

lookedfororconsidered,includingsuchexamplesastheAsianfluclassic.By

usingtheseprinciplestomanageinformationflowtoahumanoperator,thereis

thepotentialtoavoidbiasingsaidinformationinawaythatotherwisewouldgo

unnoticed.

FurtherWork

Thisworkredefinesapreviouslywell‐mappedareaoftheory.Consequently,

thereisagreatdealoffollow‐upworkthatcanbeundertakenasaresultofthe

newquestionsitraises.

Itseemsprudenttofirstacknowledgethatthereisagreatdealofbasicfollow‐up

worktobedone.Researchshouldbechallengedandthereshouldbeattemptsto

disproveit,includingtheconclusionsofthisthesis.Subsequentworkinvolving

taskactivity,confidence,andfeedbacktofurtherexaminetherelationships

thereinshouldbewelcomed,althoughthissectionwillnotaddressthesedirectly

outsidethisparagraphinfavourofbroaderideas.Thatsaid,thetheoryprovides

obvioustestabilityfortheseparatefactorsofactuationtobeinvestigated,aswell

asthemoregeneraltheoriesofintegrationandformulation.

Themostobviouslyspeculativetheorydrawninthissectionisthatofframing

causingdifferentcognitivestrategiestobeemployedindecisionmaking.There

hasalreadybeensomeworklookingatbrainactivationpatternsinsingle‐

decisionworkthatsupportsthishypothesisasplausible(Deppeaetal.,2005;

Gonzaleza,Danaa,Koshinob,&Just,2005;Martino,Kumaran,Seymour,&Dolan,

2006)butthereisclearlyneedforfurtherexaminationoftheidea.Therearea

186

numberofpotentialproblemstobeovercomehowever,themostprominentof

whichbeingthatbrainimagingtechniquesgivegenerallybadtemporal

resolutionwithcurrenttechnology–andthisresearchdealswithconsecutive,

temporallycloseoccurrences.Thehypothesisalsoallowsfortheideathat

differentcognitivestrategiescouldemergeinthesameregionofthebrain,sothe

differencebeingsoughtcouldpotentiallybeundetectablewithcurrent

generationmachines,particularfMRI.

Nevertheless,itremainsaninterestingareaofpotentialresearch.Comparisons

couldbemadebetweenbrainsthathavebeenprimedandunprimedbya

framingeffecttolookforadifference,enablingasnapshottopotentiallyshow

deepercognitivedifferences.AlternatelyfMRIcouldbeusedtolocatethe

associatedbrainregions,andthenEEGorequivalentusedfortemporal

examination.Whatisclearinanycircumstancesisthataseriesofstudieswould

benecessarytoaddressthehypothesiswithanycertainty.

Anotherareathatwouldexpandthisresearchinasignificantwaywouldbeto

considerthedimensionofexpertise,andpre‐existingknowledgeandskill.Oneof

thecriteriaappliedthroughoutthisthesiswasthatthetasksshouldbenovelin

someregard;thatparticipantswerelearningastheywentalong,atleast

partially,becausethatisthetimewhenapersonwouldbeexpectedtobemost

opentoinfluencefromframesandothermeansofdirectingopinion.Thisshould

notbeseenasaflaw,sinceitrepresentedthemostappropriatewaytoensurea

levelplayingfieldbetweenparticipants.Expertiseitselfwascarefullycontrolled

forandnosignificanteffectswerefoundassociatedwithit.Butwhilsttheissue

ofexpertiseliesintentionallyoutsidethescopeofthisthesis’work,it

neverthelessrepresentsaninterestingsourceofpotentialwork.Theextremists

thatwereidentifiedintheherbalstudyareanexampleofhowpre‐existing

biasescanoverruleframingeffects;itstandstoreasonthatpre‐existing

experiencethatwaslogicallybasedcouldhaveasimilarimpact.

Thisresearchhasdemonstratedthatfeedbackcanovercomeaframingeffect,

althoughitdoesn’tnecessarilydoso.Experiencewouldbepredicted,therefore,

tofollowasimilarpattern.Ononelevelitwouldbeanticipatedthattask

187

familiaritywouldsimplyoverruleanypotentialframingeffect,sinceexperience

wouldbeprovidingthemethodologybywhichadecisionwasbeingmadeand

presumablybegivenmorecognitiveweightthancurrentinformation.Onthe

other,peoplestilldemonstrablyadapttochangingcircumstancesandrespondto

newinformation,whichwouldpresumablyincludenewinformationthat

happenedtobeframed.Sosomesortofrelationshipshouldbepresentbetween

thetwoconflictingfactors.Experiencewould,presumably,representanother

factorthatwouldinfluenceframeactuation.

Athirdsuggestedareafortheoreticalresearchwouldbetolookatthe

interactionthatappearstooccurbetweenframingandfeedback.Thisfinding

wasshowninthefestivalexperiment,butintentionallynotinvestigatedany

furtherbecausethequestionsitraisesaresignificantenoughthatitcould

potentiallybeabodyofworkitself.Forthepurposesofthisthesisitwas

sufficienttoknowthattherewasarelationshipbetweenthetwofactors,andas

supportingevidencefortheideathatframingaffectedmorethanjustthe

decisionbeingmade.

Theresultraisesgreaterquestions,however.Whywereframedparticipants

moreconfidentwithqualitativefeedback?Thesuggestedhypothesisisthatit

allowsthemtoseetheinformationsubjectively,andthisissomethingthatcould

standtobemoreempiricallytested.Thathypothesisalsomightflowbackinto

theexpectationofdifferencesinprocessing–differenttypesoffeedbackcould

generatedifferentlevelsofconfidence,whichcouldberelatedtothewayin

whichaproblemisconsidered.

Morethanjustthishowever,theresultraisesquestionsaboutfeedback

interactingwithframingingeneral.QualitativeandQuantitativefeedbackare

usefuldistinctions,butarenottheonlywayinwhichfeedbackcanbepresented,

nornecessarilythemostappropriatewayofdistinguishinginformationtype.

Quantityofinformationwouldbeonefactor,butalsoquality.Theinformationin

thelattertwostudiesofthisthesiswasintentionallynon‐informativetoavoid

pullingparticipantstooneparticularconclusion,andtomaintainalevelof

ambiguity.Butwhataboutsituationswherefeedbackismoreexplicitanddirect?

188

TheCardGamestudysuggestedthatthiswouldeventuallyover‐runaframing

effect,althoughthatwasaframelocatedintheinstructions.Wouldarepeated

framemaintainsomeapplicabilityinthefaceofconflictingempiricalfeedback?

Clearlythereareagreatdealofunansweredquestions,andthisworkhas

hopefullyopenedupapathwaytostartaddressingthem.

AFinalWord

Theconclusionsfromthisworkshouldbereadilyapparentatthispoint.Context

andinformationpresentationcaninfluencestrategicformation,andframing

effectshavedistinctpropertieswhenplacedinanongoingtaskparadigm.The

evidencefortheseobservationsseemsindisputableatthispoint,whilstthe

implications,applicationsandfurtherworkdiscussedinthissectionhopefully

provideabasisfortakingthemonwards.

Therehopefullyremainsroomforabriefphilosophicalnotefromtheauthor.

Thisworkwasatleastpartiallyinspiredbyanddrivenfromaninterestin

artificialintelligenceandautonomoussystems.Thereisclearlysomedistance

betweenthatareaandwherethisthesisandconclusionsitcontainshaveended

up,butthesignificanceofthelargerabstractquestionsaboutartificial

intelligenceandautonomyisthattheyarethesamequestionsthatexistabout

humanautonomyandintelligence–howdowethink?Howdowereason?Why

dowechoosetodocertainthingsandnotothers?Thesearenoteasyortrivial

questions.Theyarenotsimpleorprescriptive;theyarenotasimpletasktobe

replicatedorasingleskilltobeaped.Theyarenotemergentpropertiesofa

sufficientnumberofsimplerules.Fewthingssoaptlyillustratethecomplexityof

thehumanmindasthepersistentinabilitytocreateanythingapproachingan

artificialcorrelateofit.Asaconsequencethesamequestionsthathavealways

drivenpsychologystarttobecomethosethatdriveAI,andviceversa.

Sowhilstthebulkofthisthesisdoesnotultimatelyrelatetoautonomyand

artificialintelligenceitishopedthatitmightatleastpartiallyserveasa

reminderoftheimportanceofinterdisciplinaryworkandcollaborationacross

interestareas.Itisnoexaggerationtosaythatthisthesiswouldnotexistwithout

thequestionsthatwereraisedfromexposuretoresearcherswhoseperspective

189

andinterestsweregreatlydivergentfromthosetheauthorstartedwith.Asa

small,anecdotalandquantitivelyunsupportedobservation‐thebenefitof

makinganefforttolistenandthinkoutsideyourcomfortzoneissomethingthat

shouldnotbetakenforgrantedandcanreapunexpectedbenefits.Hopefully,this

thesiscanprovideasmallillustrationofthatpotential.

190

References

Allis,V.(1988).AKnowledgebasedApproachtoConnectFour.Masters,VrijeUniversiteit,Amsterdam.

Anderson,J.R.,Matessa,M.,&Lebiere,C.(1997).ACT‐R:ATheoryofHigherLevelCognitionandItsRelationtoVisualAttentionHumanComputerInteraction12,439‐462.

Asimov,I.(1950).I,Robot.NewYork:GnomePress.Bakshy,E.,Hofman,J.M.,Mason,W.A.,&Watts,D.J.(2011).Everyone’san

Influencer:QuantifyingInfluenceonTwitterPaperpresentedattheWSDM,HongKong,China.

Berliner,H.,&Ebeling,C.(1989).PatternKnowledgeandSearch:TheSUPREMArchitecture.ArtificialIntelligence,38(2),161‐198.

Bertrand,M.,&Mullainathan,S.(2004).AreEmilyandGregMoreEmployableThanLakishaandJamal?AFieldExperimentonLaborMarketDiscriminationAmericanEconomicReview,94(4),991‐1013.

Bibby,P.A.,&Payne,S.J.(1993).InternalisationandtheUseofSpecificityofDeviceKnowledge.HumanComputerInteraction,8,25‐56.

Bowden,M.,Jung‐Beeman,M.,Fleck,J.,&Kounios,J.(2005).Newapproachestode‐mystifyinginsight.TrendsinCognitiveSciences,9,322‐328.

Carraher,T.N.,Schliemann,A.D.,&Carraher,D.W.(1985).MathematicsintheStreetsandintheSchools.BritishJournalofDevelopmentalPsychology,3,21‐29.

Castillo,C.,Mendoza,M.,&Poblete,B.(2011).InformationCredibilityonTwitter.PaperpresentedattheWWW,Hyderabad,India.

Cellan‐Jones,R.(2008).CanStephenFryKillaGadget?Retrieved25/04/2012,fromhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/11/can_stephen_fry_kill_a_gadget.html

Chenga,F.‐F.,&Wu,C.‐S.(2010).Debiasingtheframingeffect:Theeffectofwarningandinvolvement.DecisionSupportSystems,49(3),328‐334.

Chomsky,N.(1959).AReviewofB.F.Skinner'sVerbalBehavior.Language,35(1),26‐58.

Deppea,M.,Schwindtb,W.,Krämera,J.,Kugelb,H.,Plassmannc,H.,Kenningc,P.,&Ringelsteina,E.B.(2005).Evidenceforaneuralcorrelateofaframingeffect:Bias‐specificactivityintheventromedialprefrontalcortexduringcredibilityjudgments.BrainResearchBulletin,67(5),413‐421.

Dou,W.(2010).Comparingdifferentlevelsofinteractionconstraintsforderivingvisualproblemisomorphs.Paperpresentedatthe2010IEEESymposiumonVisualAnalyticsScienceandTechnology(VAST).

Dreyfus,H.L.(1972).WhatComputersCan'tDo.London:TheMITPress.Esser,J.K.(1998).AliveandWellafter25Years:AReviewofGroupthink

Research.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,73(2‐3),116‐141.

Evans,J.(2005).DeductiveReasoning.InK.J.M.Holyoak,R.G.(Ed.),TheCambridgeHandbookofThinkingandReasoning.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

191

Feather,N.T.(1968).ChangeinConfidenceFollowingSuccessorFailureasaPredictorofSubsequentPerformance.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,9(1),38‐46.

Francis,L.J.,Lewis,C.A.,&Ziebertz,H.(2006).Theshort‐formrevisedEysenckPersonalityQuestionnaire(EPQ‐S):AGermanedition.SocialBehaviorandPersonality,34(2),197‐204.

Frederick,S.(2005).CognitiveReflectionandDecisionMaking.JournalofEconomicPerspectives,19(4),25‐42.

Gächter,S.,Orzen,H.,Renner,E.,&Starmer,C.(2009).Areexperimentaleconomistspronetoframingeffects?Anaturalfieldexperiment.JournalofEconomicBehavior&Organization,70(3),443‐466.

Gigerenzer,G.(2000).AdaptiveThinking.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Gigerenzer,G.(2008).RationalityforMorals.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Gigerenzer,G.,&Selten,R.(2000).BoundedRationality.Cambridge,MA:TheMIT

Press.Gilbert,D.T.(2002).InferentialCorrection.InT.Gilovich,D.Griffin&D.

Kahneman(Eds.),HeuristicsandBiases.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Gobet,F.(1997).Apatternrecognitiontheoryofsearchinexpertproblemsolving.ThinkingandReasoning,3,291‐313.

Gonzaleza,C.,Danaa,J.,Koshinob,H.,&Just,M.(2005).Theframingeffectandriskydecisions:ExaminingcognitivefunctionswithfMRI.JournalofEconomicPsychology,26(1),1‐20.

Halliday,J.(2011).Londonriots:howBlackBerryMessengerplayedakeyrole.Retrieved20thSeptember2011,fromhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/08/london‐riots‐facebook‐twitter‐blackberry

Hirschfeld,L.A.,&Gelman,S.A.(1994).MappingtheMind:DomainSpecificityinCognitionandCulture.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Hogarth,R.(1987).JudgementandChoice(2nded).Chichester:JohWiley&Sons.Howard,P.(2011).DigitalmediaandtheArabspring.Retrieved20thSeptember

2011,2011,fromhttp://blogs.reuters.com/great‐debate/2011/02/16/digital‐media‐and‐the‐arab‐spring/

Howes,A.,Lewis,R.L.,&Vera,A.(2009).RationalAdaptationUnderTaskandProcessingConstraints:ImplicationsforTestingTheoriesofCognitionandAction.PsychologicalReview,116(4),717‐751.

Huang,Y.,&Wang,L.(2010).Sexdifferencesinframingeffectsacrosstaskdomain.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,48(5),649‐653.

Kahneman,D.(2002).MapsofBoundedRationality:APerspectiveonIntuitiveJudgementandChoice.LesPrixNobel2002.

Kahneman,D.(2011).Thinking,FastandSlow.London:Penguin.Kahneman,D.,&Tversky,A.(1973).OnthePsychologyofPrediction.

PsychologicalReview,80,237‐251.Kelman,H.C.,&Barclay,J.(1963).TheFScaleasameasureofbreadthof

perspective.TheJournalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology,67(6),608‐615.

Kendall,L.,Hartzler,A.,Klasnja,P.V.,&Pratt,W.(2011).DescriptiveAnalysisofPhysicalActivityConversationsonTwitter.PaperpresentedattheCHI,Vancouver,BC,Canada.

192

Kepner,C.H.,&Tregoe,B.B.(1965).TheRationalManager:ASystematicApproachtoProblemSolvingandDecisionMaking.NewYork:McGraw‐HillBookCompany.

Kim,K.,Proctor,R.W.,&Salvendy,G.(2012).Therelationbetweenusabilityandproductsuccessincellphones.Behaviour&InformationTechnology,31(10),969‐982.

Kirsh,D.(2009).ProblemSolvingandSituatedCognition.InP.Robbins&M.Aydede(Eds.),TheCambridgeHandbookofSituatedCognition.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Koehler,D.J.(1991).Explanation,imagination,andconfidenceinjudgment.PsychologicalBulletin,110(3),499‐519.

Kotovsky,K.(1985).Whyaresomeproblemshard?EvidencefromTowerofHanoi.CognitivePsychology,17(2),248‐294.

Kotovsky,K.,&Simon,H.(1990).Whatmakessomeproblemsreallyhard:Explorationsintheproblemspaceofdifficulty.CognitivePsychology,22(2),143‐183.

Kühberger,A.,&Tanner,C.(2009).Riskychoiceframing:Taskversionsandacomparisonofprospecttheoryandfuzzy‐tracetheory.JournalofBehaviouralDecisionMaking,23(314‐329).

Lakoff,G.(2004).TheImportanceofCategorization.InB.Aarts,D.Denison,E.Keizer&G.Popova(Eds.),FuzzyGrammar:AReader.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Lord,C.G.,Ross,L.,&Lepper,M.R.(1979).BiasedAssimilationandAttitudePolarization:TheEffectsofPriorTheoriesonSubsequentlyConsideredEvidence.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,37,2098‐2109.

Mandel,D.R.(2001).Gain‐LossFramingandChoice:SeparatingOutcomeFormulationsfromDescriptorFormulations.OrganizationalBehaviourandHumanDecisionProcesses,85(1),56‐76.

Marmeche,E.,&Diderjean,A.(2001).Isgeneralizationconservative?Astudywithnovicesinchess.EuropeanJournalofCognitivePsychology,13,475‐491.

Marshall,C.C.,&Shipman,F.M.(2011).SocialMediaOwnership:UsingTwitterasaWindowontoCurrentAttitudesandBeliefsPaperpresentedattheCHI,Vancouver,BC,Canada.

Martino,B.D.,Kumaran,D.,Seymour,B.,&Dolan,R.J.(2006).Frames,Biases,andRationalDecision‐MakingintheHumanBrain.Science,313(5787),684‐687.

McNeil,B.J.,Pauker,S.G.,Sox,H.C.,&Tversky,A.(1982).Ontheelicitationofpreferencesforalternativetherapies.NewEnglandJournalofMedicine,,306,1259‐1262.

Medin,D.L.,&Rips,L.R.(2005).ConceptsandCategories:Memory,MeaningandMetaphysics.InK.J.M.Holyoak,R.G.(Ed.),TheCambridgeHandbookofThinkingandReasoning(pp.37‐72).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Mendoza,M.,Poblete,B.,&Castillo,C.(2010).TwitterUnderCrisis:CanwetrustwhatweRT?.PaperpresentedattheSOMA,Washington,DC,USA.

Mikels,J.A.,&Reed,A.E.(2009).MonetaryLossesDoNotLoomLargeinLaterLife:AgeDifferencesintheFramingEffect.TheJournalsofGerontology,SeriesB,64(4),457‐460.

193

Miu,A.C.,&Crişan,L.G.(2011).Cognitivereappraisalreducesthesusceptibilitytotheframingeffectineconomicdecisionmaking.PersonalityandIndividualDifferences,51(4),478‐482.

Moore,A.,Hayes,J.,&Wong,B.L.W.(2013).CartographicandCognitivePerspectivesonAmbulanceDispatchDisplays.InA.Moore&I.Drecki(Eds.),GeospatialVisualisation(pp.69‐88):SpringerBerlinHeidelberg.

Myers,D.G.(2002).Intuition:Itspowersandperils.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.

News,B.(2009).RageAgainsttheMachinebeatXFactorwinnerincharts.Retrieved20thSeptember2011,2011,fromhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8423340.stm

Norman,D.A.(2002).TheDesignofEverydayThings.London:BasicBooks.Novemsky,N.,&Kahneman,D.(2005).TheBoundriesofLossAversion.Journal

ofMarketingResearch,42,119‐128.Patton,J.H.,Stanford,M.S.,&Barratt,E.S.(1995).Factorstructureofthebarratt

impulsivenessscale.JournalofClinicalPsychology,51(6),768‐774.Priem,J.,&Costello,K.L.(2010).HowandwhyscholarsciteonTwitter.Paper

presentedattheASIST,Pittsburgh,PA,USA.Reiter‐Palmon,R.,Illies,M.Y.,Cross,L.K.,Buboltz,C.,&Nimps,T.(2009).

Creativityanddomainspecificity:Theeffectoftasktypeonmultipleindexesofcreativeproblem‐solving.PsychologyofAesthetics,Creativity,andtheArts,3(2),73‐80.

Rosch,E.(2004).PrinciplesofCategorization.InB.Aarts,D.Denison,E.Keizer&G.Popova(Eds.),FuzzyGrammar:AReader.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Rosch,E.,&Mervis,C.B.(1975).Familyresemblances:Studiesintheinternalstructureofcategories.CognitivePsychology,7(4),573‐605.

Routh,D.K.,&King,K.M.(1972).Socialclassbiasinclinicaljudgment.JournalofConsultingandClinicalPsychology,38(2),202‐207.

Saletan,W.(2011).SpringtimeforTwitter.Retrieved20thSeptember2011,2011,fromhttp://www.slate.com/id/2299214/

Scribner,S.(1984).StudyingWorkingIntelligence.InB.Rogoff&J.Lave(Eds.),EverydayCognition:ItsDevelopmentinSocialContext(pp.9‐40).Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.

Seo,M.‐G.,Goldfarb,B.,&Barrett,L.F.(2010).AffectandtheFramingEffectwithinIndividualsoverTime:RiskTakinginaDynamicInvestmentSimulation.AcademyofManagementJournal,53(2),411‐431.

Shafir,E.(1993).Choosingversusrejecting:Whysomeoptionsarebothbetterandworsethanothers.MemoryandCognition,21,546‐556.

Simon,H.(1957).ABehavioralModelofRationalChoiceModelsofMan,SocialandRational:MathematicalEssaysonRationalHumanBehaviorinaSocialSetting.NewYork:Wiley.

Simon,H.A.,&Reed,S.K.(1975).Modelingstrategyshiftsinaproblem‐solvingtask.CognitivePsychology,8(1),86‐97.

Sokol‐Hessner,P.,Hsu,M.,Curley,N.G.,Delgado,M.R.,Camerer,C.F.,&Phelps,E.A.(2009).Thinkinglikeatraderselectivelyreducesindividuals’

lossaversion.ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStatesofAmerica,106(13),5035‐5040.

194

Sperling,G.,&Dosher,B.A.(1986).Strategyoptimisationinhumaninformationprocessing.InK.R.Boff,L.Kaufmann&J.P.Thomas(Eds.),HandbookofPerceptionandhumanperformance:Volume1.Sensoryprocessesandperception(pp.2‐1‐2‐65).NewYork:JohnWileyandSons.

Stanovich,K.E.,&West,R.F.(2000).Individualdifferencesinreasoning:Implicationsfortherationality

debate.BehaviouralandBrainSciences,23,645‐665.Tanner,W.P.,&Swets,J.A.(1954).Adecision‐makingtheoryofvisualdetection.

PsychologicalReview,61,401‐409.Tom,S.M.,Fox,C.R.,Trepel,C.,&Poldrack,R.A.(2007).TheNeuralBasisofLoss

AversioninDecision‐MakingUnderRisk.Science,315(5811),515‐518.Tversky,A.,&Kahneman,D.(1981).TheFramingofDecisionsandthe

PsychologyofChoice.Science,211,453‐458.Volz,K.G.,&Cramon,D.Y.V.(2006).Whatneurosciencecantellaboutintuitive

processesinthecontextofperceptualdiscovery.JournalofCognitiveNeuroscience,18,2077‐2087.

Vosniadou,S.,&Ortony,A.(1989).Similarity,typicalityandcategorization.InS.O.Vosniadou,A.(Ed.),SimilarityAndAnalogicalReasoning(p.41).Cambridge:UniversityofCambridge.

Wason,P.C.(1966).Reasoning.InB.M.Foss(Ed.),NewHorizonsinPsychology.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,:Penguin.

Wigand,F.D.L.(2010).TwitterTakesWinginGovernment:Diffusion,Roles,andManagementPaperpresentedattheDG.O,Puebla,Mexico.

Zarnoth,P.,&Sniezek,J.A.(1996).TheSocialInfluenceofConfidenceinGroupDecisionMakingJournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,33(4),345‐366.

195

AdditionalAcknowledgements

Ioweagreatdealofthanksforhavingmanagedtoreachthispoint.Itisowedtomanypeople.Andsomeinanimateobjects.Andafewabstractconcepts.Theygettheirduehere.

MumandDad–fordecidingtohaveasecondchildinthefirstplace,andforallthetime,money,patienceandendlesssupporttheyshowedevenasIblewdeadlines,wastedmoneyandseemedtobewastingmylife.Atnopointweretheyanythingbutwhollyenthusiastic,aqualitythatwassorelyneeded.

PeterJohnson–ForbeingexactlythekindofsupervisorIneededtoreachmypotential.TheamountI’vegrownreallyisremarkable,andit’smostlyyourdoing.

DaveSibley–Forendlesscupsofcoffee,pintsofbeer,theoreticalconversationsandgeekyinterest.AndGlastonbury.AndforbeingoneofthenicestmenIhaveevermetinmylife.

LouiseMissen–Foraconstantstreamofconversationsthroughavarietyofelectroniccommunicationmediumsthatkeptusbothamused.Well,meanyway.

JamesSutton–formaintainingcontactafterweleftNottinghamandputtingupwithmyshitatlongdistancewiththesameaplombheshowedincloserproximity.

JamesRosenberg,TimCoughlan,JohnCox,VickyShippandDuncan–ForendlessnightsinBacktoMineandotherdrinkingholesinandaroundBath.

DanCrick–ForAlcohol,mockeryandgenerosity.

GeorginaStubbings–Foralcohol,dancingandthesharededucationofagenerationofBathUnipsychologyfirstyears,maygodhavemercyontheirpoormangledminds.

BryanBrownlie–Forlongdistancesarcasmandhospitalityinfarflunglands.AlsoforbookendingtheperiodwhereIactuallyfiguredoutwhatIwasdoing.AndforbeingthefirstpersonwhotoldmeIwastotallygoingtodoaPhDbackwhenIwasindenial.

EsmeDark–Forfloorspace.Somuchfloorspaceforsleepingon.Oh,anddancingcrazytoo.Youcan’targuewithdancingcrazy.Andjustbeingthereprettymuchwhenever.

IanFairholm–ForprovidingtheotherhalfofmyPhDeducationbylettingmeteachothers.Itmightnotbeinthisthesisdirectly,butthisthesisisbetterforithavinghappened.Thestudentsmaynotbe,butwhocaresaboutthem?Andalsoforendlessprogrockreferences.

196

AgenerationofBathUniUndergraduatePsychologyStudents–Forbeingtaught,notreactingtoobadlyandbeingareliablesourceofparticipants.

Barristaseverywhere–Forcoffee.

Coffee–Yesitgetstwomentions,youhavenoideahowmuchIneededit.

TristanBrindle–forhandingmeaguitarafewweeksbeforeGlastonburyoneyearandtellingmetolearnsomething.Endedupkeepingmeremarkablysanethat.

Glastonbury–forbeingDisneylandforAdults.

Nath–Forbeingway,waybetterthanotherpeopleatguessingwordcounts.

Trains–BecausewithoutyouhowwouldIgetanywhere?

ThatonepresentationatIUI’09thatmademethink–Seriously,I’mnotsureI’dhavefinishedwithoutyouguys.Orfoundthistopic.Andyouweren’teventhatrelatedasatopic.Strangehowthemindworks.

85WellsRoad–ForbeingthebachelorpadIhopeditmight,whilstretainingridiculouslychinzdécor.

AliBagshaw–Generallyforservicesofenduringfriendship,butmostspecificallyforgettingmethroughthewritingupperiod.

Mysmallarmyofproofreaders–Mum,Dad,Dave,Ellie,Tess,Louise,Stacey,Kate,George,Putu:Youfuckingsavedmylife.

Dstl–Wait,I’memployable?

TheUKVettingAgency–Wait,I’mtrustworthy?

SalisburyPeople–Forgettingmethroughcorrections.Youmaynotknowwhatyoudid,butyouhelped.

KahnemanandTversky–Youguysareawesome,andI’veneverevenmetyou.

TheFineCityofBath–forhavingfarmoretoofferthanIimaginedpossiblewhenIfirstarrived.

WidcombeHill–forkeepingmefit.Although,seriously,whoputtheuniversityatthetopofyou?

StephenPayne–Ihatedprettymuchallmycorrections…butIsuspectthatdoingthemmademeabetterscientist.

EveryoneElse–Ican’tnameyouall,butyoumattered.Cheers.

197

Appendices

TheExperimentsinthisthesisrequiredagreatdealofmaterialsandtext.Ifthesewereprintedverbatiminthissectiontheywouldaddagreatdealoflargelyunnecessaryspace.

Consequently,asampleofallappropriatematerialsarepresentedhere.Somehavebeencompressedtosavespace:primarilyquestionnaireswhereaspacewouldotherwisehavebeenleftforasubject’sanswers:nowordshavebeenchangedorremoved.AfullarchiveofallthematerialsusedintheiroriginalformcanbefoundontheCDattachedtothiswork.Alternativelythefullarchivecanberequestedbyemailingtheauthorattimothyharrison@gmail.com.RawresultsdataisnotincludedontheCD,butmaybesupplieduponrequesttothesameaddress,ascanallrecordsofstatisticaltestsandanymaterialsthatmayhavebeenomittedbyaccident.

198

One:SolitaireStudy‐Pre‐StudyQuestionnaire

Questionnaire

Thepurposeifthisquestionnaireissimplytodocumentwhatyouunderstandaboutthegameofsolitairepriortoplayingit.Answertheopen‐endedquestionstotheextentthatyoufeelappropriate.

Part1

Answerthefollowingquestionsbycirclingtheappropriatenumberindicatinghowstronglyyoufeelbythefollowingscale:

1–StronglyAgree

2–Agree

3–Neutral,abitofboth,neitheragreenordisagree

4–Disagree

5–StronglyDisagree

Iknowhowtoplaysolitaire

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Ilikehavingadefiniteanswertothings.

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

IhavemethodsforsolvingproblemsthatIstickto.

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

I’mnotverygoodatstrategygames

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Improvisingisastrengthofmine

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Igetcangetlostinlittledetails

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Itrytoavoidambiguoussolutions

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Ienjoynewchallengesandproblems

199

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Iworkatthingsmethodically

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

I’mgoodatcardgamesingeneral

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Iconsidermyselftobegoodatsolitaire

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Isometimesforgetaboutthebigpicture

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Ifindithardtocomeupwithnewideaswhenfacedwithaproblem

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Part2

Whatdoyouunderstandaboutthegame‘Solitaire’?Giveabriefoverviewofthebasicpurposeofit,andthenecessaryequipment.

Howdotheconstituentpartsfittogether?Inwhatwaydotheyinteract?

Doyoupursueanyparticularstrategieswhenplayingagame?Canyouthinkofanytacticsyouemploy?Howdothesework,andwhydoyouusethem?

Doyouplayanyothercardgamesonaregularbasis?Howmanywouldyousayyouarefamiliarwith?Whatarethey?

Doyouplayanyothergames–ofanysort‐regularly?Ifso,whatarethey,andhowoftendoyouplay?Didyouplayanyinthepast?

Two:SolitaireStudy‐EndQuestions

Asafinalquestion,howdoyoufeelyouadaptedtothechangehalfwaythroughtheexperiment?Doyoufeelithelpedorhinderedyourgame?Didyouchangeanyofyourstrategies,ordidyoufitinintoexistingones?Ifso,how?

Doyouhaveanyothercommentsabouttheexperimentandwhatyoudidingeneral?

200

Three:CardGameStudy–Pre‐StudyQuestionnaire

Questionnaire

Thepurposeifthisquestionnaireissimplytodocumentwhatyouunderstandaboutcardgames.Answertheopen‐endedquestionstotheextentthatyoufeelappropriate.

Part1

Answerthefollowingquestionsbycirclingtheappropriatenumberindicatinghowstronglyyoufeelbythefollowingscale:

1–StronglyAgree

2–Agree

3–Neutral,abitofboth,neitheragreenordisagree

4–Disagree

5–StronglyDisagree

Ienjoylogicproblems

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

IregularlyengageinpuzzlesinthepapersuchasSudokuorCrosswords

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Iliketohaveanoverallplanwhenapproachingaproblem

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

I’mnotverygoodatstrategygames

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Iplaygamesrecreationally

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

I’mhappytoletotherstaketheinitiativeingames.

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Itrytoavoidambiguoussolutions

201

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

I’masystematicthinker

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

I’mquiteacompetitiveperson

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

I’mgoodatcardgamesingeneral

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

I’mhappytodevelopideasonthefly

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Isometimesforgetaboutthebigpicturewhenmakingadecision

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Ingames,agoodoffenseisoftenthebestdefence

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Idon’treallycareaboutwinningandlosing

1‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2‐‐‐‐‐‐3‐‐‐‐‐‐4‐‐‐‐‐‐5

Part2

AreyoufamiliarwiththeCardgames‘Uno’,Crazy8’s’orsomeothervariant?Describehowfamiliaryouconsideryourselftobe.

Doyouplayanyothercardgamesonaregularbasis?Howmanywouldyousayyouarefamiliarwith?Whatarethey?

Doyouplayanyothergames–ofanysort‐regularly?Ifso,whatarethey,andhowoftendoyouplay?Didyouplayanyinthepast?

202

Four:CardGameStudy–Post‐StudyQuestionnaire

Yourfinalscore:

Yourpositioninthegame:

Nowthatthegameisover,howdidyoufeelaboutplayingit?Whatstrategiesdidyouinitiallyintendtoemploy?Didthisalteratallasthegameprogressed?

Giventhechancetoplayagain,whatmightyoudodifferentlynexttime?Wouldyouusethesamestrategy?

Pleasealsofeelfreetoofferanyotherthoughtsorcommentsonyourplayingexperience.

203

Five:RiskTaking/ImpulsivenessQuestionnaire

1.

204

23. Sunbathing without sunscreen.

24. Bungee jumping off a tall bridge.

25. Piloting a small plane.

26. Walking home alone at night in an unsafe area of town

27. Moving to a city far away from your extended family.

28. Starting a new career in your mid-thirties.

29. Leaving your young children alone at home while running an errand

30. Not returning a wallet you found that contains $200

205

Six:F‐ScaleAuthoritarianismQuestionnaire

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with each of the following statements, by making a note of the number of the appropriate response.

Strongly Disagree(1) - - Disagree(2) - - Not Sure(3) - - Agree(4) - - Strongly Agree(5)

1. Deviant sexual behaviour between consenting adults may be disagreeable but it should not be regarded as a crime. 2. No sane, normal, decent person would ever think of hurting a close friend or relative. 3. Many of the radical ideas of today will be the accepted practices of tomorrow. 4. People who want to imprison or whip sex criminals are themselves sick. 5. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn. 6. Young people sometimes get rebellious ideas but as they grow up they ought to get over it and settle down. 7. It is all right for people to raise questions about even the most personal and private matters. 8. Insults to our honor are not always important enough to worry about. 9. Sex crimes such as rape and attacks on children deserve more than imprisonment; such criminals ought to be publicly whipped or worse. 10. Most honest people admit to themselves that they have sometimes hated their parents. 11. Racial profiling is a necessary method of identifying potential terrorists in today’s world. 12. Sex crimes such as rape and attacks on children are signs of mental illness and such persons belong in hospitals rather than prisons. 13. There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great love, gratitude and respect for his parents. 14. What the young need most is strict discipline., rugged determination and the will to work and fight for family and country.

206

Seven:Introversion/ExtraversionQuestionnaire

Answer the following by choosing to what degree you agree, or disagree with each statement about yourself. Make a note of the appropriate response’s number as it applies to you. Strongly Disagree (1) - - Disagree (2) - - Agree (3) - - Strongly Agree (4)

1) I am a talkative person

2) I am generally quite lively

3) I enjoy meeting new people

4) I usually let myself go and enjoy myself at a lively party

5) I usually take the initiative in making new friends

6) I can easily put some life into a quiet social gathering.

7) I tend to keep in the background on social occasions

8) I enjoy socializing with people

9) I like plenty of bustle and excitement around me

10) I am mostly quiet when I am with other people

11) Other people would describe me as lively

12) I can get a party going

207

Eight:FestivalStudyInstructionsForNeutralandQuestionFrameconditions

Inthistaskyouwillbeassumingtheroleofsitemanagerforamid‐sizedmusicfestivalcalled‘Wish’.Youhavebeenhiredtooverseetheday‐to‐dayrunningofthesite,andinchargeofmakingsurethattheeventproceedsassmoothlyaspossible.

Inthecourseofthistaskyouwillbepresentedwithaseriesofhigh‐leveldecisionsabouteventsoccurringatthefestivalandthepotentialcoursesofactionavailable.Yourjobistomakeadecisionbetweenthechoicespresented,andattempttorunthebesteventpossible.Youwillbegivenanideaofhowsuccessfulyouarebeinginyourtaskbytwofeedbackmetrics:moneyandreputation.

‘Money’representstheamountofmoneythatthefestivalhasgained,savedorlost,asaresultofadecisionyouhavemade,comparedtotheprojectionsforifthefestivalhadbeenfunctioningnormallyornotdecisionwasmade.Itisgiveninpoundssterling,andthestartingpointiszero.

Reputationisameasureofpublicopinionregardingtheevent.Itispresentedintheformofapublicpoll,withabaselineapprovalof60%.

Forbothmeasurestherearenoguaranteesthatyoucanobtainapositiveoutcome.Attimesitmaybeacaseofminimizinglosses,orconverselyofmaximizinggains.Similarly,thereiselementofrandomchancetotheoutcomeofthesedecisions:youcanmaximizeyourchanceofsuccess,butcannotguaranteeit.Asinreallife,sometimesthingsmaygowrongevenifyoumakealltherightdecisions.Allthedecisionsyoumakehavethepotentialtoaffectwhichfuturedecisionsyouface,andhaveconsequenceslateron.Youshouldconsidertheimplicationsofthechoicesyoumakeasaresult.

Foreachdecisionyouwillbegivenachoicebetweenwhethertoattempttohandletheproblemon‐sitewiththepre‐existingfestivalresources,orwhethertocallinoutsidehelpsuchasthepolice,fireservicesetc.Youmustdecidewhichismostlikelytobeappropriateineachcase.

Havingmadethischoice,youwillthenalsobeabletochoosethelevelofconfidencethatyouhaveinyourdecision,where1representsverylittleconfidence,and7absoluteconfidence.

Foreachquestion,youwillhaveamaximumofthreeminutestobothreadandunderstandthesituation,andthenchooseyourresponse.Ifyoufailtochoosearesponseintheallottedtime,itwillbeassumedthatyoudidnothing,andyourscoresaffectedaccordingly.Itwillalwaysbebettertochooseanoptionthantonotpickone.

208

Nine:FestivalStudyOver‐FrameInstructions,External







Externalsolutionsaremoreprofessionalandaccomplished,butmaybedelayedinarrivingorotherwiseheldup.Aproblemwillbesolved33%ofthetime.

Internalsolutionsarealwaysonsiteandreadytogo,butarelessprofessionalandable.Theywillfailtosolve2/3ofanyproblem



209

Ten:FestivalStudyOver‐FrameInstructions,Internal







Externalsolutionsaremoreprofessionalandaccomplished,butmaybedelayedinarrivingorotherwiseheldup.Aproblemwillbeunsolved66%ofthetime.

Internalsolutionsarealwaysonsiteandreadytogo,butarelessprofessionalandable.Theywillguaranteetosolve1/3ofanyproblem.



210

Eleven:FestivalStudySampleDecision,NeutralandOver‐FrameConditions

Decision3

Itiscurrently1:30pm,anditwillsoonbetimeforoneofthemostpopularactsontheline‐uptotakethestage,aparticularlyhyped‐upandhighlyanticipatedactfromAmerica.Theywerebookedseveralmonthsago,butsincethattimehavehadsignificantchartsuccesswiththeirdebutalbumandasaresultalargecrowdisexpected,significantlymorethanwouldnormallybefoundatthistime.

Duetoothercommitmentshowever,thebandarelatearriving.Theyarecurrentlymakingtheirwaytowardsthesite,buthavebeenheldupbytrafficofstill‐arrivingfestivalgoers.Securityfearsthatthemoodofthecrowdcouldturnnastyifthereistoolongadelay.

ThePolicecanbecontactedtohelpwiththesemattersbyescortingvehiclesthroughtrafficifasked,butitisuncleariftheywillbeabletofindthebandintime.Sitemanagementthinkstheycanaltersomeoftheentryroutestoeasetrafficflowontheroadthatthebandareon,buttheywillstillbesignificantlydelayed.Theyareduetoplayanhour’smusic,andthenextactcannotbedelayedduetocontractsandtightscheduling.

211

Twelve:FestivalStudySampleDecision,QuestionFrameInternal

Decision3




Ifthepoliceareaskedtohelp,thereisa66%chancethebandwillmisstheirplayingslot.

Ifthesitemanagementalterstheroadsystem,thebandwillbeintimetoplay20minutesoftheirset.

212

Thirteen:FestivalStudySampleDecision,QuestionFrameExternal

Decision3




Ifthepoliceareaskedtohelp,thereisa33%chancethebandwillmakethegigontime.

Ifthesitemanagementalterstheroadsystem,thesetwillbe40minutesshorter.

213

Fourteen:FestivalStudyQualitativeFeedbackPatternandValues

Money Reputation Cases

Question Decision Internal External Internal External Internal External

1 WaterPipe SmallGain SmallGain SmallGain SmallGain 0 0

2 FirstOutbreak SmallGain SmallLoss SmallGain SmallLoss 0 0

3 BandDelay MediumLoss MediumGain SlightLoss SlightGain 15 15

4 MedicalEvac LargeGain LargeLoss MediumGain MediumLoss NoChange SmallRise

5 CaseSpike MediumLoss MediumGain MediumLoss MediumGain SmallRise MediumRise

6 Rumours Mediumgain MediumLoss SmallGain SmallLoss VeryLargeRise VeryLargeRise

7 FoodPoisoning VeryLargeLoss LargeLoss MediumLoss MediumGain MediumRise SmallRise

8 SmallRiot LargeLoss VeryLargeLoss MediumGain MediumLoss SmallRise MediumRise

9 LeavingEarly MediumLoss MediumGain LargeLoss LargeGain MediumRise SmallRise

10 Diagnosis MediumGain MediumLoss LargeGain LargeLoss MediumRise LargeRise

11 Treatment MediumLoss MediumGain SmallLoss SmallGain VeryLargeRise VeryLargeRise

214

Fifteen:FestivalStudyNumericFeedbackPatternandValues

Money Reputation Cases

Question Decision Internal External Internal External Internal External

1 WaterPipe 215 215 1 1 0 0

2 FirstOutbreak 765 ‐765 1 ‐1 0 0

3 BandDelay ‐1892 1892 ‐1 1 15 15

4 MedicalEvac 4004 ‐4004 2 ‐2 0 2

5 CaseSpike ‐872 872 ‐2 2 3 3

6 Rumours 1756 ‐1756 1 ‐1 20 20

7 FoodPoisoning ‐15,472 ‐8765 ‐2 2 4 2

8 SmallRiot ‐8801 ‐15563 2 ‐2 3 5

9 LeavingEarly ‐4037 4037 ‐3 3 4 2

10 Diagnosis 2356 ‐2356 3 ‐3 8 12

11 Treatment 2405 2405 ‐1 1 23 19

215

Sixteen:FestivalStudyDecisionPageScreenshot

Seventeen:FestivalStudyFeedbackPageScreenshot

216

Eighteen:HerbalStudyAlternativeTherapiesattitudequestionnaire

Thetaskyouareabouttoundertakeinvolvesmakingpurchasingdecisionsinthecontextofalternativemedicine.Pleasetakeamomenttoanswerthefollowingquestionsonthattopic.

Answerthefollowingonthesheetprovidedonascaleof1‐5,with5being‘stronglyagree’,1being‘Stronglydisagree’and3as‘Neutral/Unsure’

1)Alternativemedicinescanproviderealtherapeuticeffects

2)Alternativemedicinecontainssystemsequalinvaluetothatofconventionalmedicine.

3)ConventionalmedicineisbetterthanAlternativemedicine.

4)Alternativemedicinehasnomerit

5)Peopleshouldbefreetousealternativemedicine,iftheychooseto

6)AlternativemedicineshouldbeavailableontheNHS

7)Thereisalotwecanpotentiallylearnfromalternatemedicinalsystems

8)Alternativemedicineisapoorsubstituteforconventionalmedicine

9)Alternativemedicineisnobetterthanafraud.

10)Peoplewhosellalternativemedicinesaredoingsomethingmorallyobjectionable.

11)Alternativemedicinecanbeusedinconjunctionwithconventionalmedicineforadditionaltherapeuticbenefit.

Pleaseanswerthefollowingsimplyyes/no:

12)Haveyou,oranyoneyouarecloseto,madeuseofanalternativetherapy?

13)DoyouthinkAlternativeTherapiescanbeeffective?

14)Wouldyourecommendanyalternativetherapiestoafriend?

217

Nineteen:HerbalStudySocialMediaQuestionnaire

Pleaseanswerthefollowingquestionsyes/no,orotherwiseasindicated.

1) Wouldyousayyouarefamiliarwithwhat‘socialmediais?’

2) Doyouhavea‘socialmediaaccount’ofanytype(twiter,facebook,

linkedinetc)?

3) Ifso,howmanydifferentonesdoyouhave(approximately)

4) Howoftenwouldyousayyoucheckasocialmediasiteofanytype?

(Severaltimesaday/Daily/afewtimesaweek/onceaweek/rarely)

5) AreyoufamiliarwithTwitterspecifically(whatitdoes,howitworks)?

6) Doyouhaveatwitteraccount?

7) Ifyes,howoftenwouldyousayyoucheckyourtwitter?

(Severaltimesaday/Daily/afewtimesaweek/onceaweek/rarely)

8) Areyoucomfortablewithreadingatwitter‘feed’asasourceofnewsetc?

9) Pleaserankthefollowingintermsofwhereyoufeelyougetthemajorityofyournewsfrom:Online(newssites)Online(Socialmediaetc)TVNewspapersWordofmouthRadio

10) Overall,howimportantwouldyousaythatsocialmediaistoyoureverydaylife–personal,professionalorotherwise?(Essential/Veryimportant/Useful/Sortofimportant/Unimportant)

218

Twenty:HerbalStudyInstructions

Inthistaskyouwillbetakingontheroleofabuyerforamediumsizedgroupofco‐operativeshops.Althoughyourdutiescoverarangeofproducts,thetaskyouwillbeaskedtoundertakewillfocusonyourpurchasingofalternativemedicinesandspecificallyherbalremedies.

Alternativemedicines–remediesthatexistoutsidetheframeworkofconventionalscientificprocess–havebeengrowinginpopularitygreatlyoverthelastdecade,andmanypeoplenowusethemforeverythingfromskinconditionstotreatingdepression.

Asabuyerforacooperative,youholdaresponsibilityforalargenumberofprivatelyheldandoperatedstores,whobuyinbulkasagroupandthenselltheseremediesaspartoftheirbusiness.Itisyourjobtobalancethevariousfactorsthatmaycomeintoplayandobtainproductsforwhichthereishighdemand,acompetitiveprice,canbereliablysupplied,etc.Notethatitisnotyourjobtojudgeefficacyoftheproducts,butratheraimtomeetthedemandthatexists!

Overthelastfewyearsyouhavedevelopedlinkswithtwocompanieswhoareindirectcompetitionwitheachotherandsupplymanyofthesameproducts.Itisyourtasktochoosewhichcompanyyouwillorderyourproductsoffforthatparticularmonth.Thetwocompaniesare:

AstorRemedies–acompanylocatedinthesmallcentralAsiancountryofAploniathatboastslocalproductionand‘ancientculturalwisdom’asthebasisforitsproducts.

Quetia–acompanybasedinthefirst‐worldantipodiancountryofYokoviawhichclaimstomakethemostofmodernproductiontechniquesfortheseoldideas.

Foreachdecisionyouwillbegiventhesituationasitisunderstoodbythemedia,andalsoasnapshotofyourtwitterfeedonthatday.Youhavechosenarangeofpeopleto‘follow’,eachofwhomisapersonofinterestinthearea(shopkeeper,journalist,aviduseretc)andaresharingtheirthoughtsontheissuesoftheday.

Inadditiontochoosingwhichcompanyyouwishtoorderfrom,youwillalsobeaskedtorateyourconfidenceinthisdecision,from1(littleornoconfidence)to7(highorabsoluteconfidence).Aftereachdecisionyouwillbepresentedwithfeedbackonhowyourchoicehasimpactedsalesandshopkeeperconfidence.Aftereachdecisionhasbeenmade,youwillthenreceivefeedbackaboutyourperformance,intheformofanoverallsalesreport,andalsothegeneralopinionsoftheretailersyouserve.

Eachoftheseareas(tweets,decision,choicemaking)arehiddenwhilsttheothersarebeingviewed.Youmay,however,switchbackandforthbetweenthesectionsforaslongasyoulike,andasmanytimesasyoulike.

Allthedecisionsyoumakehavethepotentialtoaffectthefuturedecisionsyoufaceandhaveconsequenceslateron,andshouldthereforebeapproachedtactically.Additionally,thereisanelementofrandomchancetotheoutcomeof

219

thesedecisionsandhowwelltheygo:youcanmaximizeyourchanceofsuccess,butcannotguaranteeit.Asinreallife,sometimesthingsmaygowrongevenifyoumakealltherightdecisions.

220

Twenty‐One:HerbalStudyFeedbackPatternandValues

Astor Quetia

Question Decision Correct Money Opinion Money Opinion

1 FirstChoice Either SmallGain SmallGain SmallGain SmallGain

2 MiracloShipping Astor SmallGain MediumGain SmallLoss MediumLoss

3 Childlabour Quetia MediumLoss SmallLoss MediumGain SmallGain

4 Yokregulating Astor MediumGain SmallGain MediumLoss SmallLoss

5 Glass Quetia SmallLoss SmallGain SmallGain MediumGain

6 InternalQ Astor MediumGain MediumGain MediumLoss SmallGain

7 Takeover Quetia SmallGain MediumLoss LargeGain MediumGain

8 MP Astor LargeGain SmallGain SmallGain SmallLoss

9 Container Quetia MediumLoss SmallLoss MediumGain SmallGain

10 GPletters Astor MediumLoss SmallLoss LargeLoss MediumLoss

221

Astor Quetia

Question Decision Correct Money Opinion Money Opinion

11 Productsreturned Quetia LargeLoss MediumLoss MediumLoss SmallLoss

12 PRinitiatives Astor SmallGain MediumGain SmallLoss SmallGain

13 Parliament Quetia SmallLoss SmallGain SmallGain MediumGain

14 Offers Astor SmallLoss SmallGain SmallGain SmallLoss

15 Enquirydue Quetia SmallGain SmallLoss SmallLoss SmallGain

16 Finaldecision Either MediumGain MediumGain MediumGain MediumGain

222

Twenty‐Two:HerbalStudysampledecision

Decision2

Inthelastmonth,therehasbeenaflurryofinterestinanewproductderivedfromaspecialtypeofflower.Itissaidtomakeapersonmoreconsistentlyawareandawake,aswellasboostingintelligence.Students,doctorsandotherhigh‐intensitygroupshavebeenshowingadistinctinterestinthesubstance,knownas‘Miraclo’.

Bothcompaniesyouareengagedwithhavestartedtoputverysimilarformsofthisproductintoproduction,andareofferingitasapurchaseoptionthismonth.ThemainconcernatthispointisintheviabilityofgettingthisproductdeliveredandontoshelvesintimetocapitalizeonthecurrentwaveofpublicitybeinggeneratedbymagazinesandTVshows.

Astor,locatedinAploniaisclosertoyourshopsbyseveralhundredmilesandexpecttodeliveryquickly.However,muchofitsdistributionnetworkreliesheavilyontrucksandroadtransportwhichareknowntobeoccasionallyunreliablethankstothecountry’sinfrastructureandgovernmentcorruptionwhichsometimesholdupshipmentssignificantlyandunpredictably.

Quetiadonothavethisissue,asthecountryisafullfunctioningfirst‐worldeconomy,howevertheyshiptheirproductsprimarilybyseainordertokeepdowncostsandremaincompetitive.Theirdeliverytimeisguaranteed,butatanon‐triviallylongertimeframethantheoptimalestimatesfromAstor.

223

Twenty‐Three:HerbalStudySampleTweets,NeutralDecision2

Twenty‐Six:HerbalStudySampleTweets,Pro‐AstorDecision2

224

Twenty‐Four:HerbalStudySampleTweets,Pro‐QuetiaDecision2

Twenty‐Eight:HerbalStudyInstructionPage

Screenshot

225

Twenty‐Five:HerbalStudySampleFeedbackScreenshot

226

Twenty‐Six:HerbalStudyEventText

‐‐‐‐BreakingNews‐‐‐‐

Overthelastthreedaysagreatnumberofpeoplehavebeentakenillacrossthecountrywithseveredigestiveandrespiratoryproblems.CaseshavebeenreportedinareasasfarapartasExeterintheSouthwest,NewcastleintheNortheastandNottinghaminthecenterofthecountry.

Althoughitwasnotimmediatelyclearwhattheproblemwas,consultationwithpatientsfamiliesandcoordinationbetweenvarioushealthauthoritieshaveidentifiedthat90%ofcasescanbedirectlycorrelatedwiththevictimshavingtakenMiraclointhelastfewdays.Subsequenttestsonthebottlesofthissubstancefoundatthehousesofpatientshaverevealedconsistentlevelsofindustrialfertilizer,wasteproductsandratpoison.BottlesofbothAstorandQuetiamarkedproductshavebeendiscoveredtobecontaminatedasaresult.Strangely,thetwoshowdifferenttypesofcontaminationbetweenthetwocompanies,butconsistencywithinagivencompany’sproduct.

Asaresultofthisdiscovery,anemergencyhealthywarninghasbeenissuedbythegovernment,withpeopleadvisedtodisposeofalloftheseproductstheyhave,regardlessofmanufacturerorlocationtheywereboughtfrom.Allsalesofthesubstancehavebeenbanned,andstockremovedfromshelvesacrossthecountry.Thegovernmenthasalsoruledoutthepossibilityofthisbeingaterroristormaliciousattackofanysort.

Detailsarestilltricklingthrough,butinanefforttotrackthesourceoftheproblem,bothAstorandQuetiaproductshavebeenidentifiedascausalfactors.Bothcompaniesareinsistingthatthisistheresultoffraudulentknock‐offproductsthattheyarenotresponsiblefor,althoughtherearesomesuggestionsthattherewascontaminationwithinregularshipmentstoo.

AstorFramedtext:

Currentlydoctorssaythattheyhavebeenabletosave1/3ofthepatientsthattookAstorproducts.However,thereisa66%chancethatthepatientswhotookQuetiaproductswillsufferseverlong‐termhealthissuesanddisabilities.

QuetiaFramedtext:

Currentlydoctorssaythattheyhavebeenabletosave1/3ofthepatientsthattookQuetiaproducts.However,thereisa66%chancethatthepatientswhotookAstorproductswillsufferseverlong‐termhealthissuesanddisabilities.

testing boundaries: a theory of adaptation and framing ......university of bath phd testing...

Documents