Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T10:13:41.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reframing rationality: Exogenous constraints on controlled information search

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2022

Yi Yang Teoh Open the ORCID record for Yi Yang Teoh [Opens in a new window] ,
Ian D. Roberts Open the ORCID record for Ian D. Roberts [Opens in a new window]  and
Cendri A. Hutcherson
Yi Yang Teoh
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada yang.teoh@mail.utoronto.ca
Ian D. Roberts
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Toronto Scarborough, Scarborough, ON M1C 1A4, Canada iandavidroberts@gmail.com
Cendri A. Hutcherson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Toronto Scarborough, Scarborough, ON M1C 1A4, Canada iandavidroberts@gmail.com Department of Marketing, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3E6, Canada c.hutcherson@utoronto.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bermúdez argues that framing effects are rational because particular frames provide goal-consistent reasons for choice and that people exert some control over the framing of a decision-problem. We propose instead that these observations raise the question of whether frame selection itself is a rational process and highlight how constraints in the choice environment severely limit the rational selection of frames.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e242
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Braver, T. S. (2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual-mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(2), 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brehm, J. W., & Wicklund, R. A. (1970). Regret and dissonance reduction as a function of postdecision salience of dissonant information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028616CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brick, N. E., MacIntyre, T. E., & Campbell, M. J. (2016). Thinking and action: A cognitive perspective on self-regulation during endurance performance. Frontiers in Physiology, 7, 159. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2016.00159CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callaway, F., Rangel, A., & Griffiths, T. L. (2021). Fixation patterns in simple choice reflect optimal information sampling. PLoS Computational Biology, 17(3), e1008863. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008863CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaxel, A.-S., Russo, J. E., & Kerimi, N. (2013). Preference-driven biases in decision makers’ information search and evaluation. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(5), 561–576.Google Scholar
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(3), 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diederich, A., & Trueblood, J. S. (2018). A dynamic dual process model of risky decision making. Psychological Review, 125(2), 270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HajiHosseini, A., & Hutcherson, C. A. (2021). Alpha oscillations and event related potentials reflect distinct dynamics of attribute construction and evidence accumulation in dietary decision making. eLife, 10, e60874.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jang, A. I., Sharma, R., & Drugowitsch, J. (2021). Optimal policy for attention-modulated decisions explains human fixation behavior. eLife, 10, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63436CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, E. J., Häubl, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment: A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 33(3), 461–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.461Google ScholarPubMed
Kiyonaga, A., & Egner, T. (2013). Working memory as internal attention: Toward an integrative account of internal and external selection processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20(2), 228–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2781CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maier, S. U., Raja Beharelle, A., Polanía, R., Ruff, C. C., & Hare, T. A. (2020). Dissociable mechanisms govern when and how strongly reward attributes affect decisions. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(9), 949–963. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0893-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, K., Graves, R., Yin, S., Weese, T., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2021). Valence framing effects on moral judgments: A meta-analysis. Cognition, 212(March), 104703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104703CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, T., & Zirnsak, M. (2017). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033400CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Myers, N. E., Stokes, M. G., & Nobre, A. C. (2017). Prioritizing information during working memory: Beyond sustained internal attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(6), 449–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.03.010CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Navajas, J., Bahrami, B., & Latham, P. E. (2016). Post-decisional accounts of biases in confidence. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 11, 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.05.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nook, E. C., Satpute, A. B., & Ochsner, K. N. (2021). Emotion naming impedes both cognitive reappraisal and mindful acceptance strategies of emotion regulation. Affective Science, 2(2), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-021-00036-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papies, E. K., Stroebe, W., & Aarts, H. (2008). The allure of forbidden food: On the role of attention in self-regulation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1283–1292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qin, J., Kimel, S., Kitayama, S., Wang, X., Yang, X., & Han, S. (2011). How choice modifies preference: Neural correlates of choice justification. NeuroImage, 55(1), 240–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.076CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rangel, A. (2013). Regulation of dietary choice by the decision-making circuitry. Nature Neuroscience, 16(12), 1717–1724. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3561CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, I. D., Teoh, Y. Y., & Hutcherson, C. A. (2022). Time to pay attention?: Information search explains amplified framing effects under time pressure. Psychological Science, 33(1), 90–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211026983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherer, A. M., Windschitl, P. D., & Smith, A. R. (2013). Hope to be right: Biased information seeking following arbitrary and informed predictions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(1), 106–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.07.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shani, Y., & Zeelenberg, M. (2007). When and why do we want to know? How experienced regret promotes post-decision information search. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, S. M., & Krajbich, I. (2019). Gaze amplifies value in decision making. Psychological Science, 30(1), 116–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618810521CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sullivan, N., Hutcherson, C., Harris, A., & Rangel, A. (2015). Dietary self-control is related to the speed with which attributes of healthfulness and tastiness are processed. Psychological Science, 26(2), 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614559543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teodorescu, K., Sang, K., & Todd, P. M. (2018). Post-decision search in repeated and variable environments. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(5), 17.Google Scholar
Teoh, Y. Y., & Hutcherson, C. A. (in press). The games we play: Prosocial choices under time pressure reflect context-sensitive information priorities. Psychological Science.Google Scholar
Teoh, Y. Y., Yao, Z., Cunningham, W. A., & Hutcherson, C. A. (2020). Attentional priorities drive effects of time pressure on altruistic choice. Nature Communications, 11, 3534. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17326-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanunu, Y., Hotaling, J. M., Le Pelley, M. E., & Newell, B. R. (2021). How top-down and bottom-up attention modulate risky choice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(39), e2025646118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2025646118CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed