Quantitative Measurements of the Effect of Framing and Social Closeness on Decision Making

Authors

  • Su bin An Psychology
  • Andrea Tovar

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/pur.2024.70

Keywords:

Framing, Social Closeness, Donation, Interaction Effect

Abstract

According to prospect theory of framing, people's decisions are influenced by the potential outcomes themselves and how those outcomes are framed. In our study we investigated if social closeness would influence people in the same way and if it has an increased impact when used in combination with framing. We hypothesized that if the message is in gain-frame, then the potential donors, participants, will be more willing to donate, and if the potential donor and the recipient have a close relationship, then the donor will show higher willingness to donate. Furthermore, it is hypothesized that there will be an interaction effect between message framing and social closeness on willingness to donate. Participants (N = 1539) were randomly assigned to two different types of survey, one in a gain frame and other one in a loss frame. Social closeness was manipulated into two levels, close family member and close friend, and participants were again randomly assigned to two different types, with one asking to give the name of their close friend, and the other one asking to give the name of their close family member. Framing and social closeness both had effects on participants' decision making, however, unlike our hypothesis, did not have a combined effect. Our results imply that individuals may process information about framing and their social relations separately when deciding on donating. The cognitive process involved in this kind of decision making may require two separate processes for evaluating framing and social closeness, respectively.

References

Balbo, L., Jeannot, F., & Estarague, J. (2015). Combining message framing and social distance to promote prosocial health behaviors. 31ème Congrès de l’Association Française du Marketing-AFM 2015.

Bartels, R. D., Kelly, K. M., & Rothman, A. J. (2010). Moving beyond the function of the health behavior: The effect of message frame on behavioral decision-making. Psychology and Health, 25(7), 821-838. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440902893708

Jago, L. K., & Deery, M. (2005, April). Relationships and factors influencing convention decision-making. In Journal of Convention & Event Tourism (Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 23-41). Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1300/J452v07n01_03

McGregor, L. M., Ferguson, E., & O’Carroll, R. E. (2012). Living organ donation: The effect of message frames on altruistic behavior. Journal of Health Psychology, 17(6), 821-832. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105311423862

Mishra, S., Gregson, M., & Lalumiere, M. L. (2012). Framing effects and risk‐sensitive decision making. British Journal of Psychology, 103(1), 83-97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02047.x

Steiger, A., & Kühberger, A. (2018). A meta-analytic re-appraisal of the framing effect. Zeitschrift für Psychologie.

Sung, B., Septianto, F., & Stankovic, M. (2023). The effect of severe imagery in advertising on charitable behavior and the moderating role of social closeness. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 57(3), 1352–1376. https://doi.org/10.1111/joca.12531

Svenson, O., & Benson III, L. (1993). Framing and time pressure in decision making. In Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making (pp. 133-144). Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-6846-6_9

SanJosé-Cabezudo, R., Gutiérrez-Arranz, A. M., & Gutiérrez-Cillán, J. (2009). The combined influence of central and peripheral routes in the online persuasion process. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(3), 299-308. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2008.0188

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683

Cover image for PUR Vol. III, No. 2

Downloads

Published

2024-11-12

How to Cite

An, S. bin, & Tovar, A. (2024). Quantitative Measurements of the Effect of Framing and Social Closeness on Decision Making. Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review, 3(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5195/pur.2024.70

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2024): Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review

Section

Research

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Su bin An, Andrea Tovar

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
  9. The Author agrees to digitally sign the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work.