Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T09:20:18.678Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Even simple framing effects are rational

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2022

Stephen J. Flusberg Open the ORCID record for Stephen J. Flusberg [Opens in a new window] ,
Paul H. Thibodeau  and
Kevin J. Holmes
Stephen J. Flusberg
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, State University of New York Purchase College, Purchase, NY 10577, [email protected]://www.purchase.edu/live/profiles/662-stephen-flusberg
Paul H. Thibodeau
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Oberlin College, Oberlin, OH 44074, [email protected]://www.oberlin.edu/paul-thibodeau
Kevin J. Holmes
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Reed College, Portland, OR 97202, [email protected]://www.reed.edu/psychology/faculty/holmes.html
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bermúdez persuasively argues that framing effects are not as irrational as commonly supposed. In focusing on the reasoning of individual decision-makers in complex situations, however, he neglects the crucial role of the social-communicative context for eliciting certain framing effects. We contend that many framing effects are best explained in terms of basic, rational principles of discourse processing and pragmatic reasoning.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e228
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

Chestnut, E. K., & Markman, E. M. (2018). “Girls are as good as boys at math” implies that boys are probably better: A study of expressions of gender equality. Cognitive Science, 42(7), 2229–2249. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12637CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chestnut, E. K., Zhang, M. Y., & Markman, E. M. (2021). “Just as good”: Learning gender stereotypes from attempts to counteract them. Developmental Psychology, 57(1), 114–125. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/dev0001143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flusberg, S. J., van der Vord, J., Husney, S. Q., & Holmes, K. J. (2022). Who's the “real” victim? How victim framing shapes attitudes towards sexual assault. Psychological Science, 33(4), 524–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211045935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, N. D., & Frank, M. C. (2016). Pragmatic language interpretation as probabilistic inference. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(11), 818–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.08.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graesser, A. C., Millis, K. K., & Zwaan, R. A. (1997). Discourse comprehension. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 163–189. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.163CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (vol. 3, pp. 41–58). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, K. J., Doherty, E. M., & Flusberg, S. J. (2021). How and when does syntax perpetuate stereotypes? Probing the framing effects of subject–complement statements of equality. Thinking & Reasoning. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2021.1963841Google Scholar
Holmes, K. J., Wu, S. H., Elpers, N., Doherty, E. M., & Flusberg, S. J. (in prep). How syntax shapes beliefs about social groups: The role of stereotypes and pragmatic reasoning.Google Scholar
Leong, L. M., McKenzie, C. R., Sher, S., & Müller-Trede, J. (2017). The role of inference in attribute framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(5), 1147–1156. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, C. R. M., & Nelson, J. (2003). What a speaker's choice of frame reveals: Reference points, frame selection, and framing effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 596–602. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196520CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.11.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition (vol. 142). Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE, 6(2), e16782. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thibodeau, P. H., Crow, L., & Flusberg, S. J. (2017). The metaphor police: A case study of the role of metaphor in explanation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(5), 1375–1386. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1192-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thibodeau, P. H., & Flusberg, S. J. (in press). Metaphor and elaboration in context. In Colston, H. L., Matlock, T., & Steen, G. J. (Eds.), Dynamism in metaphor and beyond (pp. 223–240). John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Wu, S. H., Elpers, N., Doherty, E. M., Flusberg, S. J., & Holmes, K. J. (2021). Pragmatic reasoning ability predicts syntactic framing effects on social judgments. Poster presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society [online].Google Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A. (1998). Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed