User:Jawbio/sandbox

Situations affecting judgement and choice were evaluate between how adults and children each dealt with gaining and loosing situations. Compared to children’s framing effects adult tend to judge and choose based on risk and selecting the best of two options or more given. Children appeared to use their judgement to help them consider how good a specific option given might be. When children were challenged to risking in two different scenarios, a positive and negative frame, they appeared to be more risk takers than adults. Having children shown this, it supports the idea that children are less aware of risks in their lives by not treating losses and gains any different when making basic choices (Levin & Hart, 2003; Schlottmann, 2001). A group of children between the ages 6-9 appeared to take more risks with the positive frame scenario involving gaining compared to the negative frame scenario where they would risk loss relating to how adults would decide their decisions (Schneider, 1992). Being exposed to everyday situations the child will be able to decide what judgement or choice they will take, possibly making them take longer to cope with negative framed consequences than positive ones.

Through a series of three experiments it has been suggested that those who receive ideological messages have an effect on their judgements towards Black, Hispanic, and White Americans (Tajfel, 1969; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Creating a situation promoting racial colorblindness appeared to be influential. When people were presented with multiculturalism it created an awareness in differentiating among stereotypes and anti-stereotype attitudes they held to. It was thought that those who had more multicultural knowledge believing the stereotypes to being true more than those who did not have much knowledge of a certain ethnicity withing their community. Other individuals managed to ignore peoples ethnicity and instead see them as simply an individual by focusing on being colorblind. Prejudice attitudes can be adopted through focusing on a simple ideas of a specific ethnic group and basing it to judge everyone in that group. Framing occurs when a idea is created and is used to make decision or judge based on those believes. In order to break those thought models of negative social judgments a gaining of appreciation towards different cultural groups and understanding that each are human beings might be done (Brewer, 1996; Dovidio, Gaertner, & Validzic, 1998; Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, & Anastasio, 1994, 1996; Marcus-Newhall, Miller, Holtz, & Brewer, 1993).

The phenomenon of framing effects was also studied as a factor that contributes to the judgement of truth. In Benjamin E. Hilbig’s article, “Explaining Framing Effect in Judgement of Truth” a review of the different studies in the literature are accessed to explain the effects of a framed statement. Framing effects have been known to mirror the environmental distribution of events (Hilbig, 2009). Predominately, the effects are specifically focused on the negative estimations of framing effects in that people tend to access a statement as true when there is a proportion of instances mentioned will correspond with a portion of the statement. Another possibility that truth rating in negative frame is driven by a co-concept to framing effect known as the informational negativity effect. In other words, when a negative item is present, cognition may be more complex, and fined tuned (Rozin & Royzman, 2001, p.299). In a studied done on the cognition of right handedness in correlation to a stronger sense of accepting a framed situation, participants were given a test with risky choice framing effects when options were negative, while no effect were placed on the positive frame. The results indicated that participants conformed to the positive options but showed no option to the negatively framed options. Mixed handed individuals appeared to make much more risky decision than single handed individuals. This study may indicate that rather than the handedness of the person, it may be right hemisphere of the brain that may be sensitive to taking risks. Christman, Jasper, et al. (2007) studied that the right hemisphere was be responsible for risk taking decisions. Explanations of why mixed handed individuals may be more susceptible to risk may be resolved to the idea that mixed handed participants are more in tuned with the concepts of loss. In conclusion, there is still much to be discovered, but by understanding the impact of frames, components of communication, evaluation, and compliance can improve within the human condition.

Mishra, S., Gregson, M., & Lalumière, M. L. (2012). Framing effects and risk‐sensitive decision making. British Journal Of Psychology, 103(1), 83-97. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02047.x      I see that the different article that I pick to be constituent variable to the idea of framing effects. In this I mean, that framing effects can easily be tested in different stimuli. One important stimuli would be in making decision when the options of choosing may appear to be risky.

Stein, J. (2012). Framing effects: The influence of handedness and access to right hemisphere processing. Laterality: Asymmetries Of Body, Brain And Cognition, 17(1), 98-110. doi:10.1080/1357650X.2010.536552 I picked this article because it is examining the cognitive anatomy of how the brain processes the framing effect. It examines the idea of whether concepts of framing based on whether certain parts of our brain are ignited when we process information based on different ways of framing a idea or statement. This seems like am important article when it comes to clarifying the significance of framing effects on the human mind.

Lecheler, S., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Getting real: The duration of framing effects. Journal Of Communication, 61(5), 959-983. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01580.x      This experiment evaluates the amount of time a framing phenomenon stays in peoples' minds. It is useful because it helps distinguish whether framing effects are long term behaviors or short term concepts that are motivated long enough for us to make a decision. It would be idea that the framing effect is an internalized concepts, so we know that people are not making rash decisions based on emotional factors. The results show that framing effects are based on how much we know and how much knowledge we develop about a topic in which we are trying to pick. The more we know, the less the framing effect has an impact.

Hilbig, B. E. (2012). Good things don’t come easy (to mind): Explaining framing effects in judgments of truth. Experimental Psychology, 59(1), 38-46. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000124 This explores the moral question of whether the framing effects can cause us to deviate from our search of truth. Ideally, we would hope that these concepts do not detract from our ability to pick a choice based on our understanding of truth. Truth is followed as a correspondence to reality. The finding of these results show that good decisions require critical thinking. Often times framing effects can be manipulated and can detract from the truth. It is a concept often applied in the political voting world.

Bizer, G. Y., Larsen, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Exploring the valence‐framing effect: Negative framing enhances attitude strength. Political Psychology, 32(1), 59-80. doi:10.1111/j.1467-