The Framing Preference for Large and Increasing Components in Static and Dynamic Descriptions

Describing sets in terms of a two-valued variable, either value can be chosen: exam results may be referred to by pass rates or fail rates. What determines such framing choices? Building on work by McKenzie and colleagues on reference points in the production and interpretation of framed information...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Henk Pander Maat, Ben Staal, Bregje Holleman
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:	attribute framing reference point task effect profiling markedness Psychology BF1-990
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/668a47c0c6614f27a9765f2f391319c9
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:668a47c0c6614f27a9765f2f391319c9
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:668a47c0c6614f27a9765f2f391319c92021-11-18T06:05:04ZThe Framing Preference for Large and Increasing Components in Static and Dynamic Descriptions1664-107810.3389/fpsyg.2021.720427https://doaj.org/article/668a47c0c6614f27a9765f2f391319c92021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.720427/fullhttps://doaj.org/toc/1664-1078Describing sets in terms of a two-valued variable, either value can be chosen: exam results may be referred to by pass rates or fail rates. What determines such framing choices? Building on work by McKenzie and colleagues on reference points in the production and interpretation of framed information, we investigate two determinants of frame choice. One is that speakers tend to focus on the component that has increased vis-à-vis a previous state, the other is the tendency to choose the component larger than 50%. We propose to view reference points as pointing to different kinds of communicative relevance. Hence the use of the previous state and the 50% reference points by speakers is not just a function of the information, but is co-determined by a communicative cue in the context: the question being asked about this information. This line of thought is supported by two experiments containing items offering two-sided distribution information at two points in time. Our first experiment employs a static task, requiring a description of the most recent situation. The second experiment uses a dynamic task, asking participants to describe the development between the two time points. We hypothesize that in static tasks the component size is the strongest frame choice determinant, while in dynamic tasks frame choice is mainly driven by whether a component has increased. The experiments consist of 16 different scenarios, both with symmetrical contrasts (i.e., dogs vs. cats) and with asymmetrical ones (i.e., winning vs. losing). Both experiments support the hypotheses. In the static task, the size effect is the only consistent effect; in the dynamic task, the effect of direction of change is much larger than that of size. This pattern of differences between size and change effects applies across symmetrical and asymmetrical contrasts. Our experiments shed light on cognitive and communicative regularities involved in the production of framed messages: people do tend to prefer larger and increasing components when choosing a frame, but the relative strength of both these preferences depends on the communicative task.Henk Pander MaatBen StaalBregje HollemanFrontiers Media S.A.articleattribute framingreference pointtask effectprofilingmarkednessPsychologyBF1-990ENFrontiers in Psychology, Vol 12 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	attribute framing reference point task effect profiling markedness Psychology BF1-990
spellingShingle	attribute framing reference point task effect profiling markedness Psychology BF1-990 Henk Pander Maat Ben Staal Bregje Holleman The Framing Preference for Large and Increasing Components in Static and Dynamic Descriptions
description	Describing sets in terms of a two-valued variable, either value can be chosen: exam results may be referred to by pass rates or fail rates. What determines such framing choices? Building on work by McKenzie and colleagues on reference points in the production and interpretation of framed information, we investigate two determinants of frame choice. One is that speakers tend to focus on the component that has increased vis-à-vis a previous state, the other is the tendency to choose the component larger than 50%. We propose to view reference points as pointing to different kinds of communicative relevance. Hence the use of the previous state and the 50% reference points by speakers is not just a function of the information, but is co-determined by a communicative cue in the context: the question being asked about this information. This line of thought is supported by two experiments containing items offering two-sided distribution information at two points in time. Our first experiment employs a static task, requiring a description of the most recent situation. The second experiment uses a dynamic task, asking participants to describe the development between the two time points. We hypothesize that in static tasks the component size is the strongest frame choice determinant, while in dynamic tasks frame choice is mainly driven by whether a component has increased. The experiments consist of 16 different scenarios, both with symmetrical contrasts (i.e., dogs vs. cats) and with asymmetrical ones (i.e., winning vs. losing). Both experiments support the hypotheses. In the static task, the size effect is the only consistent effect; in the dynamic task, the effect of direction of change is much larger than that of size. This pattern of differences between size and change effects applies across symmetrical and asymmetrical contrasts. Our experiments shed light on cognitive and communicative regularities involved in the production of framed messages: people do tend to prefer larger and increasing components when choosing a frame, but the relative strength of both these preferences depends on the communicative task.
format	article
author	Henk Pander Maat Ben Staal Bregje Holleman
author_facet	Henk Pander Maat Ben Staal Bregje Holleman
author_sort	Henk Pander Maat
title	The Framing Preference for Large and Increasing Components in Static and Dynamic Descriptions
title_short	The Framing Preference for Large and Increasing Components in Static and Dynamic Descriptions
title_full	The Framing Preference for Large and Increasing Components in Static and Dynamic Descriptions
title_fullStr	The Framing Preference for Large and Increasing Components in Static and Dynamic Descriptions
title_full_unstemmed	The Framing Preference for Large and Increasing Components in Static and Dynamic Descriptions
title_sort	framing preference for large and increasing components in static and dynamic descriptions
publisher	Frontiers Media S.A.
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/668a47c0c6614f27a9765f2f391319c9
work_keys_str_mv	AT henkpandermaat theframingpreferenceforlargeandincreasingcomponentsinstaticanddynamicdescriptions AT benstaal theframingpreferenceforlargeandincreasingcomponentsinstaticanddynamicdescriptions AT bregjeholleman theframingpreferenceforlargeandincreasingcomponentsinstaticanddynamicdescriptions AT henkpandermaat framingpreferenceforlargeandincreasingcomponentsinstaticanddynamicdescriptions AT benstaal framingpreferenceforlargeandincreasingcomponentsinstaticanddynamicdescriptions AT bregjeholleman framingpreferenceforlargeandincreasingcomponentsinstaticanddynamicdescriptions
_version_	1718424608017743872

The Framing Preference for Large and Increasing Components in Static and Dynamic Descriptions

Ejemplares similares