Information Framing Cognitive Heuristic

An Information Framing Cognitive Heuristic is a cognitive heuristic that uses a cognitive frame of reference to influence judgment and decision making through presentation context manipulation.

• AKA: Framing Effect, Context Heuristic, Presentational Bias, Frame-Dependent Decision Making.
• Context:
  • It can typically influence Decision Outcome through valence-based presentation.
  • It can typically modify Risk Perception through loss-gain presentation format.
  • It can typically alter Attribute Evaluation through positive-negative description.
  • It can typically affect Option Attractiveness through contextual presentation.
  • It can typically shape Persuasion Effectiveness through goal-oriented messaging.
  • ...
  • It can often operate outside Conscious Awareness during automatic information processing.
  • It can often interact with Loss Aversion Tendency during risky decision making.
  • It can often leverage Emotional Response during preference formation.
  • It can often persist despite Critical Thinking during considered decision process.
  • It can often override Statistical Understanding during quantitative information presentation.
  • ...
  • It can range from being a Subtle Information Framing Cognitive Heuristic to being a Pronounced Information Framing Cognitive Heuristic, depending on its frame strength.
  • It can range from being a Linguistic Information Framing Cognitive Heuristic to being a Visual Information Framing Cognitive Heuristic, depending on its presentation modality.
  • It can range from being a Positive Information Framing Cognitive Heuristic to being a Negative Information Framing Cognitive Heuristic, depending on its valence direction.
  • It can range from being a Simple Information Framing Cognitive Heuristic to being a Complex Information Framing Cognitive Heuristic, depending on its frame complexity.
  • It can range from being an Individual-Level Information Framing Cognitive Heuristic to being a Cultural-Level Information Framing Cognitive Heuristic, depending on its scope of influence.
  • ...
  • It can employ Equivalence Framing for logically identical option presentation.
  • It can utilize Emphasis Framing for selective information highlighting.
  • It can implement Semantic Framing for meaning association modification.
  • It can apply Temporal Framing for time-based context creation.
  • It can leverage Social Framing for normative context establishment.
  • ...
• Examples:
  • Information Framing Cognitive Heuristic Type Categories, such as:
    • Risky Choice Framings, such as:
      • Asian Disease Problem Framing for life-death decision context.
      • Financial Investment Framing for monetary risk presentation.
      • Medical Treatment Framing for health outcome presentation.
    • Attribute Framings, such as:
      • Product Quality Framing for consumer perception influence.
      • Performance Rating Framing for evaluation context setting.
      • Food Label Framing for consumption behavior influence.
    • Goal Framings, such as:
      • Health Message Framing for preventive behavior promotion.
      • Environmental Message Framing for conservation behavior encouragement.
      • Safety Instruction Framing for protective behavior motivation.
  • Information Framing Cognitive Heuristic Context Categories, such as:
    • Media Information Framing Cognitive Heuristics, such as:
      • News Story Framing for public perception influence.
      • Advertisement Framing for consumer decision shaping.
      • Political Message Framing for voter opinion formation.
    • Organizational Information Framing Cognitive Heuristics, such as:
      • Corporate Communication Framing for stakeholder perception management.
      • Change Initiative Framing for employee adoption enhancement.
      • Performance Evaluation Framing for work motivation influence.
    • Interpersonal Information Framing Cognitive Heuristics, such as:
      • Negotiation Position Framing for bargaining advantage creation.
      • Relationship Issue Framing for conflict resolution direction.
      • Feedback Delivery Framing for behavioral change facilitation.
  • ...
• Counter-Examples:
  • Objective Analysis Approach, which uses unbiased evaluation rather than frame-dependent assessment.
  • Expected Utility Calculation, which employs mathematical outcome weighting rather than presentational influence.
  • Frame-Resistant Decision Process, which implements standardized evaluation criteria rather than context-sensitive judgment.
  • Statistical Reasoning Method, which applies probability theory rather than contextual interpretation.
  • Rational Choice Theory, which assumes preference consistency rather than frame-dependent preference.
• See: Loss-Aversion Bias, Cognitive Bias, Prospect Theory, Decision Making Heuristic, Persuasion Technique, Mental Model, Schema Activation.

---

---

References

2011

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28social_sciences%29
  • A frame in social theory consists of a schema of interpretation — that is, a collection of anecdotes and stereotypes — that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events. In simpler terms, people build a series of mental filters through biological and cultural influences. They use these filters to make sense of the world. The choices they then make are influenced by their creation of a frame. Framing is also a key component of sociology, the study of social interaction among humans.

    In psychology, framing is influenced by the background of a context choice and the way in which the question is worded (see Framing effect (psychology)).

    To clarify: When one seeks to explain an event, the understanding often depends on the frame referred to. If a friend rapidly closes and opens an eye, we will respond very differently depending on whether we attribute this to a purely "physical" frame (s/he blinked) or to a social frame (s/he winked).

    Though the former might result from a speck of dust (resulting in an involuntary and not particularly meaningful reaction), the latter would imply a voluntary and meaningful action (to convey humor to an accomplice, for example). Observers will read events seen as purely physical or within a frame of "nature" differently than those seen as occurring with social frames. But we do not look at an event and then "apply" a frame to it. Rather, individuals constantly project into the world around them the interpretive frames that allow them to make sense of it; we only shift frames (or realize that we have habitually applied a frame) when incongruity calls for a frame-shift. In other words, we only become aware of the frames that we always already use when something forces us to replace one frame with another.

    Framing, a term used in media studies, sociology and psychology, refers to the social construction of a social phenomenon by mass media sources or specific political or social movements or organizations. It is an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. A frame defines the packaging of an element of rhetoric in such a way as to encourage certain interpretations and to discourage others.

    Framing is so effective because it is a heuristic, or mental shortcut that may not always yield desired results; and is seen as a 'rule of thumb'. According to Susan T. Fiske and Shelley E. Taylor, human beings are by nature “cognitive misers”, meaning they prefer to do as little thinking as possible. Frames provide people a quick and easy way to process information. Hence, people will use the previously mentioned mental filters (a series of which is called a schema) to make sense of incoming messages. This gives the sender and framer of the information enormous power to use these schemas to influence how the receivers will interpret the message.

1998

• (Levin et al., 1998) ⇒ Irwin P. Levin, Sandra L. Schneider, and Gary J. Gaeth. (1998). “All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects.” In: Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 76(2). doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804
  • ABSTRACT: Accentuate the positive or accentuate the negative? The literature has been mixed as to how the alternative framing of information in positive or negative terms affects judgments and decisions. We argue that this is because different studies have employed different operational definitions of framing and thus have tapped different underlying processes. We develop a typology to distinguish between three different kinds of valence framing effects. First we discuss the standard risky choice framing effect introduced by Tversky and Kahneman (1981) to illustrate how valence affects willingness to take a risk. Then we discuss attribute framing, which affects the evaluation of object or event characteristics, and goal framing, which affects the persuasiveness of a communication. We describe the distinctions, provide a number of examples of each type, and discuss likely theoretical mechanisms underlying each type of framing effect. Our typology helps explain and resolve apparent confusions in the literature, ties together studies with common underlying mechanisms, and serves as a guide to future research and theory development. We conclude that a broader perspective, focused on the cognitive and motivational consequences of valence-based encoding, opens the door to a deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of framing effects.

---