↓ Skip to main content

Who’s been framed? Framing effects are reduced in financial gambles made for others

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Who’s been framed? Framing effects are reduced in financial gambles made for others
Published in
BMC Psychology, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40359-015-0067-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fenja V Ziegler, Richard J Tunney

Abstract

Decisions made on behalf of other people are sometimes more rational than those made for oneself. In this study we used a monetary gambling task to ask if the framing effect in decision-making is reduced in surrogate decision-making. Participants made a series of choices between a predetermined sure option and a risky gambling option of winning a proportion of an initial stake. Trials were presented as either a gain or a loss relative to that initial stake. In half of the trials participants made choices to earn money for themselves and in the other half they earned money for another participant. Framing effects were measured as risk seeking in loss frames and risk aversion in gain frames. Significant framing effects were observed both in trials in which participants earned money for themselves and those in which they earned money for another person; however, these framing effects were significantly reduced when making decisions for another person. It appears that the reduced emotional involvement when the decision-maker is not affected by the outcome of the decision thus lessens the framing effect without eradicating it altogether. This suggests that the deviation from rational choices in decision-making can be significantly reduced when the emotional impact on the decision maker is lessened. These results are discussed in relation to Somatic Distortion Theory.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 30%
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 26 55%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 8 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2015.
All research outputs
#3,043,013
of 11,339,688 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychology
#120
of 223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,765
of 209,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychology
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,339,688 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 223 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 209,251 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.