Framing
The door-in-the-face technique is a persuasion method. First, a large request is made, quite expected to be denied, a second, following request is made, more likely to fulfill. Robert Cialdini calls this reciprocity. The sharp negative response creates a sense of debt or guilt, by comparison, the second request is clear.
Framing, or a reference point explains the initial bad offer sets a reference point from the second offer looks like an improvement.
Cialdini's study finds more would chaperone a one-day trip for juvenile delinquents, than would, when first asked to counsel them for two-hours a week for two years.
The same option under different circumstances influences decision, depending on the outcome in terms of gains or losses and a penchance for making a wrong choice.
Follow this test:
Option A saves 200 lives.
Option B has a 33% chance of saving all 600 people, but a 66% chance of saving no one.
The decisions have the same expected value, 200 lives saved, but B is risky.
Next is added:
Option C 400 people die
Option D 33% chance no one will die, with a 66% chance all will die.
The first part emphasized lives gained, in the second, lives lost.
Prospect theory says approaches to losses and gains impacts. A loss is more devastating than an equivalent gain is gratifying.
People avoid risk in a positive frame, but seek risk in a negative frame.
Gains for smaller values are bigger than equivalent increases for larger quantities.
A sure gain is preferred to a probable gain, but a probable loss likely to a definite loss. This is the certainty effect.
Among problems with framing people are not given enough choice, chance of likely outcome, within the context of one of two frames. Framing manipulates decision, its consequences are inescapable.
Druckman says framing and societal implications are overemphasized. Framing effects can be limited, reduced or eliminated if enough credible information is given.
Wikipedia
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment