Abstract
Affect research has suggested that in high-risk situations, a positive mood often results in an enhanced sensitivity to losses, leading to strong risk-averse behavior relative to neutral or negative mood, but when a situation is seen as being low risk, a reversal occurs and positive affect will often result in more risk-seeking behavior. It was hypothesized that the simple “framing” of a gambling task to emphasize either potential gains or potential losses could act as an affect inducer and would produce similar results. In Experiment 1 the effects of an induced positive or negative affective state on risk-taking behavior in a gambling task were examined. Results replicated the risk-averse/risk-seeking reversal phenomenon described above. In Experiment 2 the affect conditions were replaced with a simple Winning vs. Losing framing manipulation where an instructional emphasis was placed either on accumulating points or avoiding the loss of points. Results demonstrated that a reversal pattern in risk taking like that found in Experiment 1 for affect could also be obtained via this simple framing manipulation. An affective-cognitive model of pre-choice framing and a theoretical link between the effects of framing and the effects of mood manipulation based on mood management theory are presented and discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Arkes, H., Herren, L., & Isen, A. M. (1988). The role of potential loss in the influence of affect on risk-taking behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 181–193.
Bell, D. (1982). Regret in decision making under uncertainty. Operations Research, 30, 961–981.
Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 36, 129–148.
Carlson, M., Charlin, V., & Miller, N. (1988). Positive mood and helping behavior: A test of six hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 211–229.
Clark, M. S., & Isen, A. M. (1982). Toward understanding the relationship between feeling states and social behavior. In A. Hastorf & A. M. Isen (Eds.), Cognitive social psychology (pp. 73–108). New York: Elsevier.
Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1987). The effects of decision framing on choice of risky vs. certain options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 264–277.
Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1990). The effect of framing on choice: Interactions with risk-taking propensity, cognitive, style and sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 496–510.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Frisch, D. (1993). Reasons for framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 56, 399–429.
Hershey, J. C. & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1980). Risk taking and problem context in the domain of losses: An expected utility analysis. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 47, 395–418.
Isen, A.M., & Means, B. (1983). The influence of positive affect on decision making strategy. Social Cognition, 2, 18–31.
Isen, A. M., Nygren, T. E., & Ashby, F. G. (1988). The influence of positive affect on the subjective utility of gains and losses: It's not worth the risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 710–717.
Isen, A. M., & Simmonds, S. F. (1978). The effect of feeling good on a helping task that is incompatible with good mood. Social Cognition, 41, 346–349.
Johnson, J. T. (1986). The knowledge of what might have been: Affective and attributional consequences of near outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 51–62.
Johnson, E., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 20–31.
Kahneman, D., & Snell, J. (1990). Predicting utility. In R. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making (pp. 295–310). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrika, 47, 263–291.
Landman, J. (1987). Regret and elation following action and inaction: Affective responses to positive versus negative outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 524–536.
Levin, I. P., & Chapman, D. P. (1993). Risk decision making and allocation of resources for leukemia and AIDS programs. Health Psychology, 12, 110–117.
Mann, L. (1992). Stress, affect and risk-taking. In J. F. Yates (Ed.), Risk-taking behavior (pp. 201–23). New York: Wiley.
Mano, H. (1994). Risk-taking, framing effects, and affect. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 38–58.
Mayer, J., Gaschke, Y., Braverman, D., & Evans, T. (1992). Mood-congruent judgment is a general effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 119–132.
Miller, P. M., & Fagley, N. S. (1991). The effects of framing, problem variations, and providing rationale on choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 517–522.
Nygren, T. E., Isen, A. M., Taylor, P. J., & Dulin, J. (1996). The influence of positive affect on the decision rule in risk situations: Focus on outcome (and especially avoidance of loss) rather than probability. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 59–72.
Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3–19.
Schneider, S. L. & Lopes, L. L. (1986). Reflection in preferences under risk: Who and when may suggest why. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12, 535–548.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the rationality of choice. Science, 221, 453–458.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1988). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59, S251–S278.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–223.
Velten, E. (1968). A laboratory task for induction of mood states. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 6, 473–482.
von Winterfeldt, D. V., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, W. F., & Bower, G. H. (1992). Mood effects on subjective probability assessments. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 276–291.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nygren, T.E. Reacting to Perceived High- and Low-Risk Win–Lose Opportunities in a Risky Decision-Making Task: Is It Framing or Affect or Both?. Motivation and Emotion 22, 73–98 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023096709380
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023096709380