![]() In addition to the loss-versus-gain effect, recent research shows, for example, that people can be moved en masse to opt for one alternative when it is positioned as the default-an unstated option that people get if they do not make a selection. Since then, they and many others have discovered various ways in which language can have a profound-and often counterintuitive-effect on the choices people make. Some 30 years ago Kahneman and Tversky's initial findings in this field launched a concerted inquiry into how the framing of options affects people's decisions. When choosing between positive outcomes, people tend to be risk averse and want the sure thing (saving 200 people) but are far more willing to take risks when weighing losses-a psychological tendency that can be exploited by the deliberate wording of options. ![]() Kahneman and Tversky's research provides a clue: people respond to choices involving losses, such as deaths, differently from those relating to gains, such as survivors. So why do people tend to prefer A to B but the reverse when the options are described as in C and D? Whichever choice you make, logic would seem to dictate that it should be the same no matter how the options are worded. Of course, these two pairs of options-A or B and C or D-are identical: saving 200 lives means that 400 people will die, and in both B and D, taking a one-third chance to save everyone means taking a two-thirds chance to lose everyone. Faced with this pair of scenarios, 78 percent of people choose D, according to results of a classic study by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist at Princeton University, and his longtime collaborator, psychologist Amos Tversky. Now imagine that officials present these two options instead: under program C, 400 people will die under program D, there is a one-third probability that nobody will die and a two-thirds probability that all 600 people will perish. Confronted by this choice, 72 percent of people choose A, preferring to save 200 people for certain rather than risking saving no one. Under B, there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved and a two-thirds probability that nobody will. Under program A, 200 people will be saved. Government officials have proposed two alternative programs to combat the disease. is preparing for an outbreak of an unusual Asian disease that is expected to kill 600 people.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |