Article

Kornilova T.V., Pavlova E.M., Krasavtseva Y.V., Razvalyaeva A.U. (2017). Relationship between the framing effect and individual differences in medical students and psychology students. National Psychological Journal. 4, 17-29.

Abstract

Background. Framing effect is rarely studied in relation to individual differences. In cognitive psychology, it reflects distortions in decision-making depending on the context (phrasing) of statements about alternatives, and framing is found within medical professional samples.

Objective. The objective of the study are asfollows: 1. to identify the differences in the students of medical and non-medical universities and susceptibility to framing, 2. establish in both groups similarities of individual decision-making styles (coping with uncertainty if any) in self-assessments (intelligence, risk taking and personality) and in willingness to take risks and tolerance/intolerance to uncertainty, 3. to identify the specific relationship between susceptibility to the framing effect (FE) in medical students with their personal properties.

Design. The paper describes the study of framing on medicine (n = 78) and psychology students (n = 122). It is demonstrated that in Kahneman and Tversky’s “Asian disease problem”, the psychology students show reframing effect while medical students don’t show difference in answers. Participants who choose different answers in negative phrasing of the issue differ in self-esteemed risk taking and intolerance for uncertainty; but there is no difference in positive version of the problem. Differences in personality profiles of the future members of medical and non-medical students have been established, both in terms of the personality variables and their associations to the dynamic regulatory systems. Medical students are characterized with less procrastination and higher risk readiness. Self-esteemed risk is correlated with risk readiness in both samples (and negatively connected to rationality within the psychology student sample). Unexpectedly, risk preparedness is also correlated with intolerance for uncertainty in both groups. Medical students are characterized by specific correlation between risk readiness and personal self-esteem (good/bad person scale). Self-esteemed risk proposed is shown to be not only connected to corresponding questionnaire scale of personal risk preparedness but also to correlate to the choice in the framing effect issues.

Results. These and other connections report about specifics of personal characteristics structure within the group of medical students.

Received: 10/06/2017
Accepted: 10/17/2017
Pages: 17-29
DOI: 10.11621/npj.2017.0402

PDF: Download

Keywords: decision making; framing effect; risk-readiness; rationality; tolerance; intolerance; The Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire; self-estimate of intelligence; self-esteem risk-readiness;

Available Online 01.01.2018

Fig 1. Diagrams of the deterministic and probabilistic response in the negative and positive statements for the samples of medical students, psychology students and the cumulative sample

Table 1. Mean value on scales in groups of subjects who choose different answers in the Kahnemann task

Both Versions, Negative and Positive Statement
Sample	Scale	Difference	Mean value for deterministic response	Meanvalueforprobabilistic answer
CumulativeSample	Intolerance to Uncertainty, Badner Test	t = 2.055, p = .042	30.33	27.82
CumulativeSample	Risk Self-Assessment	t = -3.263, p = .001	92.59	104.72
Psychology Students	Risk Self-Assessment	t = -2.162, p = .036	92.56	104.3
Medical Students	Intolerance to Uncertainty, Badner Test	t = 3.034, p = .003	32.18	27.51
Medical Students	Risk Self-Assessment	t = -2.484, p = .016	92.61	105.0
The choice in the negative statement version
Sample	Scale	Difference	Mean value for deterministic response (FE)	Meanvalueforprobabilistic response (FE not considered)
CumulativeSample	Intolerance to Uncertainty, Badner Test	t = 2.357, p = .022	30.57	26.58
CumulativeSample	Risk Self-Assessment	t = -2.837, p = .006	88.3	104.61
Medical Students	Intolerance to Uncertainty, Badner Test	t = 3.134, p = .003	32.8	26.37
Medical Students	Risk Self-Assessment	t = -2.550, p = .015	86.11	104.58

Table 2. Mean values and t-Studenttest for scales with differences between psychology students and medical students

Scale	Method	t-Student Test	Mean Value in Psychology Students	Mean Value in Medical Students
Risk Preparedness	Personal Factors of Decision Making	t = -2.502, p = .014	0.57	2.47
Procrastination	Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire, MDMQ	t = 2.525, p = .012	9.72	8.77

Table 3. IntercorrelationsMatrix of Personal Factors of Decision Makingscales, Bandertest, Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaireand intelligence self-assessment, personality self-assessmentand risk self-assessment within the samples of psychology students and medical students.

		1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.
1.	Risk Preparedness (Personal Factors of Decision Making)		-,260*	.152	-,402**	.049	,267*	,443**	-.137	-,363**	-.170	-,279*	Medical Students
2.	Rationality (Personal Factors of Decision Making)	-,267*		.065	,414**	-.027	-.220	.054	,451**	-.020	-.086	.157
3.	Tolerance to uncertainty(Badner Test)	.147	-.109		-.103	.073	,230*	.041	-.081	.024	-.217	-.131
4.	Intolerance to uncertainty (Badner Test)	-,276*	.039	-.148		-.164	-,362**	.061	.199	,264*	.165	,380**
5.	Intelligence Self-Assessment	.136	.017	.216	-.110		.171	.223	.012	-.096	-.178	-.115
6.	Risk Self-Assessment	,513**	-,480**	.130	-.068	.252		.118	-.097	.006	-.041	-,252*
7.	Personality Self-Assessment	.135	.223	.266	-.046	.109	.120		-.093	-.161	-.082	-.005
8.	Vigilance(MDMQ)	.040	,609**	.142	-.121	.056	-.108	-.269		-.094	-.052	.004
9.	Back-Passing(MDMQ)	-,485**	-.025	-.106	,371**	-.108	-.310	-.076	-,252*		,540**	,361**
10.	Procrastination(MDMQ)	-,520**	-.153	.037	,254*	-.125	-.286	-.090	-,263**	,651**		,354**
11.	Hypervigilance(MDMQ)	-.215	-.115	-.034	,261*	-,227*	-.264	-.158	-.152	381**	,501**
		Psychology Students

References:

Almashat, S., Ayotte B., Edelstein B., Margrett J. (2008) Framing effect debiasing in medical decision making. Patient education and counseling, 71(1), 102–107. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.004

Best, R., &Charness, N. (2015) Age differences in the effect of framing on risky choice: A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 30(3), 688–698. doi: 10.1037/a0039447

Biryukov, B.V., & Tikhomirov, O.K. (1979) Decision-making as a matter of methodological and psychological research: afterword to the book. Kozeletsky Yu. [Psychological theory of solution], Moscow, Progress, 464–500.

Bornstein, B.H., &Emler A.C. (2001) Rationality in medical decision making: a review of the literature on doctors’ decision-making biases. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 7(2), 97–107. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.2001.00284.x

Bui, T. C., Krieger, H. A., & Blumenthal-Barby, J. S. (2015) Framing Effects on Physicians’ Judgment and Decision Making. Psychological reports, 117(2), 508–522. doi: 10.2466/13.PR0.117c20z0

Christensen, C., Heckerung, P., Mackesy-Amiti, M.E., Bernstein, L.M., & Elstein, A.S. (1995) Pervasiveness of framing effects among physicians and medical students. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 8, 169–180. doi: 10.1002/bdm.3960080303

Chumakova, M.A. (2013) Personality regulation of rational choice: development of the idea of unity of intellect and affect. [Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal], 34(3), 119–125.

Donner-Banzhoff, N., Seidel, J., Sikeler, A. M., Bösner, S., Vogelmeier, M., &Westram A., et al. (2017) The phenomenology of the diagnostic process: A primary-care based survey. Medical Decision Making, 37(1), 27–34. doi: 10.1177/0272989X16653401

Furnham, A. (2001) Self-estimates of intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1381–1405. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00232-4

Gigerenzer, G. (2008) Moral intuition – fast and frugal heuristics? Ed. W. Sinnott-Armstrong. Moral Psychology: V. 2. The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1−28.

Huangfu, G., &Zhu, L. (2014) A reexamination of the robustness of the framing effect in cognitive processing. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 42(1), 37–43. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2014.42.1.37

Kahneman, D. (2014) Think slowly ..., decide quickly. Moscow, AST.

Kornilova, Т.V. (2016) Intellectual potential of a person in conditions of uncertainty and risk. St. Petersburg, Nestor-History.

Kornilova, Т.V. (2013) Melbourne decision-making questionnaire: Russian-language adaptation. [Psikhologicheskie issledoaniya], 6(31). Retrieved from: http://psystudy.ru (accessed: May 14, 2017).

Kornilova, Т.V. (2003) Psychology of risk and decision-making: a textbook. Moscow.

Kornilova, T.V., & Novikova, M.A. (2012) [Psikhologicheskie issledoaniya], 5(23). Retrieved from: http://psystudy.ru (accessed: May 14, 2017).

Kornilova, T.V., &Chumakova, M.A. (2014) Scales of tolerance and intolerance to uncertainty in modifications of S. Badner’s questionnaire [Eksperimental’naya psikhologiya], 7(1), 58–66.

Kornilova, T.V., Chumakova, M.A., &Kornilov, S.A. (2017) Intellect and the success of forecasting strategies in the implementation of the Iowa test (IGT). [Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshey Shkoly Ekonomiki], 14(4). (in press).

Kornilova, T.V., Chumakova, M.A., Kornilov, S.A., &Novikova, M.A. (2010) The psychology of uncertainty: the unity of the person’s intellectual-personal potential. Moscow, Smysl.

McElroy, T., &Seta, J.J. (2003) Framing effects: An analytic–holistic perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 610–617. doi: 10.1016/ S0022-1031(03)00036-2

Mikels, J.A., &Reed, A.E. (2009) Monetary Losses Do Not Loom Large in Later Life: Age Differences in the Framing Effect. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences? 64B (4), 457–460. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbp043

Ordinova, E.M. (2013) The study of implicit theories as components of cognitive risk. [Psikhologicheskiyzhurnal], 34(1), 74–85.

Perneger, T.V., & Agoritsas, T. (2011) Doctors and patients’ susceptibility to framing bias: a randomized trial. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 26, 1411–1417. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1810-x

Popov, A.Yu., & Vikhman, A.A. (2014) Cognitive distortions in the decision-making process: the scientific problem and humanitarian technology. [Vestnik SUSU]. Series «Psychology», 7(31), 5–16.

Savina, E.A., & Wang H.T. (2003) The choice and decision-making: risk and social context. [Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal], 24(5), 23–30.

Schwitzgebel, E., & Cushman, F. (2015) Professional Philosophers’ Susceptibility to Order Effects and Framing Effects in Evaluating Moral Dilemmas. Cognition, 141, 127–137. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.04.015

Shoemaker, P. (1994) Model of expected utility: varieties, approaches, results and bands of possibilities. [Almanakh THESIS]. Risk, uncertainty, randomness, 5, 29–80.

Sieck, W., & Yates, J.F. (1997) Exposition effects on decision making: Choice and confidence in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70( 3), 207–219. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1997.2706

Takemura, K. (1994) Influence of elaboration on the framing of decision. The Journal of Psychology, 128(1), 33–39. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1994.9712709

Tombu, M., & Mandel, D. R. (2015) When does framing influence preferences, risk perceptions, and risk attitudes? The explicated valence account. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(5), 464–476. doi: 10.1002/bdm.1863

Tversky, A., & Kahneman D. (1985) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. New Series, 211(4481), 453–458.

For citing this article:

Kornilova T.V., Pavlova E.M., Krasavtseva Y.V., Razvalyaeva A.U. (2017). Relationship between the framing effect and individual differences in medical students and psychology students. National Psychological Journal. 4, 17-29.