Framing of task performance strategies: effects on performance in a multiattribute dynamic decision making environment.

It is well documented that the way a static choice task is "framed" can dramatically alter choice behavior, often leading to observable preference reversals. This framing effect appears to result from perceived changes in the nature or location of a person's initial reference point, but it is not clear how framing effects might generalize to performance on dynamic decision making tasks that are characterized by high workload, time constraints, risk, or stress. A study was conducted to examine the hypothesis that framing can introduce affective components to the decision making process and can influence, either favorably (positive frame) or adversely (negative frame), the implementation and use of decision making strategies in dynamic high-workload environments. Results indicated that negative frame participants were significantly impaired in developing and employing a simple optimal decision strategy relative to a positive frame group. Discussion focuses on implications of these results for models of dynamic decision making.

An "open-transformed scale" for correcting ceiling effects and enhancing retest reliability: the example of pain.

The use of closed scales (with anchors at each end) to measure pain was found to produce ceiling effects characterized by a deceleration of ratings toward the upper end of the scale. This was consistent with previous research. Apart from producing nonlinear functions, the closed scale also limited test-retest reliability because of subjects' tendencies to correct their distorted ratings in subsequent trials. However, an open-ended scale coupled with transformation of reported ratings into a decile scale virtually eliminated the ceiling effect, thus producing consistently linear functions and maximizing test-retest reliability. This finding may have implications for the measurement of other sensory and psychological phenomena, especially those in which the property evaluated varies in a continuous fashion.

Influence of positive affect on the subjective utility of gains and losses: it is just not worth the risk.

A modification of the procedure originally used by Davidson, Suppes, and Siegel (1956) to measure subjective utility was used to study the influence of positive affect on individuals' perceived value (utility) functions. Results indicated, as expected, that persons in whom positive affect had been induced showed a more negative subjective utility for losses than did controls. This indicates that losses seem worse to people who are feeling happy than to those in a control condition. The subjective utility functions of the two groups did not differ as much, however, when people were considering potential gain. Thus, at least in the situation tested in this study, potential gains did not seem to be more appealing (nor less so) for affect subjects than they did for controls. These findings are discussed in relation to theoretical issues in decision making and work suggesting that positive affect can promote increased sensitivity to losses in situations of potential meaningful loss.