Philosophers and researchers have debated for centuries how we think and wondered if the difficult process of reasoning is what makes us, as humans, different from other species. Since the 1950s, social psychologist have focused on the mechanics of thought. Some of the most interesting tenets of these researchers' theories speculate that the way a question or decision is framed will greatly impact any potential conclusion. Shafir et al (1993), for example, showed that the presence of many options often creates greater conflict in the decision making process. In another study, Kahneman et al (1983) found that objectively equivalent problems, phrased as either gains or losses lead often to different conclusions. Other researchers have found that word choice, the ordering of questions and a lack of choices will affect decision making. The answers we reach, therefore, are seldom the sole product of evaluating pro and con arguments, but are rather choices made in the wake of many influences.

Shafir et al (1993) examined how subjects used reason-based analysis to evaluate arguments for or against making a particular option in an effort to select a final choice. Shafir asked subjects to respond to a variety of problems and to explain why they chose what they did. One of the first observations Shafir made was: People experience greater difficulty making decisions when they have good reasons for and against each option, or when the options are numerous. Common experience tells us that this is true. People will spend a greater amount of time and will be more likely to oscillate back and forth between options when they face a restaurant menu with twenty items, versus one with five. Subjects were also more likely to seek additional options when the available options had both good reasons for acceptance and rejection. "Subjects' tendency to search for additional options, in other words, was greater when the choice among alternatives was harder to rationalize, than when there was a compelling reason and the decision was easy," (Shafir, 1993). Once again, this seems to be a safe assertion. When Congress is pressured to give a certain demographic group a tax cut over another group, both pro and con arguments make sense for either option. Typically, Congress will then try to avoid making the difficult choice and, instead, develop a third alternative.

The study designed by Kahneman et al. (1983) is extremely important to our understanding of how framing affects decisions. In this study, Kahneman proposed situations that differed only in their presentations, not their mathematical outcomes. Some of these problems were framed in terms of losses, and others in terms of gains. By asking the questions in this manner, Kahneman refuted the descriptive power of expected utility theory and proposed that people are affected differently by losses than gains. The reference point at which each decision maker begins affects preference by setting the respondent either in a risk-adverse or risk-seeking position.

In addition, many researchers have studied how order effects and mere word choice in questioning affects decisions made by respondents. For example, a subject may be quick to come to a conclusion when asked, "How fast was the car going when it smashed the baby buggy?" But, that same subject may respond differently and take longer to respond when "smashed" is replaced by "nudged". Likewise, after a questionnaire about death, a subject may be less enthusiastic when asked about the choices they foresee in their future, than after a questionnaire about ice-cream preferences. As Kahneman and Taversky discovered, changes in reference points lead to varying responses from a single subject. The phenomena of anchoring and adjustment also provides evidence for this finding. Anchoring takes place when an insufficient starting value is provided as a reference point for the subject. For example, Kahneman might tell one subject, "I believe there are 65 people in Psychology 458," and another subject, "I believe there are 10 people in Psychology 458." The first subject is more likely to give a higher estimate when asked to judge how many people are in the class, than the second subject, because his or her evaluation is partially a product of the reference point he or she was given. I have experienced, on many occasions, this same phenomena. One such time, I was asked separately by both my mother and father to estimate how high the University of Oregon football team would be ranked the following day. When my dad asked me this question in the early morning, I had not yet heard any speculation and I said, "Probably around 23." My dad then agreed and said, "Yes, I think they will be number 22." My mom, however asked me this question after I had heard the results of other football games and I had a new reference point. I told her, "The Ducks will be around number 15." Mom responded, "I think they will be ranked seventeenth." The difference between my mother's and father's opinion was not the fact that Dad had been watching ESPN and mom had not, but that they each anchored their estimates to my reference point.

Researchers have clearly shown that decisions are not the result of merely weighing reasons for or against options. Instead, we analyze similar problems in different ways because we are given different information, we are exposed to biased wording, and because we are affected by others' assertions. Decision making is a complex realm, full of possible outcomes, and often demanding of additional alternatives.

Bibliography

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984) Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.

Shafir, E., Simonson, I., & Tversky, A. (1993). Reason-based choice. Special Issue: Reasoning and decision making. Cognition, 49, 11-36.