Journal Press India^®

Author Details ( * ) denotes Corresponding author

Framing effects are well known and can have severe consequences for organizations and individuals alike. From an international management perspective, it is important to know how cultural differences influence potential framing effects. Framing studies use mostly catastrophic examples, such as diseases, rather than real-life examples from businesses. In addition, the potential cultural mechanisms behind framing effects have not yet been analyzed with two samples from India and Germany. Our research focuses on a case study incorporating risk information framed both negatively and positively. We conducted surveys in Germany and India to collect data. Participants were asked how much they would pay to settle a hypothetical case, and in a second question if they would enter into a settlement for a stipulated amount of money. We found cultural influences stemming from differences in collectivism in each country. However, the role of risk numeracy and cognitive reflection was not clear.

Keywords

Attribute Framing; Decision Bias; Risk Information; Collectivism; Cognitive Reflection; Risk Numeracy; Intuition

1. Alewine, H., Allport, C. & Shen, W. C. (2016). How measurement framing and accounting information system evaluation mode influence environmental performance judgments. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 23, 28-44. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2016.10.002.
2. Avineri, E. & Waygood, E. O. D. (2013). Applying valence framing to enhance the effect of in-formation on transport-related carbon dioxide emissions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 48, 31-38.
3. Berger, T. (2015). Risk assessment competencies of risk management professionals. Contemporary issues in modern finance, SIMSR (Ed.), pp. 15-19 (SIMSR Finance Conference, Mumbai 2015).
4. Bhattacharya, V. (2010). Overcoming decision flaws from framing. Journal of Indian Business Research, 2(1), 66-69. Retrieved from DOI 10.1108/17554191011032956.
5. Brañas-Garza, P., Kujal, P. & Lenkei, B. (2015). Cognitive reflection test: Whom, how, when. Chapman University (Hg.): ESI Working Papers, pp. 15-25, Orange, CA.
6. Cheon, J. E., Nam, Y., Kim, K. J., Lee, H. I., Park, H. G. & Kim, Y. H. (2021). Cultural variability in the attribute framing effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 12(1), 65-93. Retrieved from Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.754265.
7. Chhokar, J. S., Brodbeck, F. C. & House, R. J. (2008). Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE book of in-depth studies of 25 societies. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
8. Cohn, A., Ernst, F. & Michel, A. M. (2017). Do professional norms in the banking industry favor risk-taking? The Review of Financial Studies, 30(11), 3801–3823.
9. Cokely, E. T., Galesic, M., Schulz, E., Ghazal, S. & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2012). Measuring risk literacy: The Berlin numeracy test. Judgement and Decision Making, 7(1), 25-47.
10. Curseu, P., Schruijer, S. & Fodor, O. (2016). Decision rules, escalation of commitment and sensitivity to framing in group decision-making. Management Decision, 54(7), 1649-1668.
11. Erceg, N., Zvonimir, G. & Mitja, R. (2020). A reflection on cognitive reflection – testing convergent/divergent validity of two measures of cognitive reflection. Judgement and Decision Making, 15(5), 741–55. Retrieved from https://econpapers.repec.org/article/jdmjournl/v_3a15_3ay_3a2020_3ai_3a5_3ap_3a741-755.htm.
12. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25–42.
13. Gaganis, C., Iftekhar, H., Panagiota, P. & Menelaos, T. (2019). National culture and risk-taking: Evidence from the insurance industry. Journal of Business Research, 97, 104–116. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.037.
14. Garcia-Retamero, R., Sobkow, A., Petrova, D., Garrido, D. & Traczyk, J. (2019). Numeracy and risk literacy: What have we learned so far? The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 22, E10. Retrieved from Doi:10.1017/sjp.2019.16.
15. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle, Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1-46. New York: Academic Press.
16. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences, comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. California: Sage.
17. Im, H. & Chen, C. (2022). To save or lose? A cross-national examination of the disease risk framing effect and the influence of collectivism. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 35(4), e2276. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2276.
18. International Standards Organization (ISO) (2018). Risk management: ISO 31000. International Organization for Standardization. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/store/en/PUB100426.pdf.
19. Kaniok, D. (2021). Framing im Kontext von Straßenbenutzungsgebühren. Wiesbaden: SpringerLink.
20. Kurman, J. & Hui, C. (2011). Promotion, prevention or both: Regulatory focus and culture revisited. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 5(3). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1109.
21. Levin, I. P. (1987). Associative effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25(2), 85-86.
22. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L. & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188.
23. Liberali, J. M., Reyna, V. F., Furlan, S., Stein, L. M. & Pardo, S. T. (2012). Individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection with implications for biases and fallacies in probability judgment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(4), 361–381. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.752
24. Lindenberg, S. & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), 117-137.
25. Mourouzidou-Damtsa, S., Milidonis, A. & Stathopoulos, K. (2019). National culture and bank risk-taking. Journal of Financial Stability, 40, 132–143. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2017.08.007.
26. Pinon, A. & Gambara, H. (2005). A meta-analytic review of framing effect: Risky, attribute and goal framing. Psicothema, 17(2), 325-331.
27. Schulze, J. H. (2013a). Wie sprache unsere entscheidungen beeinflussen kann. In Perspektiven. Sonnenhauser, B.; Trautmann, C.; Noel A. H. P. (Eds), München [u.a.], 2013. p. 29-41.
28. Toplak, M. E., West, R. F. & Stanovich, K. E. (2011). The cognitive reflection test as a predictor of performance on heuristics and biases tasks. Memory & Cognition, 39(7), 1275-1289. Retrieved from doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0104-1.
29. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
30. Umma, I. & Sri Handayani, R. R. (2019). The effect of attribute framing and justification on capital budgeting decisions. JEMA: Jurnal Ilmiah Bidang Akuntansi dan Manajemen, 16(2), 117-132.
31. Von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press.
32. Wang, M., Rieger, M. O. & Hens, T. (2017). The impact of culture on loss aversion. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(2), 270-281.
33. Woller-Carter, M. M., Okan, Y., Cokely, E. T. & Garcia-Retamero, R. (2016). Communicating and distorting risks with graphs: An eye-tracking study. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 56(1), 1723–1727. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1177/1071181312561345.
34. Workman, M. (2012). Decision rules, escalation of commitment and sensitivity to framing in group decision-making. Management Decision, 50(1), 21-42.