PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
While Prospect Theory helps to explain decision-making under risk, studies often base frames on hypothetical events and fail to acknowledge that many individuals lack the ability and motivation to engage in complex thinking. We use an original survey of US adults (N = 2813) to test Prospect Theory in the context of the May 2023 debt ceiling negotiations in the US Congress and assess whether objective numeracy moderates framing effects. We hypothesize and find evidence to suggest that most respondents are risk-averse to potential gains and risk-accepting to potential losses; however, high numerates are more risk-averse and risk-accepting to gains and losses, respectively, than low numerates. We also find that need for cognition interacts with numeracy to moderate framing effects for prospective losses, such that higher need for cognition attenuates risk-acceptance among low numerates and exacerbates risk-acceptance among high numerates. Our results are robust to a range of other covariates and in models accounting for the interaction between political knowledge and need for cognition, indicating joint moderating effects from two knowledge domains similarly conditioned by the desire to engage in effortful thinking. Our findings demonstrate that those who can understand and use objective information may remain subjectively persuaded by certain policy frames.
摘要：
虽然前景理论有助于解释风险下的决策，研究通常基于假设事件的框架，并且未能承认许多人缺乏参与复杂思维的能力和动机。我们使用对美国成年人的原始调查（N=2813），在2023年5月美国国会债务上限谈判的背景下测试前景理论，并评估客观的算术是否会缓和框架效应。我们假设并找到证据表明，大多数受访者对潜在收益是风险厌恶的，对潜在损失是风险接受的；然而，高数字对收益和损失更厌恶风险和接受风险，分别,比低数字。我们还发现，对认知的需求与算术相互作用，以适度的框架效应来获得前瞻性损失，因此，对认知的更高需求会减弱低数字人群的风险接受，并加剧高数字人群的风险接受。我们的结果对一系列其他协变量以及考虑政治知识与认知需求之间相互作用的模型都是稳健的，表明来自两个知识领域的联合调节作用，同样受到参与努力思考的愿望的制约。我们的发现表明，那些能够理解和使用客观信息的人可能会受到某些政策框架的主观说服。
