How Framing Influences Strategic Interactions

References

• Camerer CF (1997) Progress in behavioral game theory. J. Econom. Perspect. 11(4):167–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Camerer CF (2003) Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Camerer CF, Johnson E, Rymon T, Sen S (1993) Cognition and framing in sequential bargaining for gains and losses. Frontiers Game Theory 104:27–47.Google Scholar
• Capraro V, Rodriguez-Lara I, Ruiz-Martos MJ (2020) Preferences for efficiency, rather than preferences for morality, drive cooperation in the one-shot Stag-Hunt Game. J. Behav. Experiment. Econom. 86:101535.Google Scholar
• Charness G, Rabin M (2002) Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Quart. J. Econom. 117(3):817–869.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Columbus S, Münich J, Gerpott FH (2020) Playing a different game: Situation perception mediates framing effects on cooperative behaviour. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 90:104006.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crawford VP (2013) Boundedly rational vs. optimization-based models of strategic thinking and learning in games. J. Econom. Lit. 51(2):512–527.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Crawford VP, Gneezy U, Rottenstreich Y (2008) The power of focal points is limited: Even minute payoff asymmetry may yield large coordination failures. Amer. Econom. Rev. 98(4):1443–1458.Google Scholar
• Dufwenberg M, Gächter S, Hennig-Schmidt H (2011) The framing of games and the psychology of play. Games Econom. Behav. 73(2):459–478.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ellingsen T, Johannesson M, Mollerstrom J, Munkhammar S (2012) Social framing effects: Preferences or beliefs? Games Econom. Behav. 76(1):117–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evangelidis I, Levav J (2019) Process utility and the effect of inaction frames. Management Sci. 65(5):2328–2341.Abstract, Google Scholar
• Evers E, Inbar Y, Blanken I, Oosterwijk L (2017) When do people prefer carrots to sticks? A robust “matching effect” in policy evaluation. Management Sci. 63(12):4261–4276.Link, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Schmidt KM (1999) A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation. Quart. J. Econom. 114(3):817–868.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fisher S (2024) Description invariance: A rational principle for human agents. Econom. Philos. 40(1):42–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Imas A, Madarász K (2014) Conscience accounting: Emotion dynamics and social behavior. Management Sci. 60(11):2645–2658.Google Scholar
• Goerg SJ, Walkowitz G (2010) On the prevalence of framing effects across subject-pools in a two-person cooperation game. J. Econom. Psych. 31(6):849–859.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsee CK, Li X (2022) A framing effect in the judgment of discrimination. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119(47):e2205988119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47:278–285.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kelley HH, Stahelski AJ (1970) Social interaction basis of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefs about others. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 16(1):66–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Komorita SS (1987) Cooperative choice in decomposed social dilemmas. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 13(1):53–63.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kühberger A (1998) The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 75(1):23–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kuhlman DM, Wimberley DL (1976) Expectations of choice behavior held by cooperators, competitors, and individualists across four classes of experimental games. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 34(1):69–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larrick RP, Blount S (1997) The claiming effect: Why players are more generous in social dilemmas than in ultimatum games. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 72(4):810–825.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Larrick RP, Soll JB (2008) The MPG illusion. Science 320:1593–1594.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leliveld MC, van Dijk E, Van Beest I (2008) Initial ownership in bargaining: Introducing the giving, splitting, and taking ultimatum bargaining game. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 34(9):1214–1225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levin IP, Schneider SL, Gaeth GJ (1998) All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 76(2):149–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liberman V, Samuels SM, Ross L (2004) The name of the game: Predictive power of reputations vs. situational labels in determining Prisoner’s Dilemma game moves. Personality Soc. Psych. Rev. 30(9):1175–1185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pruitt DG (1967) Reward structure and cooperation: The decomposed Prisoner’s Dilemma game. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 7:21–27.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pruitt DG (1970) Motivational processes in the decomposed Prisoner’s Dilemma game. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 14(3):227–238.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothman AJ, Salovey P (1997) Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psych. Bull. 121(1):3–19.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salant Y, Rubinstein A (2008) (A, f): Choice with frames. Rev. Econom. Stud. 75(4):1287–1296.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Spiller S, Reinholtz N, Maglio S (2020) Judgments based on stocks and flows: Different presentations of the same data can lead to opposing inferences. Management Sci. 66(5):2213–2231.Link, Google Scholar
• Thaler R (2016) Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics (W. W. Norton & Company, New York).Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458.Crossref, Google Scholar