SCIO: Revista de Filosofía

Buscador

Efectos marco, implicaturas por defecto y racionalidad

Descargas

Resumen

Las variaciones en la forma en que los sujetos responden a las descripciones de un mismo asunto enmarcadas positiva o negativamente han sido objeto de atención por parte de la investigación en ciencias sociales, donde, sin embargo, una concepción insuficientemente desarrollada de la interpretación del discurso ha socavado las diferentes explicaciones ofrecidas. Los efectos marco suelen considerarse un signo de irracionalidad, ya que entrarían en conflicto con el "principio de extensionalidad", un supuesto habitual en la teoría de la elección racional, que establece que las diferentes formas de presentar el mismo conjunto de opciones posibles no deberían cambiar las elecciones de los sujetos con respecto a esas opciones. El presente artículo explora la vertiente semántico-pragmática de los efectos marco y ofrece una explicación de este fenómeno en términos de un efecto conjunto de las presuposiciones pragmáticas y las implicaturas por defecto. La explicación sugerida desafía la visión tradicional de los efectos marco como signos de irracionalidad, desplazando el foco de la controversia, de la racionalidad del juicio (o la decisión), a la racionalidad de la interpretación.

Citas

Abusch, Dorit (2002) “Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions”. In Brendan Jackson (ed.), Semantics and linguistic theory (SALT) XII, Ithaca NY: CLC Publications. Resource document. http://conf.ling.cornell.edu/abusch/Abusch-PragmaticPresupposition.pdf. Accessed 4 June 2021.

Bourgeois-Gironde, Sacha, & Giraud, Raphael (2009) “Framing effects as violations of extensionality”. Theory and Decision, 67 (4): 385-404.

Chierchia, Gennaro, Fox, Danny, & Spector, Benjamin (2012) “The grammatical view of scalar implicatures and the relationship between semantics and pragmatics”. In P. Portner, C. Maienborn & K. von Heusinger (eds.) Semantics: an international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Fisher, Sarah A. (2020) “Rationalising framing effects: At least one task for empirically informed philosophy”, Crítica, Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, 52(156) December: 5-30.

Freling, Traci H., Vincent, Leslie H., Henard, David H. (2014) “When not to accentuate the positive: Re-examining valence effects in attribute framing”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(2) July: 95-109.

Gamliel, Eyal., & Kreiner, Hamutal (2019) “Applying fuzzy-trace theory to attribute-framing bias: Gist and verbatim representations of quantitative information”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000741

Gamliel, Eyal, & Kreiner, Hamutal (2013) “Is a picture worth a thousand words? The interaction of visual display and attribute representation in attenuating framing bias”. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), July: 482–491.

Geurts, Bart (2013) “Alternatives in framing and decision making”. Mind and Language, 28(1): 1-19.

Grice, H. Paul (1975) “Logic and conversation”. In P. Cole, & J.L. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and semantics, vol. 3, Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

Ingram, Joanne (2010) Focus, polarity and framing effects. PhD thesis. Resource document. http://theses.gla.ac.uk/1446/. Accessed 15 June 2016. 46

Kahneman, Daniel, & Tversky, Amos (1979) “Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk”. Econometrica, 47(2), March: 263-291.

Kreiner, Hamutal & Gamliel, Eyal (2016) “Looking at both sides of the coin: Mixed representation moderates attribute framing bias in written and auditory messages”. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30: 332–340.

Kreiner, Hamutal & Gamliel, Eyal (2018) “The role of attention in attribute framing”. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31: 392–401.

Kühberger, Anton (1998). “The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1): 23-55.

Larrick, Richard P., Smith, Edward E., & Yates, J. Frank (1992) “Reflecting on the reflection effect: Disrupting the effects of framing through thought”. Paper presented at the Meetings of the society for Judgment and Decision Making, St. Louis, November, MO. 47

Le Menestrel, Marc & van Wassenhove, Luk (2001) “The domain and interpretation of utility functions: An exploration”. Theory and Decision, 51: 329-349.

Leong, L. M., McKenzie, C. R. M., Sher, S., & Müller-Trede, J. (2017) “ The role of inference in attribute framing effects”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30: 1147-1156.

Levin, Irwin P., Schneider, Sandra L., & Gaeth Gary J. (1998) “All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 76(2), November: 149-188.

Levinson, Stephen C. (2000) Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990) “The influence of message framing and issue involvement”. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), August: 361-367.

Mandel, David R. (2001) “Gain-loss framing and choice: separating outcome formulations from descriptor formulations”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85: 56–76.

Mandel, David R. (2008) “Violations of Coherence in Subjective Probability: A Representational and Assessment Processes Account”. Cognition, 106: 130–156.

Mandel, D. R. (2014) “Do framing effects reveal irrational choice?”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3): 1185-1198.

McKenzie, C. R.M., & Nelson, J. D. (2003) “What a speaker’s choice of frame reveals: Reference points, frame selection, and framing effects”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3): 596-602.

Moscati, Ivan, (2012) “Intension, extension, and the model of belief and knowledge in economics”. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 5(2), Autumn: 1-26.

Moxey, L. M. (2006) “Effects of what is expected on the focussing properties of quantifiers: A test of the presupposition-denial account”, Journal of Memory and Language, 55: 422–439.

Moxey, Linda, (2011) “Mechanisms underlying linguistic framing effects”. In G. Keren (ed.) Perspectives on Framing (pp. 119-134), New York: Psychology Press, Tylor & Francis Group.

Piñon, Adelson, & Gambara, Hilda (2005) “A meta-analytic review of framming effect: risky, attribute and goal framing”. Psicothema, 17(2): 325-331.

Recanati, François (2012) “Pragmatic enrichment”. In G. Russell & D. Graff Fara (eds.), Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Language (pp. 67-78), New York: Routledge.

Sanford, Anthony J., Fay, Nicolas, Stewart, Andrew J., & Moxey, Linda M. (2002) “Perspective in statements of quantity, with implications for consumer psychology”. Psychological Science, 13: 130–134.

Sauerland, Uli (2005) “The Epistemic Step”. Resource document. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228949507_The_epistemic_step. Accessed 21 December 2018. 49

Teigen, K. H., & Nikolaisen, M. I. (2009). “Incorrect estimates and false reports: How framing modifies truth”. Thinking & Reasoning, 15(3): 268-293.

Tversky, Amos, & Kahneman, Daniel (1981) “The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice”. Science, 211(4481), January, 30: 453–458.

Tversky, Amos, & Kahneman, Daniel (1991) “Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model”. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107, November: 1039–1061.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.