Pseudo-Set Framing

Kate  Barasz; Leslie  John; Elizabeth A. Keenan; Michael I. Norton

Article | Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Pseudo-Set Framing

by Kate Barasz, Leslie John, Elizabeth A. Keenan and Michael I. Norton

Abstract

Pseudo-set framing—arbitrarily grouping items or tasks together as part of an apparent “set”—motivates people to reach perceived completion points. Pseudo-set framing changes gambling choices (Study 1), effort (Studies 2 and 3), giving behavior (Field Data and Study 4), and purchase decisions (Study 5). These effects persist in the absence of any reward, when a cost must be incurred, and after participants are explicitly informed of the arbitrariness of the set. Drawing on Gestalt psychology, we develop a conceptual account that predicts what will—and will not—act as a pseudo-set and defines the psychological process through which these pseudo-sets affect behavior, concluding that over and above typical reference points, pseudo-set framing alters perceptions of (in)completeness, making intermediate progress seem less complete. In turn, these feelings of incompleteness motivate people to persist until the pseudo-set has been fulfilled.

Keywords: framing effects; Gestalt psychology; judgment; decision making; perception; Judgments; Decision Making; Perception; Behavior;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard Read Now

Citation:

Barasz, Kate, Leslie John, Elizabeth A. Keenan, and Michael I. Norton. "Pseudo-Set Framing." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 146, no. 10 (October 2017): 1460–1477.

By adding random noise to individual responses, randomized response techniques (RRTs) are intended to enhance privacy protection and encourage honest disclosure of sensitive information. Empirical findings on their success in doing so are, however, mixed. In nine experiments, we show that the noise introduced by RRTs can make respondents concerned that innocuous responses will be interpreted as admissions, and, as a result, yield prevalence estimates that are lower than direct questioning (Studies 1–4, 5A, & 6), less accurate than direct questioning (Studies 1, 3, 4B, & 5A), and even nonsensical (i.e., negative, Studies 3–6). Studies 2A and 2B show that the paradox is eliminated when the target behavior is socially desirable, even when it is merely framed as such. Study 3 shows the paradox is driven by respondents’ concerns over response misinterpretation. A simple modification designed to reduce concerns over response misinterpretation reduces the problem (Studies 4 & 5), particularly when such concerns are heightened (Studies 5 & 6).

Governments have proposed text warning labels to decrease consumption of sugary drinks – a contributor to chronic diseases like diabetes. However, they may be less effective than more evocative, graphic warning labels. We field-tested the effectiveness of graphic warning labels (vs. text warning labels, calorie labels, and no labels), provided insight into psychological mechanisms driving effectiveness, and assessed consumer sentiment. Study 1 indicated that graphic warning labels reduced the share of sugary drinks purchased in a cafeteria, from 21.4% at baseline to 18.2%—an effect driven by substitution of water for sugary drinks. Study 2 showed that graphic warning labels work by heightening negative affect and prompting consideration of health consequences. Study 3 indicated that public support for graphic warning labels can be increased by conveying effectiveness information. These findings could spur more effective labeling policies that: facilitate healthier choices, do not decrease overall beverage purchases, and are publicly accepted.

Faculty & Research

Pseudo-Set Framing

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors