Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-4ws75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T12:54:18.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The framing of decisions “leaks” into the experiencing of decisions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2022

Barry Schwartz Open the ORCID record for Barry Schwartz [Opens in a new window]  and
Nathan N. Cheek Open the ORCID record for Nathan N. Cheek [Opens in a new window]
Barry Schwartz
Affiliation:
Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA bschwar1@swarthmore.edu https://haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/schwartz-barry/
Nathan N. Cheek
Affiliation:
Peretsman Scully Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA nncheek@princeton.edu https://www.natecheek.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We connect Bermúdez's arguments to previous theorizing about “leaky” rationality, emphasizing that the decision process (including decision frames) “leaks” into the experience of decision outcomes. We suggest that the implications of Bermúdez's analysis are broadly applicable to the study of virtually all real-world decision making, and that the field needs a substantive and not just a formal theory of rationality.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e239
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Frisch, D. (1993). Reasons for framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 399–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, D. T., & Ebert, J. E. (2002). Decisions and revisions: The affective forecasting of changeable outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 503–514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gladwell, M. (2005). Blink: The power of thinking without thinking. Little Brown.Google Scholar
Hall, C. C., Zhao, J., & Shafir, E. (2014). Self-affirmation among the poor: Cognitive and behavioral implications. Psychological Science, 25, 619–625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995–1006.Google ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. (1994). New challenges to the rationality assumption. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 150, 18–36.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keys, D. J., & Schwartz, B. (2007). “Leaky” rationality: How research on behavioral decision making challenges normative standards of rationality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 162–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanford, A. J., Fay, N., Stewart, A., & Moxey, L. (2002). Perspective in statements of quantity, with implications for consumer psychology. Psychological Science, 13, 130–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwartz, B. (1994). The costs of living: How market freedom erodes the best things in life. Norton.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. (2016). The paradox of choice: Why more is less (2nd ed.). Ecco Press.Google Scholar