Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T16:21:40.236Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Framing provides reasons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2022

Neil Levy Open the ORCID record for Neil Levy [Opens in a new window]
Neil Levy*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Macquarie University, Sydney 2109, Australia Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 1PT, UK neil.levy@philosophy.ox.ac.ukhttps://scholar.google.com/citations?user=hqLeZWcAAAAJ&hl=en
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Framing effects are held to be irrational because preferences should remain stable across different descriptions of the same state of affairs. Bermúdez offers one reason why this may be false. I argue for another: If framing provides implicit testimony, then rational agents will alter their preferences accordingly. I show there is evidence that framing should be understood as testimonial.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e233
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.)

References

Carlin, B. I., Gervais, S., & Manso, G. (2013). Libertarian paternalism, information production, and financial decision making. The Review of Financial Studies, 26(9), 2204–2228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2013). Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 223–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, S. A. (2020). Rationalising framing effects: At least one task for empirically informed philosophy. Crítica: Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, 52(156), 5–30.Google Scholar
Fisher, S. A. (2022). Meaning and framing: The semantic implications of psychological framing effects. Inquiry, 65(8), 967–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2020.1810115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., & Selten, R. (2002). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, P. (2012). Trusting what you're told. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J., & Sosa, E. (2006). The epistemology of testimony. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, N. (2019). Nudge, nudge, wink, wink: Nudging is giving reasons. Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 6, 281–302. https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.12405314.0006.010Google ScholarPubMed
Levy, N. (2021). Bad beliefs: Why they happen to good people. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, C. R. M., Liersch, M. J., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2006). Recommendations implicit in policy defaults. Psychological Science, 17(5), 414–420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101(3), 467–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2018). Miserliness in human cognition: The interaction of detection, override and mindware. Thinking & Reasoning, 24(4), 423–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Todd, P. M., & Gigerenzer, G. (2012). Ecological rationality: Intelligence in the world. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar