Incorrect estimates and false reports: How framing modifies truth
Incorrect estimates and false reports: How framing modifies truth
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/13546780903020999
复制
发表时间：
2009-06
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
K. Teigen;Mija Ilic Nikolaisen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Teigen;Mija Ilic Nikolaisen
迄今为止，几乎所有的框架研究都以无偏估计为前提。如果一位专家说“方案A将拯救200人”，人们就默认这一预测是正确的。在真实的生活中，情况很少如此。在目前的研究中，人们被要求评估这些最终被证明是不正确的说法。在五个实验中，参与者被要求评估预测和报告的正确性和真实性，无论是夸大还是低估事实。总体而言，轻描淡写被认为比夸大更准确，悲观的陈述比过于乐观的陈述更好。因此，结果比预期的更好的结果的预测应该优选地在积极的框架中呈现（例如，节省的钱），而如果预测是在负面框架中呈现的，则结果比预期的更差的结果将显得不那么“错误”（例如，金钱损失）。平行研究是用错误的预测和不正确的事实主张（谎言）进行的。在所有的研究中，正确性评级都受到陈述方式的影响。
Nearly all framing studies to date presuppose unbiased estimates. If an expert says that “programme A will save 200 people”, it is tacitly assumed that this prediction is correct. In real life this is rarely the case. In the present study people were asked to evaluate such claims that eventually turned out to be incorrect. Participants in five experiments were asked to rate how correct, and how true, are predictions and reports that either overstate or understate the facts. Overall, understatements were considered more accurate than overstatements, and pessimistic statements were better than overly optimistic ones. Thus predictions of an outcome that turns out better than expected should preferably have been presented in a positive frame (e.g., money saved), whereas outcomes that turn out worse than expected will appear less “wrong” if predictions were presented in a negative frame (e.g., money lost). Parallel studies were performed with wrong predictions and incorrect factual claims (lies). In all studies, correctness ratings were affected by the way the statements were framed.