Prospect theory
Kahneman & Tversky (1979, 1981) Asian Disease Problem "risky choice framing"
Levin & Gaeth (1988) lean/fat % in ground beef "tktk framing"

Levin "attribute framing"
within-subject design is preferable, but harder to implement
take the framing task and intertwine the methods into one big survey and have ppl come back twice to preclude having both sides of the frame appear within the same test instance

Levin's most-cited paper differentiates bt risky-choice, attribute, and goal/message framing
group-level effects-->do they apply to the individual
started looking for systematic sources of individual framing effects

Stanovich & West looked at individual differences
those who score higher on cognitive ability are less prone to framing effects
Conclusion: You and I make different decisions because we have different backgrounds and dispositions that make us see things differently.

Shane Frederick CPT scores higher CPTers have higher reflection effects

Payne et al.- (2012)-> estimates of life expectancy
extension of Levin's attribute training
probability of living to versus dying by a certain age
Eric Johnson on query theory
"live to" solicits different thoughts than the "die by" framing

resistance to framing as a component of decision making confidence

dual-process models
Reyna & Brainerd (2011) Fuzzy Trace Theory

differential reactions to uncertain gains and losses
Iowa Gambling Task

Cups Task-->first application to children
expected value calculation
also a learning task
they know in advance they will have multiple trials
framing effects research in decision neuroscience (Damasio's Somatic Markers Hypothesis)

current studies
The developmental trajectory of risky decision making and framing effects
rationale: Those areas of the brain shown by Damasio and Bechara to be critical for processing affective stimuli have protracted development in comparison to thise areas of the brain involved in reward processing. This has been used to explain heightened risk taking in children and adolescents. They examine the underlying processes by using tasks and measures that differently tap into cognitive and affective processing systems.
method: series of decision making tasks including risky choice framing, attribute framing, and cups. also given a series of dispositional measures designed to access individual differences in cognitive ability (e.g., numeracy) and affective reactivity (e.g., surgency)

results: dispositional factors were predictably correlated with task measures assumed to tap into cognitive and affective components of decision making; age-related differences including risk-taking in the risky choice framing task and the cups task, and sensitivity to expected value differences between risky and riskless choice options in the cups task; numeracy as a complete mediator of the effect of age on sensitivity to expected value differences.

numeracy mediates the age effect ability to differentiate expected value

Levin is working with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)

fewer framing effects because they are less sensitive to the emotional tone of the label; focus on the verbatim rather the presentation