Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T13:05:09.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Framing is a motivated process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2022

George Ainslie Open the ORCID record for George Ainslie [Opens in a new window]
George Ainslie*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Coatesville, PA 19320, USA George.Ainslie@va.govwww.picoeconomics.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Frames group choices into categories, thus modifying the incentives for them. This effect makes framing itself a motivated choice rather than a neutral cognition. In particular, framing an inferior choice with a high short-term payoff as part of a broad category of choices recruits incentive to reject it; but this must be motivated by its being a test case.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e221
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

Ainslie, G. (1975). Specious reward: A behavioral theory of impulsiveness and impulse control. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 463–496. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0076860CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ainslie, G. (1992). Picoeconomics: The strategic interaction of successive motivational states within the person. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ainslie, G. (2001). Breakdown of will. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainslie, G. (2013). Grasping the impalpable: The role of endogenous reward in choices, including process addictions. Inquiry, 56, 446–469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2013.806129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainslie, G. (2017). De gustibus disputare: Hyperbolic delay discounting integrates five approaches to choice. Journal of Economic Methodology, 24(2), 166–189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2017.1309748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainslie, G. (2021). Willpower with and without effort. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 44, e30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X20000357Google ScholarPubMed
Ainslie, G. (in press). The behavioral construction of the future. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors.Google Scholar
Dell, P. F. (2009). Understanding dissociation. In Dell, P. F. & O'Neil, J. A. (Eds.), Dissociation and the dissociative disorders: DSM-V and beyond (pp. 709–825). Routledge.Google Scholar
Fujita, K. (2011). On conceptualizing self-control as more than the effortful inhibition of impulses. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 352–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868311411165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilead, M., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2020). Above and beyond the concrete: The diverse representational substrates of the predictive brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 43, e121, 1–74. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x19002000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mischel, W. (2014). The marshmallow test: Understanding self-control and how to master it. Bantam.Google Scholar
Montague, P. R., & Berns, G. S. (2002). Neural economics and the biological substrates of valuation. Neuron, 36, 265–284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(02)00974-1CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rachlin, H. (1995). Self-control: Beyond commitment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 109–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00037602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachlin, H. (2016). Self-control based on soft commitment. The Behavior Analyst, 3, 259–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40614-016-0054-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, D., Lowenstein, G., & Rabin, M. (1999). Choice bracketing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19(1), 171–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007879411489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redish, A. D. (2016). Vicarious trial and error. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 17, 147–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn.2015.30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shizgal, P., & Conover, K. (1996). On the neural computation of utility. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 37–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10772715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018963CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed