Systematic analysis of framing bias in missile defense: Implications toward visualization design

Sungsoon Park, Ling Rothrock

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper examines the effects of framing on decision making in a homeland missile defense context across three tasks of varying complexity. Mathematically, each task was modeled as abstractions from a common resource allocation task. Logically, therefore, the effects of framing on human subjects should have been consistent across all the tasks. In the first experiment, a simple lottery was used to determine risk postures in a single-attribute case of missile defense. Results showed that, consistent with Prospect Theory, positive framing promotes risk-averse behavior whereas negative framing promotes risk-seeking behavior. In the second experiment, we used the Analytic Hierarchy Process to determine subject rankings in a multi-attribute case of missile defense. Results suggest that subjects' performances under positive framing were significantly better than performances under negative framing. In the third experiment, we used a human-in-the-loop simulation to elicit human decisions in a missile defense resource allocation task. In comparison to the other experiments, the framing effect in the third experiment was diminished. We submit that decision biases detected in a simple choice task cannot be assumed to carry over to tasks of greater complexity even if the underlying mathematical formulation for all the tasks is the same. Moreover, we submit that the design of the graphical interface has a greater influence on human judgment bias than framing in tasks of higher complexity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1383-1398
Number of pages16
JournalEuropean Journal of Operational Research
Volume182
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2007

Fingerprint

Missile
Missiles
Visualization
Experiment
Resource Allocation
Experiments
Resource allocation
Attribute
Prospect Theory
Lottery
Analytic hierarchy process
Analytic Hierarchy Process
Ranking
Decision making
Decision Making
Design
Human
Formulation
Simulation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Modeling and Simulation
  • Management Science and Operations Research
  • Information Systems and Management

Cite this

@article{25925e5d2b434f94b78fc3ceceb7fd84,
title = "Systematic analysis of framing bias in missile defense: Implications toward visualization design",
abstract = "This paper examines the effects of framing on decision making in a homeland missile defense context across three tasks of varying complexity. Mathematically, each task was modeled as abstractions from a common resource allocation task. Logically, therefore, the effects of framing on human subjects should have been consistent across all the tasks. In the first experiment, a simple lottery was used to determine risk postures in a single-attribute case of missile defense. Results showed that, consistent with Prospect Theory, positive framing promotes risk-averse behavior whereas negative framing promotes risk-seeking behavior. In the second experiment, we used the Analytic Hierarchy Process to determine subject rankings in a multi-attribute case of missile defense. Results suggest that subjects' performances under positive framing were significantly better than performances under negative framing. In the third experiment, we used a human-in-the-loop simulation to elicit human decisions in a missile defense resource allocation task. In comparison to the other experiments, the framing effect in the third experiment was diminished. We submit that decision biases detected in a simple choice task cannot be assumed to carry over to tasks of greater complexity even if the underlying mathematical formulation for all the tasks is the same. Moreover, we submit that the design of the graphical interface has a greater influence on human judgment bias than framing in tasks of higher complexity.",
author = "Sungsoon Park and Ling Rothrock",
year = "2007",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ejor.2006.07.043",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "182",
pages = "1383--1398",
journal = "European Journal of Operational Research",
issn = "0377-2217",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

Systematic analysis of framing bias in missile defense : Implications toward visualization design. / Park, Sungsoon; Rothrock, Ling.

In: European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 182, No. 3, 01.11.2007, p. 1383-1398.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Systematic analysis of framing bias in missile defense

T2 - Implications toward visualization design

AU - Park, Sungsoon

AU - Rothrock, Ling

PY - 2007/11/1

Y1 - 2007/11/1

N2 - This paper examines the effects of framing on decision making in a homeland missile defense context across three tasks of varying complexity. Mathematically, each task was modeled as abstractions from a common resource allocation task. Logically, therefore, the effects of framing on human subjects should have been consistent across all the tasks. In the first experiment, a simple lottery was used to determine risk postures in a single-attribute case of missile defense. Results showed that, consistent with Prospect Theory, positive framing promotes risk-averse behavior whereas negative framing promotes risk-seeking behavior. In the second experiment, we used the Analytic Hierarchy Process to determine subject rankings in a multi-attribute case of missile defense. Results suggest that subjects' performances under positive framing were significantly better than performances under negative framing. In the third experiment, we used a human-in-the-loop simulation to elicit human decisions in a missile defense resource allocation task. In comparison to the other experiments, the framing effect in the third experiment was diminished. We submit that decision biases detected in a simple choice task cannot be assumed to carry over to tasks of greater complexity even if the underlying mathematical formulation for all the tasks is the same. Moreover, we submit that the design of the graphical interface has a greater influence on human judgment bias than framing in tasks of higher complexity.

AB - This paper examines the effects of framing on decision making in a homeland missile defense context across three tasks of varying complexity. Mathematically, each task was modeled as abstractions from a common resource allocation task. Logically, therefore, the effects of framing on human subjects should have been consistent across all the tasks. In the first experiment, a simple lottery was used to determine risk postures in a single-attribute case of missile defense. Results showed that, consistent with Prospect Theory, positive framing promotes risk-averse behavior whereas negative framing promotes risk-seeking behavior. In the second experiment, we used the Analytic Hierarchy Process to determine subject rankings in a multi-attribute case of missile defense. Results suggest that subjects' performances under positive framing were significantly better than performances under negative framing. In the third experiment, we used a human-in-the-loop simulation to elicit human decisions in a missile defense resource allocation task. In comparison to the other experiments, the framing effect in the third experiment was diminished. We submit that decision biases detected in a simple choice task cannot be assumed to carry over to tasks of greater complexity even if the underlying mathematical formulation for all the tasks is the same. Moreover, we submit that the design of the graphical interface has a greater influence on human judgment bias than framing in tasks of higher complexity.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34248163418&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34248163418&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ejor.2006.07.043

DO - 10.1016/j.ejor.2006.07.043

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:34248163418

VL - 182

SP - 1383

EP - 1398

JO - European Journal of Operational Research

JF - European Journal of Operational Research

SN - 0377-2217

IS - 3

ER -