0
Technical Brief

A Study on Outcome Framing and Risk Attitude in Engineering Decisions Under Uncertainty

[+] Author and Article Information
Sean D. Vermillion

Design Systems Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843
e-mail: sdvermillion@tamu.edu

Richard J. Malak

Design Systems Laboratory,
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843
e-mail: rmalak@tamu.edu

Rachel Smallman

Social Cognition Lab,
Department of Psychology,
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843
e-mail: rsmallman@tamu.edu

Julie Linsey

Innovation, Design Reasoning,
Engineering Education and Method Lab,
George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering,
Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta, GA 30313
e-mail: julie.linsey@me.gatech.edu

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Design Automation Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF MECHANICAL DESIGN. Manuscript received September 21, 2014; final manuscript received April 14, 2015; published online June 8, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Harrison M. Kim.

J. Mech. Des 137(8), 084501 (Aug 01, 2015) (4 pages) Paper No: MD-14-1629; doi: 10.1115/1.4030434 History: Received September 21, 2014; Revised April 14, 2015; Online June 08, 2015

Decision making is a central activity in the design of an engineered system and has a significant impact on project outcomes. Although much research exists on engineering decision making, relatively little addresses behavioral aspects of how engineers make decisions. This is a potentially significant gap, as factors such as the way in which information is communicated and presented to engineers can matter greatly. For example, cognitive psychology has demonstrated that the choices people make can be strongly influenced by how the options are framed even when the different framings are mathematically equivalent. This paper explores the impact of framing on the types of decisions engineers face. Given engineers' intense mathematical training, it is possible that they are less susceptible to framing effects. Thus, there is motivation to determine whether relevant findings can be replicated in an engineering context. This paper presents a set of positively and negatively framed design scenarios. Consistent with prior experiments, engineers in the positive (gain) framed scenarios were more likely to choose the less risky option for three of the four scenarios. One of the scenarios did not show this bias but did include a longer time horizon which likely explains the difference. Engineers were risk neutral when the scenarios were presented negatively (loss) framed, which is in contrast to prior experiments on nonengineering populations. These results motivate the future research into the impact of framing on engineering decision making and effective guidelines on how to create engineering processes and tools that leverage or avoid inducing cognitive biases.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D., 1981, “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science, 211(4481), pp. 453–458. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D., 1986, “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,” J. Bus., 59(4), pp. S251–S278. [CrossRef]
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., and Gaeth, G. J., 1998, “All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects,” Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes, 76(2), pp. 149–188. [CrossRef]
Mittal, V., and Ross, W. T., Jr., 1998, “The Impact of Positive and Negative Affect and Issue Framing on Issue Interpretation and Risk Taking,” Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes, 76(3), pp. 298–324. [CrossRef]
Von Neumann, J., and Morgenstern, O., 2007, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H., 1993, Decisions With Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK.
Pratt, J. W., 1964, “Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large,” Econometrica, 32(1/2), pp. 122–136. [CrossRef]
Hazelrigg, G. A., 1998, “A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 120(4), pp. 653–658. [CrossRef]
Hazelrigg, G. A., 2012, Fundamentals of Decision Making for Engineering Design and Systems Engineering, (online). https://zykudulusi.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/fundamentals-of-decision-making-for-engineering-design-and-systems-engineering.pdf
Thurston, D., 1990, “Multiattribute Utility Analysis in Design Management,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., 37(4), pp. 296–301. [CrossRef]
Thurston, D. L., 1991, “A Formal Method for Subjective Design Evaluation With Multiple Attributes,” Res. Eng. Des., 3(2), pp. 105–122. [CrossRef]
Thurston, D. L., 2001, “Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design With Utility Analysis,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 123(2), pp. 176–182. [CrossRef]
Abbas, A. E., and Matheson, J. E., 2005, “Normative Target-Based Decision Making,” Manage. Decis. Econ., 26(6), pp. 373–385. [CrossRef]
Abbas, A. E., 2013, “Normative Perspectives on Engineering Systems Design,” Proceedings of the IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon), Orlando, FL, pp. 37–42.
Morrow, W. R., Mineroff, J., and Whitefoot, K. S., 2014, “Numerically Stable Design Optimization With Price Competition,” ASME J. Mech. Des., 136(8), p. 081002. [CrossRef]
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A., 1979, “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk,” Econometrica, 47(2), pp. 263–291. [CrossRef]
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D., 1992, “Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty,” J. Risk Uncertainty, 5(4), pp. 297–323. [CrossRef]
Markowitz, H., 1952, “Portfolio Selection,” J. Finance, 7(1), pp. 77–91.
Scholten, M., and Read, D., 2014, “Prospect Theory and the “Forgotten” Fourfold Pattern of Risk Preferences,” J. Risk Uncertainty, 48(1), pp. 1–17. [CrossRef]
Bohm, P., and Lind, H., 1992, “A Note on the Robustness of a Classical Framing Result,” J. Econ. Psychol., 13(2), pp. 355–361. [CrossRef]
Miller, P. M., and Fagley, N. S., 1991, “The Effects of Framing, Problem Variations, and Providing Rationale on Choice,” Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 17(5), pp. 517–522. [CrossRef]
Fagley, N. S., and Miller, P. M., 1997, “Framing Effects and Arenas of Choice: Your Money or Your Life?,” Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes, 71(3), pp. 355–373. [CrossRef]
De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., and Dolan, R. J., 2006, “Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain,” Science, 313(5787), pp. 684–687. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jou, J., Shanteau, J., and Harris, R. J., 1996, “An Information Processing View of Framing Effects: The Role of Causal Schemas in Decision Making,” Mem. Cognit., 24(1), pp. 1–15. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fagley, N., and Miller, P. M., 1990, “The Effect of Framing on Choice Interactions With Risk-Taking Propensity, Cognitive Style, and Sex,” Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 16(3), pp. 496–510. [CrossRef]
Kim, S., Goldstein, D., Hasher, L., and Zacks, R. T., 2005, “Framing Effects in Younger and Older Adults,” J. Gerontol., Ser. B, 60(4), pp. P215–P218. [CrossRef]
Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C., Mazzocco, K., and Dickert, S., 2006, “Numeracy and Decision Making,” Psychol. Sci., 17(5), pp. 407–413. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Liberman, N., and Trope, Y., 1998, “The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory,” J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 75(1), pp. 5–18. [CrossRef]
Sagristano, M. D., Trope, Y., and Liberman, N., 2002, “Time-Dependent Gambling: Odds Now, Money Later,” J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen., 131(3), pp. 364–376. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Steinhart, Y., Carmon, Z., and Trope, Y., 2013, “Warnings of Adverse Side Effects Can Backfire Over Time,” Psychol. Sci., 24(9), pp. 1843–1847. [CrossRef]

Figures

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In