Running head: IMPROVING MEDIA FRAMING AWARENESS IN CABLE NEWS VIEWERS 1 Improving Media Framing Awareness in Cable News Viewers Using Critical Thinking Aman Siddiqi Columbia College
Jan 04, 2016
Running head: 1
Using Critical
Thinking
Aman Siddiqi
Columbia College
2
Abstract
The general populace forms many of their opinions on politics, business, and science from watching cable
news. Yet cable news channels often provide a highly framed version of events. Two experiments were
conducted on viewer awareness of media framing. The first compared viewer opinions using two news
broadcasts covering the same topic, one framed positively and the other negatively. The second
experiment tested how a critical thinking lesson would impact viewer awareness of media framing. The
results confirmed media framing did have an effect on final viewer conclusions. Viewers felt they were
less impacted by framing effects than the average viewer. Finally, the critical thinking exercises improved
viewer awareness of media framing effects.
Keywords: framing, bias, critical thinking, learning, media
3
Cable news has shifted heavily towards editorialization (Jurkowitz, et al., 2014). Viewers
are presented with a catered selection of facts which are framed in a highly purposeful way.
While this communication style is not new, the wide spread adoption of opinion reporting has
significantly reduced the exposure of viewers to varied viewpoints. With the repeal of the
Fairness Doctrine of 1949 (47 U.S.C. § 76.209, 2010) television broadcasters are no longer
encouraged to remain politically neutral or provide contrasting viewpoints on important issues
(Hendricks, 2008). The political polarization of news “constitutes a threat” (Baldassarri &
Gelman, 2008, p. 409) when it organizes individuals into narrow-minded opposing factions. The
ability of viewers to intelligently consume information is crucial to creating a discerning,
intelligent populace.
News broadcasts employ three types of media framing. Equivalency frames use varied
terminology and wording to describe the same issue (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981; Sher &
McKenzie, 2008; Smith, 1987). By consistently using negatively or positively valenced terms
without changing the overall meaning, speakers can influence the decisions and conclusions
listeners make. Emphasis frames highlight particular aspects of an issue or emphasize specific
facts (Nelson, Clawson, & Oxley, 1997; Dennis & Druckman, 2007). Speakers guide a listener’s
conclusion by emphasizing aspects that support their argument and distracting the viewer from
opposing evidence. Finally, a presenter’s communication style helps frame the story by
influencing the emotional state of the viewer (Luntz, 2007). A charismatic presenter may employ
tone, inflection, emotional or comedic expression to persuade the listener. The presenter can
utilize music, costume, or visual effects to draw the listener’s attention. I refer to this as
presenter framing. In addition to the media’s framing of the message, viewers receive the
4
message through an individual frame (Goffman, 1974). Each individual frames a message within
the mind by focusing on aspects most salient to the individual. In this way two individuals with
opposing viewpoints, for example a pro-life individual and a pro-choice individual, can interpret
the same facts about the same issue differently.
Media framing has previously been explored by showing differently framed news
broadcasts on the same issue to subjects (Nelson, Clawson, & Oxley, 1997). A protest by the Ku
Klux Klan was covered by two news channels. One broadcast framed the protest as an
expression of free speech. The other framed the protest as a disturbance to the public. When
questioned, subjects who watched the “free speech” framed broadcast expressed more tolerance
for the Ku Klux Klan.
However, do cable new viewers have awareness of media framing? Do they believe they
are affected by framing? When subjects are aware of how media framing can affect their
judgment, they can attempt to account for these biases when drawing conclusions. However,
studies have shown subjects tend to downplay the impact bias has on their own judgments
(Pronin, Lin, & Ross, 2002). This is known as the bias blind spot. Do cable news viewers display
the bias blind spot for media framing?
For cable news viewers to intelligently consume information, they must be aware of how
framing can influence or bias the conclusions they draw. Metacognition is a hallmark of critical
thinking. Viewers must keep in mind the impact media framing can have on conclusions they
draw when watching news broadcasts. Critical thinking requires an acknowledgment of the
absence of objectivity.
How can educators help address this problem? Students must learn to question and
examine information presented to them in argument form. When students read a book, hear a
5
lecture or watch a news report, information is often presented to prove a specific viewpoint.
Students need not only the ability, but desire to critique and analyze any argument they hear or
read.
The author conducted two studies on media framing awareness. Study 1 exposed
subjects to one of two news reports on the same smart gun technology. One
broadcast was framed positively and the other negatively. First, the study
measured the effects of media framing on viewer conclusions. Second, the
study measured if subjects think media framing affects other people more
than themselves. Do subjects display the bias blind spot regarding the
effects of media framing, making them unaware of how it is affecting them?
Testing for the bias blind spot differentiates this experiment from prior
research on media framing. The study demonstrates the awareness viewers
have of the effects of media framing.
Study 2 compared an experimental and control group who viewed the
same negatively framed news broadcast. The experimental group completed
a critical thinking lesson plan before viewing the news broadcast. The study explores the ability
to improve awareness of media framing by targeting critical thinking skills. Can a single lesson
encourage subjects to critically listen to the opinions of news broadcaster without blindly
following or ignoring them?
Method: Study 1
Participants
The first study presented an online survey to 201 adults recruited
using Amazon Mechanical Turk. Mechanical Turk workers have been shown to
6
be representative of the U.S. population (Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2012).
Subjects ranged in age from 18 to 67, with 90 females and 111 males.
Subject educational background varied from doctorate to less than high
school educated. Subjects were paid $2 for completing the survey. Any
registered Mechanical Turk worker was eligible to take the survey.
Materials
Measurements were collected for two 4-minute cable news clips. Each
clip reports on the same German smart gun featuring an electronic locking
system. Both clips are heavily framed; Video A against smart guns and Video
B in favor. Video A features coverage from Fox & Friends utilizing a debate
style report with a moderator, a supporter of the smart gun and an opposer
(Fox and Friends, 2014). However, the coverage is heavily slanted against
the smart gun. The moderator openly opposes and even ridicules the gun.
The supporter’s comments are limited to expressing that smart guns should
be further investigated. Video B from MSNBC (All in with Chris Hayes, 2014)
is strongly in favor of smart guns. The report includes an interview with a
military expert citing how the smart gun could have prevented a recent
disaster. The host describes the smart gun as “a giant leap forward” (All in
with Chris Hayes, 2014).
Questionnaire
Subjects were randomly assigned to watch either Video A, the
negatively framed Fox & Friends clip, or Video B, the positively framed
MSNBC clip. After viewing the entire video subjects completed the online
7
questionnaire consisting of three sections. A semantic differential scale was
used in a dropdown menu to answer all questions: 5 (Very much), 4, 3, 2, 1
(Not At All). Section 1 collected information on the subject’s demographics
and personal beliefs. Section 2 measured the subject’s view of smart guns
after watching the assigned video. Section 3 measured the subject’s opinion
on the impact of media framing on viewers of the news broadcast.
Questionnaire: Section 1.
Section 1 of the questionnaire collected the following demographic
information: gender, age, education level, and political ideology. Three
additional questions measured subject opinions on gun control and news
media choices.
What best describes your opinion on gun control legislation?
o More legislation is needed
o Current legislation is sufficient
o Current legislation should be reduced
o Other
What is your primary source for national news?
o Television
o Internet
o Newspaper
o Radio
o Other
8
What is the name of your primary news source? This can be a
television program, network, website, newspaper, radio show, etc.
i.e. 60 minutes, Fox News, Morning Edition, Huffington Post. This
was an open-ended question.
Questionnaire: Section 2.
Section 2 measured subject opinions on smart guns after watching the
news broadcast. These results demonstrate the impact of framing between
Video A and Video B. Section 2 contained the following questions, each using
the semantic differential scale: 5 (Very much), 4, 3, 2, 1 (Not At All).
How familiar were you with firearm smart locking systems before
watching this news broadcast?
How informed on the subject of firearm smart locking systems do you
feel after watching this news broadcast?
How fair and balanced was the news report?
How much do you support the voluntary use of firearm smart locking
systems?
How reliable do you feel firearm smart locking systems are?
How much improvement will firearm smart locking systems bring to
society in your opinion?
How much would you support a legal requirement for all firearms to
include smart locking systems in the future?
9
Questionnaire: Section 3.
Section 3 measured the subject’s opinion on media framing in the
news broadcast. Subjects rated to what degree examples of framing in the
report could impact conclusions on smart guns. The questions for Video A
and Video B were different since the framing examples were unique to each
broadcast. Section 3 began with the following introductory text.
The language and style a reporter uses can influence how
viewers feel about a news story. How much do you believe the
following aspects of the news report could have influenced your
opinion on smart guns; and influenced the opinion of the average
listener?
Each question in Section 3 contained the following two dropdown
menus:
How much could this have influenced your opinion about smart guns?
How much could this have influenced the opinion of the average
listener about smart guns?
Subjects rated the aspects of the news report using the same semantic
differential scale as section 2. The following questions were shown to
subjects who saw Video A (Fox & Friends).
The host opens the discussion with a joke ridiculing the smart gun.
10
Emily Miller said Attorney General Eric Holder wants to “track law
abiding citizens” using smart guns.
The host refers to the wristwatch that unlocks a smart gun as a
bracelet.
Emily Miller states about smart gun technology “we all agree, it’s not
there.”
The following questions were shown to subjects who saw Video B
(MSNBC).
The video begins with several news clips on children killed by
accidental shootings.
Joseph Schmitt says law enforcement officers are “clamoring” for smart
guns.
The host refers to the smart gun as "a massive step forward, like the
iPhone of firearms."
Joseph Schmitt says smart guns would keep guns out of the hands of
“bad guys.”
Method: Study 2
Participants
The second study contained 93 adults recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk.
Subjects were divided into an experimental group containing 49 individuals and a control group
with 44. Subjects ranged in age from 18 to 59, with 49 females and 44 males. Subject
educational background varied from doctorate to less than high school educated. Subjects were
11
paid $2 for completing the survey. Any registered Mechanical Turk worker was eligible to take
the survey.
Procedure
Subjects in the experimental group completed two short exercises as part of a critical
thinking lesson. Following these exercises they watched a four minute video clip from Fox &
Friends discussing firearm smart locking systems (New Gun Control, 2014). This was the same
as Video A in Study 1. The control group watched the news clip without completing the critical
thinking exercises. After watching the video, all subjects completed a qualitative questionnaire.
The experiment measures any impact the critical thinking exercises have on a subject’s ability to
(a) recognize examples of media framing, (b) critique the arguments presented in a news
broadcast and (c) critically consider alternatives to the viewpoints expressed in the clip.
Subjects in the experimental group performed two exercises before watching the news
clip. The first targets the learner’s ability to create alternative arguments and the second creates
familiarity with positive and negative equivalency framing.
Exercise 1: Creating alternative arguments
Subjects gained experience with multiple sound arguments each supported by the same
facts. Subjects were given a set of facts and asked to create an argument that proves a specific
conclusion. The subjects were then asked to write an argument proving an opposing conclusion
using the same facts. Through this exercise subjects were primed on how an argument should not
be blindly accepted simply because it explains a set of facts. By creating alternative arguments,
subjects can more easily recognize when multiple arguments can be equally sound. The full
exercise is below.
12
The same factual information can be interpreted in different ways. There is often no single correct interpretation for data. Please read the sample question, then complete Assignment 1.
Sample Fact 1: A child returns home after the curfew.Fact 2: The parent grounds the child for one week.
Sample Question 1: Write a short argument demonstrating how the parent acted in a caring way.Sample Answer 1: The parent enforces a curfew to keep the child safe. The child does not fully understand how the curfew is for his own benefit. Until he is old enough to understand this the parent must persuade the child to adhere to the curfew. Small punishments are not designed to hurt the child; only to improve adherence to the curfew and keep the child safe. Sample Question 2: Write a short argument demonstrating how the parent acted in a vengeful way.Sample Answer 2: The parent wants strict obedience in all matters from her child. She is insulted the child dare defy the curfew. The parent wants to punish her child for the insult and ensure her future obedience.
Assignment 1Fact 1: An employee arrives late to work.Fact 2: The manager fires the employee for being late.
Question 1: Write a short argument demonstrating how the manager’s action was justified. Answer 1: Question 2: Write a short argument demonstrating how the manager acted unfairly.Answer 2:
Exercise 2: Positive and negative framing
Equivalency frames use terms and wording that express the same meaning, but provoke
either a positive or negative interpretation (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981; Sher & McKenzie,
2006; Smith, 1987). Subjects gained an understanding of how convincing a framed message can
be by crafting their own examples. The activity used a base statement described in a neutral way.
Subjects were asked to re-write the statement in a positive way; then again in a negative way.
The exercise encouraged subjects to think through the same statement using a neutral, positive
13
and negative frame. By crafting their own biased version of the base statement, they could
internalize the impact heavily framed arguments can have. The full exercise is below.
A statement or argument can be framed positively or negatively. Frames change the perspective on an issue. Some frames use loaded terminology to create a biased or extreme perspective. Please read the sample question, then complete Assignment 2.
SampleWrite two versions of the base statement; one negatively framed and the other positively framed.
Base Statement: This car for sale is used. Negatively Framed: This jalopy was already discarded by its first owner. You can pay good money for someone else’s trash.Positively Framed: This pre-owned vehicle was fully enjoyed by its original owner. Now is your chance to have the same fantastic experience.
Assignment 2Write two versions of the base statement; one negatively framed and the other positively framed.
Base Statement: The employee held the same position at the company for twenty years.Write a negatively framed version below.
Write a positively framed version below.
News broadcast
All subjects watched a news broadcast involving a host interviewing two guests; one
representing support and the other opposition for firearm smart locking technology. The
broadcast employs numerous examples of negative framing to sway viewers against smart
locking firearms. For example:
1. The electronic wristwatch that controls a smart weapon is exclusively described as a
“bracelet.”
2. Several jokes are made by the host ridiculing the smart locking technology.
14
3. A clip of Attorney General Eric Holder is misquoted, redirecting the discussion away
from the technology and towards a criticism on mandatory enforcement of smart
locking systems that Eric Holder did not suggest.
4. The guest representing support for smart gun technology was primarily neutral,
providing no evidential support. In reality the debate style interview involved a
strongly opposed guest, an opposed host and a neutral guest.
5. The guest representing support for smart gun technology was given little time to
speak.
6. Both the opposition guest and the host repeatedly claimed firearm smart locking
technology is unreliable and impractical. However, no evidence supporting these
claims was offered. The guest representing support suggested only that further
research on the technology is warranted.
7. The opposition guest and host repeatedly emphasized a scenario in which an intruder
is attacking an unsuspecting home owner who must quickly rush to grab a loaded
firearm and immediately discharge the weapon. This was used as evidence the
electronic wristwatch would be impractical.
Qualitative Survey questions
After watching the news clip all subjects answered three open-ended questions.
1. Did you question any facts, opinions or arguments expressed in the news clip? Please
explain.
2. In your opinion was anything in the clip used to bias the viewer’s opinion of smart
guns either positively or negatively? Please explain.
15
3. Did you think of any alternative arguments or perspectives not mentioned in the clip
while watching the story? Please explain.
Answer coding
The analysis utilized a combination of thematic and axial coding. Codes
described:
Was the type of argument used:
o Specific to the smart gun or concerned broad issues;
o Contained logical fallacies;
o Included a critique of opinions expressed in the news clip?
Was the evidence cited by the subject:
o Described in an answer mentioned in news clip or did the subject
introduce outside information;
o Include specific examples of media framing?
Were media framing examples described as implicit or explicit?
o Were the actors described as purposefully creating a biased
frame, or were their perspectives described as indirectly framing
the argument?
Results
In study 1 the two news broadcasts discussed the same topic. However, they framed the
issue differently. Video A emphasized negative aspects of smart guns and used disparaging
terminology when describing the technology. Video B emphasized positive aspects of smart guns
and described the technology with positive wording. These media frames impacted subject
conclusions. Table 1 displays the mean quantitative response (1-5) to four questions concerning
16
opinions of smart guns. For all four questions, Video B, which was biased in favor, had higher
mean scores.
Table 1
Views on Smart Guns by News Broadcast
Video A(Biased against)
Video B(Biased in favor)
Support the voluntary use of smart guns 3.8 4.5Support legal requirement for smart locking on all guns 2.8 3.8How reliable are smart guns 2.9 3.8How much improvement will smart guns bring to society 3.2 4.1
However, subjects believe the framing effect does not affect them as
much as it does others. Tables 2 and 3 list framing examples from Videos A
and B respectively. Overall subjects said frames would influence the
“average viewer” more than themselves. This is an example of the bias blind
spot (Pronin, Lin, & Ross, 2002) in which individuals recognize a bias, but
believe they are more immune to it than others.
Table 2
Bias Blind Spot for the Framing Effect (Video A)
Influenced the Subject
Would Influence Average Viewer
Host opens the discussion with a joke ridiculing the smart gun. 2.7 3.6Emily Miller said Attorney General Eric Holder wants to “law abiding citizens” using smart guns. 3.2 3.9Host refers to the wristwatch that unlocks a smart gun as a "bracelet." 3.0 3.4
17
Emily Miller states about smart gun technology “we all agree, it’s not there.” 3.3 3.8
Table 3
Bias Blind Spot for the Framing Effect (Video B)
Influenced the Subject
Would Influence Average Viewer
Video begins with news clips on children killed by accidental shootings. 3.6 4.3Joseph Schmitt says law enforcement officers are “clamoring” for smart guns. 3.1 3.6Host refers to the smart gun as "a massive step forward, like the iPhone of firearms." 3.1 3.7Joseph Schmitt says smart guns would keep guns out of the hands of "bad guys." 3.6 4.0
While media frames impacted subject opinions, individual frames also
played a role. Subjects’ pre-existing beliefs on gun control were correlated
with the strength of their support for smart guns. Subjects self-rated their
position on current gun control legislation from “should be reduced” to “is
sufficient” to “more legislation is needed.” Support for smart guns increased
as subjects were more in favor of gun control legislation. Tables 4 and 5 show
this occurred for both the positively and negatively framed broadcast.
Table 4
Mean Rating Per Question by Gun Control View, Video A (Negatively Framed)
Current legislation Current legislation More legislation
18
should be reduced is sufficient is neededSupport the voluntary use of smart guns 3.5 3.7 4Support legal requirement for smart locking on all guns 1.7 2.4 3.4How reliable are smart guns 2 2.7 3.3How much improvement will smart guns bring to society 2.5 2.9 3.6
Table 5
Mean Rating Per Question by Gun Control View, Video B (Positively Framed)
Current legislation should be reduced
Current legislation is sufficient
More legislation is needed
Support the voluntary use of smart guns 4 4.4 4.7Support legal requirement for smart locking on all guns 1.7 3.6 4.2How reliable are smart guns 3.7 3.9 3.8How much improvement will smart guns bring to society 4 3.9 4.3
Study 2 demonstrated the impact two short critical thinking exercises can have on
awareness of media framing. First, when answering the qualitative questions, some subjects
offered no awareness of framing, bias or alternative ideas. Table 6 shows the absence of critical
thinking in the control and experimental groups; lower values are better. The experimental group
showed significantly fewer subjects who provided answers with no media framing awareness.
Table 6
Percentage of Subjects who Displaying an Absence of Critical Thinking
19
Coded answer categories After lesson plan Control group
Did not question anything in the news clip 14% 52%
Did not notice any examples of bias 10% 30%
Thought of no alternative arguments or perspectives 18% 57%
Table 7 shows subjects who critically considered or questioned the broadcast as related to
media framing; higher values are better. Subjects who first performed the exercises demonstrated
improved critical thinking across all coded categories.
Table 7
Percentage of Subjects who Critically Considered or Questioned the Broadcast
Coded answer categories After lesson plan Control group
Questioned the logic of a framed argument in the debate 29% 5%
Wanted the guests to cite sources to support their frame 12% 5%
Voluntarily offered a critique of the video's fairness 18% 5%
Questioned facts presented towards a frame 10% 7%
Proposed an alternative frame or viewpoint not covered in the debate
27% 23%
Critical thinking includes the ability to detect a bias argument. Table 8 shows examples of
bias that were caused by media framing which subjects described in the questionnaire. All values
are higher for the experimental group.
Table 8
Percentage of Subjects Who Identified Examples of Framing that Could Bias Viewers
20
Coded answers categories After lesson plan Control groupThe broadcast was one sided or negatively described smart gun technology 37% 18%
The host and opposed guest repeatedly called into question the reliability of smart guns without evidence 41% 9%
Fear mongering was used in opposition to smart guns 8% 2%
The debate moderator appeared against the technology and did not remaining impartial 12% 5%
The host openly mocked smart gun technology 18% 14%
Conclusions
The impact of media framing on public opinion must be addressed by both educators and
the media. Public opinion on important issues can be influenced by news broadcasts that portray
a topic with a specific valence. Cable news viewers cannot be expected to distill out objective
facts and reach the same conclusion from any news broadcast. Educators and broadcasters must
also recognize the existence of the bias blind spot for the framing effect. While viewers
acknowledge the framing effect exists, they undervalue its effect on themselves. This opens the
door for framed broadcasts to more easily influence the public. Viewers who do not critically
analyzing a broadcaster may not identify biases in the presentation. This is supported by study 2.
Subjects primed to critically analyze the broadcast identified instances of bias and framing more
frequently that the control group. The final take-away from study 2 is hope for improvement. The
experimental group displayed improved awareness of media framing after only 2 short critical
thinking exercises. This indicates two conclusions. First, viewer awareness of media is not fixed.
It can be improved. With training viewers with all education levels show improvement in
critically analyzing media framing. Second, improved awareness of media framing does not
21
require extensive training. The exercises in study 2 took two minutes each on average. Yet
remarkable results were seen. It may be that simply priming viewers to critically view the news
can improve their awareness of media framing. By putting the viewer’s mind into a critically
thinking state, the quality of their information processing may be changed. If broadcasters desire
their reports to be received intelligently, they can begin the broadcast by priming the viewers
towards objectivity. In contrast, Video A began the broadcast immediately questioning the smart
gun’s existence and Video B began with clips of child shooting reports.
This project also adds evidence towards two existing teaching theories. First, critical
thinking can be improved (Twardy, 2004; Van Gelder, 2001). Individuals can heighten the
consideration and analysis they apply to everyday situations. A news broadcast employs various
types of framing in a fluid, real-life situation. Yet, individuals can improve the consideration they
give to argument soundness and identify biasing influences. Second, educators can improve the
results they receive from students on a particular lesson by properly priming the thinking skills
necessary (Johnson, 2000). Thinking skills exercises can prepare a learner to better receive an
educational lesson. Students can engage imagination, memory or critical analysis when primed to
perform the lesson in a specific context. The impact a single critical thinking lesson had on
viewers watching a news broadcast supports the importance of targeting critical thinking in
educational settings.
22
References
47 U.S.C. § 76.209 (2010).
Baldassarri, D., & Gelman, A. E. (2008). Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and
trends in American public opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 114(2), 408-446.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/590649
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating Online Labor Markets for
Experimental Research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis.
doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057
Dennis, C., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive
elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99-118.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. Research
in Political Sociology.
Hendricks, J. (2008). Fairness doctrine. In K. Warren, Encyclopedia of U.S. campaigns,
elections, and electoral behavior (pp. 228-231). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Jurkowitz, M., Hitlin, P., Mitchell, A., Santhanam, L., Adams, S., Anderson, M., & Vogt, N.
(2014). The Changing TV News Landscape. (The Pew Research Center) Retrieved July 3,
2015, from State of the Media.
Luntz, F. (2007). Words that work: Its not what you say, it’s what people hear. New York:
Hyperion.
Nelson, T., Clawson, R., & Oxley, Z. (1997, September). Media framing of a civil liberties
conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance. The American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567-
583.
23
New Gun Control Idea: Weapon Can't Fire Unless User Is Wearing Bracelet [Video file]. (2014,
April 9). Retrieved from http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/04/09/new-gun-control-idea-
weapon-cant-fire-unless-user-wearing-bracelet
Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames.
Cognition, 101(3), 467–494. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2005.11.001
Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. (2008). Framing effects and rationality. The Probabilistic Mind:
Prospects for Bayesian Cognitive Ccience, 79-96.
Smith, T. W. (1987). That which we Call Welfare by any Other Name would Smell. Public
opinion quarterly, 51(1), 75.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.
Science, 211(4481), 453-458.