Çerçeveleme Etkisi Çalışma Belleği Yüküne Direniyor: Bilişsel Yük ve Riskli Karar Verme

Öz

Bu çalışma, bilişsel yükün ve zaman baskısının (ZB) riskli karar vermede çerçeveleme etkisini güçlendirip güçlendirmediğini incelemiştir. Elli yedi genç yetişkin, Asya Hastalığı Problemi’nin bir uyarlamasını düşük ve yüksek çalışma belleği yükü altında (denek içi), 10 sn ya da 40 sn’lik bir yanıt penceresiyle (denekler arası) tamamlamıştır. Güçlü bir çerçeveleme etkisi ortaya çıkmıştır: riskli seçimler kayıp çerçevesinde kazanç çerçevesine kıyasla daha sık yapılmıştır. İki bağımsız kontrol, yük manipülasyonunun bilişsel kaynakları tükettiğini doğrulamıştır; yüksek yük altında çalışma belleği doğruluğu düşmüş, öznel zihinsel çaba artmıştır. Buna karşın bilişsel yük çerçeveleme etkisini güçlendirmemiş, bir eşdeğerlik testi de en az orta büyüklükte bir etkileşimi dışlamıştır. Kısa yanıt penceresi kararları hızlandırmadığı için ZB’nin rolü test edilememiştir. Yüksek yük altında kısa pencere verilen grubun çalışma belleği doğruluğu daha yüksektir; bu fark karar hızı ya da tutma süresiyle açıklanamamakta ve zaman baskısına bağlanamamaktadır. Bu bulgular, çerçevelemeye yatkınlığı mevcut bilişsel kaynakların doğrudan bir işlevi olarak gören açıklamaları sınırlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• çerçeveleme etkisi
• bilişsel yük
• zaman baskısı
• riskli karar verme
• çalışma belleği

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışma, insan katılımcıları içeren araştırmalara ilişkin etik standartlara uygun olarak yürütülmüştür. Tüm prosedürler, Işık Üniversitesi Etik Kurulu tarafından onaylanmıştır. Veri toplama işleminden önce tüm katılımcılardan bilgilendirilmiş onam alınmış ve çalışma boyunca katılımcıların anonimliği ile gizliliği güvence altına alınmıştır.

Framing Survives a Working Memory Load: Cognitive Load and Risky Choice

Öz

This study examined whether cognitive load and time pressure (TP) amplify the framing effect in risky decision-making. Fifty-seven young adults completed an Asian Disease Problem variant under low and high working-memory load (within subjects), with either a 10-s or a 40-s response window (between subjects). A robust framing effect emerged. Risky choices were more frequent in the loss frame than in the gain frame. Two independent checks confirmed that the load manipulation consumed cognitive resources, as working-memory accuracy fell and subjective mental effort rose under high load. Nevertheless, load did not amplify framing, and an equivalence test ruled out an interaction of at least medium size. The shorter window did not shorten decisions, so the role of TP could not be tested. Under high load, the group given the shorter window showed higher working-memory accuracy, a difference not explained by decision speed or retention interval and not attributable to time pressure. These results constrain accounts that treat susceptibility to framing as a direct function of available cognitive resources.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• framing effect
• cognitive load
• time pressure
• risky decision-making
• working memory

Etik Beyan

This study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards for research involving human participants. All procedures were approved by Isik University's Ethics Committee. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection, and participant anonymity and confidentiality were ensured throughout the study.

Kaynakça

1. Bogdanov, Boris, Jonathan Corbin, Sabina Dobreva, Todd McElroy and Nikolay R. Rachev (2023). “Working Memory Capacity and the Risky-Choice Framing Effect: A Preregistered Replication and Extension of Corbin et al. (2010)”, Judgment and Decision Making, 18: e39. https://doi.org/10.1017/jdm.2023.40
2. Corbin, Jonathan C., Todd McElroy and Cassie Black (2010). “Memory Reflected in Our Decisions: Higher Working Memory Capacity Predicts Greater Bias in Risky Choice”, Judgment and Decision Making, 5 (2): 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500000966
3. Cowan, Nelson (2001). “The Magical Number 4 in Short-Term Memory: A Reconsideration of Mental Storage Capacity”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24 (1): 87–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01003922
4. De Neys, Wim (2006). “Dual Processing in Reasoning: Two Systems but One Reasoner”, Psychological Science, 17 (5): 428–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01723.x
5. Diederich, Adele, Marc Wyszynski and Ilana Ritov (2018). “Moderators of Framing Effects in Variations of the Asian Disease Problem: Time Constraint, Need, and Disease Type”, Judgment and Decision Making, 13 (6): 529–546. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500006574
6. Evans, Jonathan St. B. T. and Keith E. Stanovich (2013). “Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8 (3): 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685
7. Faul, Franz, Edgar Erdfelder, Albert-Georg Lang and Axel Buchner (2007). “G*Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences”, Behavior Research Methods, 39 (2): 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
8. Figner, Bernd and Elke U. Weber (2011). “Who Takes Risks When and Why?”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20 (4): 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411415790

9. Frederick, Shane (2005). “Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19 (4): 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533005775196732
10. Gallagher, Kristel M. and John A. Updegraff (2012). “Health Message Framing Effects on Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review”, Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43 (1): 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7
11. Gong, Jingjing, Yan Zhang, Zheng Yang, Yonghua Huang, Jun Feng and Weiwei Zhang (2013). “The Framing Effect in Medical Decision-Making: A Review of the Literature”, Psychology, Health & Medicine, 18 (6): 645–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2013.766352
12. Guo, Lisa, Jennifer S. Trueblood and Adele Diederich (2017). “Thinking Fast Increases Framing Effects in Risky Decision Making”, Psychological Science, 28 (4): 530–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616689092
13. Hinson, John M., Paul Whitney, Cristina G. Wilson and Amy T. Nusbaum (2019). “Working Memory Loads Differentially Influence Frame-Induced Bias and Normative Choice in Risky Decision Making”, PLOS ONE, 14 (3): e0214571. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214571
14. JASP Team (2026). JASP (Version 0.98.0) [Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org/
15. Keysar, Boaz, Sayuri L. Hayakawa and Sun Gyu An (2012). “The Foreign-Language Effect: Thinking in a Foreign Tongue Reduces Decision Biases”, Psychological Science, 23 (6): 661–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611432178
16. Kocher, Martin G. and Matthias Sutter (2006). “Time Is Money—Time Pressure, Incentives, and the Quality of Decision-Making”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 61 (3): 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2004.11.013
17. Kühberger, Anton (1998). “The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-Analysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75 (1): 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2781
18. Kühberger, Anton (2023). “A Systematic Review of Risky-Choice Framing Effects”, EXCLI Journal, 22: 1012–1031. https://doi.org/10.17179/excli2023-6169
19. Lakens, Daniël (2017). “Equivalence Tests: A Practical Primer for t Tests, Correlations, and Meta-Analyses”, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8 (4): 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617697177
20. Levin, Irwin P., Gary J. Gaeth, Judy Schreiber and Marco Lauriola (2002). “A New Look at Framing Effects: Distribution of Effect Sizes, Individual Differences, and Independence of Types of Effects”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88 (1): 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2983
21. Levinson, Daniel B., Jonathan Smallwood and Richard J. Davidson (2012). “The Persistence of Thought: Evidence for a Role of Working Memory in the Maintenance of Task-Unrelated Thinking”, Psychological Science, 23 (4): 375–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611431465
22. Maule, A. John, G. Robert J. Hockey and L. Bdzola (2000). “Effects of Time-Pressure on Decision-Making under Uncertainty: Changes in Affective State and Information Processing Strategy”, Acta Psychologica, 104 (3): 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(00)00033-0
23. Mishra, Sandeep (2014). “Decision-Making Under Risk: Integrating Perspectives from Biology, Economics, and Psychology”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18 (3): 280–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314530517
24. Paas, Fred G. W. C. (1992). “Training Strategies for Attaining Transfer of Problem-Solving Skill in Statistics: A Cognitive-Load Approach”, Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (4): 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429
25. Peirce, Jonathan, Jeremy R. Gray, Sol Simpson, Michael MacAskill, Richard Höchenberger, Hiroyuki Sogo, Erik Kastman and Jonas Kristoffer Lindeløv (2019). “PsychoPy2: Experiments in Behavior Made Easy”, Behavior Research Methods, 51 (1): 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
26. Roberts, Ian D., Yi Yang Teoh and Cendri A. Hutcherson (2022). “Time to Pay Attention? Information Search Explains Amplified Framing Effects Under Time Pressure”, Psychological Science, 33 (1): 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211026983
27. Sweller, John (1988). “Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning”, Cognitive Science, 12 (2): 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
28. Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman (1981). “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice”, Science, 211 (4481): 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
29. Whitney, Paul, Christa A. Rinehart and John M. Hinson (2008). “Framing Effects Under Cognitive Load: The Role of Working Memory in Risky Decisions”, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15 (6): 1179–1184. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.6.1179
30. Zanesco, Anthony P., Ekaterina Denkova and Amishi P. Jha (2024). “Mind-Wandering Increases in Frequency over Time During Task Performance: An Individual-Participant Meta-Analytic Review”, Psychological Bulletin, 151 (2): 217–239. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000424