Do versus Don’t: The Impact of Framing on Goal-Level Setting

The consumer behavior literature extensively studied the impact of goal setting on behavior and performance. However, much less is known about the antecedents of goal-level setting—consumers’ decision of whether to work out twice or three times per week. Consumers can decide how many goal-consistent activities to undertake (“goal-consistent decision frame”; such as exercising two days per week) or to forego (“goal-inconsistent decision frame”; such as not exercising five days per week). While objectively the same decision, we argue that these different frames impact consumers’ ambition. Making a decision to forego goal-consistent activities triggers negative, self-evaluative emotions and to compensate for these unfavorable self-evaluations, consumers set more ambitious goal levels. Across a variety of contexts, consumers are more ambitious when their focal decision is inconsistent with goal achievement. For instance, they decide to work out more often when they decide how many work-out sessions they would skip (vs. attend). The impact of goal-inconsistent decision framing is mitigated when the activity is less instrumental toward goal achievement, and when negative self-evaluative emotions are alleviated through self-affirmation.

When to Walk Away and When to Risk It All

While one might expect athletes to be strongly averse to extending their career too long when there is a chance of losing everything due to a concussion or a catastrophic injury, experimental subjects consistently played longer than the optimal amount for risk-neutral decisions. A commitment to the length of play in advance, as in the case of long-term contracts, led to a greater chance of staying beyond the expected payoff-maximizing point. If the decision frame is altered so that decisions are made in each period rather than through an upfront commitment, the magnitude of potential losses is more evident.

‘Post-decision Decision-making’

This chapter examines the Criminal Cases Review Commission's policy on post-decision decision-making, focusing on what happens in cases when the Commission has decided there are no grounds for referral but where the applicant comes back with further information or a new application to try to persuade the Commission that its decision was wrong. The chapter first describes the legitimacy of the Commission's post-decision decision-making before discussing its instrumental decision-making based on referrals, judicial review, and procedural justice. It then shows how the Commission responds to ‘further submissions’ or ‘reapplications’, and how they provide applicants with an opportunity to have their cases reconsidered. It also analyses the empirical and theoretical drivers that underpin the Commission's decision field, the new ‘frames’ that make it possible to redefine cases in further submissions and reapplications, and how developments in the surround affects the Commission's decision frame.

Responding to Applicants’ Claims of Inadequate Defence

This chapter examines the Criminal Cases Review Commission's response to applicants' claims of inadequate defence or breaches of procedural rules by their legal representative at trial. It first considers the Commission's response to ‘typical’ applications, where the applicant accuses his/her defence solicitor or counsel of procedural irregularities or incompetence, before presenting a case study that illustrates how the Commission handles a particular category of wrongful conviction cases: refugees and asylum seekers who entered the UK illegally. These cases highlight the potential for a more reciprocal relationship between the Commission and its ‘decision field’ and ‘surround’, and most adopted a clear legal decision frame. The chapter also discusses the challenges in responding to claims of legal incompetence and concludes with an analysis of the Commission's proactive responses to inadequate defence and legal representation.

Framing and Bias: A Literature Review of Recent Findings

Framing bias is an individual decision-making misconception caused by the fact that a person interprets the surrounding world according to a decision frame chosen by her or his subjective opinion. This article aims to review various kinds of factors that cause and affect framing or lead to debiasing, i.e. a decrease in the resulting framing bias. The objective of the study is carried out using a literature review that analyzes recent empirical studies. As a result, numerous factors are identified that according to the studies have an impact on framing. It transpires that four broader groups of these factors can be established – decision situation setup (amount of information, additional presentation of options), experience (knowledge, engagement), effort (attention, complexity, the amount of information to process) and demographics (gender, nationality).