Cognitive Style and Frame Susceptibility in Decision-Making.

Front Psychol · 2018 · PMC6095985 · PMID 30147670

Europe PMC DOI

hedged sentences

0.0730

closest p · 1.5× alpha

0.5000

boldest claim

The sentences

approached significancep = 0.073so close (0.05 < p ≤ 0.1)

Frame was once again significant in Model 2, and ZPT approached significance, as did the Model 2 improvement of fit, F change (5, 309) = 2.04, adjusted R 2 = 0.05, p = 0.073.

also in 8,237 other papers

almost significantp = 0.50not close (p > 0.1)

Likewise, Model 3 did not improve fit despite an effect of SNS that was almost significant, χ 2 (2, N = 190) = 1.38, Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.15, p = 0.50.

also in 1,858 other papers

may be significantno p-value reported

The framing effect may be significant, yet most participants who encountered the negative frame would not have responded as predicted by prospect theory ( Kahneman and Tversky, 1979 ) or other theories of framing, such as the explicated valence account ( Tombu and Mandel, 2015 ; also Wallin et al., 2016 ) or the fuzzy trace account ( Reyna and Brainerd, 1991 ), all of which make the same predictions for the standard ADP (but which diverge in prediction as well as explanation under other task conditions).

also in 13,097 other papers

Quoted from the open-access full text in Europe PMC under the licence the publisher applied. The sentence is reproduced exactly as published; the emphasis is ours.