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.