Framing Effect in Decision Making in Wildland Fire Safety Officers

Abstract

Two studies were conducted to investigate factors influencing decision making in fire safety officers. In Experiment 1, 59 fire safety officers and trainees, and 24 undergraduate students read decision scenarios. For each scenario, participants were required to chose one of two possible outcomes, a sure thing or a gamble. All scenarios were framed both positively, in terms of gains, and negatively, in terms of losses. It was hypothesized that safety officers and trainees would be more risk aversive in their decision making than other populations. It was also hypothesized that participants would be risk aversive in the positive frame and risk seeking in the negative frame. The results showed no significant difference between groups. However, there was a significant main effect for frame. Further analysis revealed a significant Frame x Scenario interaction. Varying resources and probabilities in the scenarios made conclusions regarding this interaction impossible. Experiment 2 was conducted to determine if resource, probability, probability of gain, and value influence risk seeking/aversion. 114 fire safety officers responded to scenarios as in Experiment 1. Scenarios and possible outcomes were created using a factorial combination of resource, probability, probability of gain, value, and frame. Probability and probability of gain served as between subjects variables. It was hypothesized that there would be differences in risk seeking/aversion within resource, probability of gain, value, and frame. The results showed a statistically significant effect for resource, probability, probability of gain and value. All main effects were qualified by significant interactions which are discussed. The findings indicate that for fire safety officers the framing effect is a function resource, probability, probability of gain and value.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 0 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.