Age differences in the effect of framing on risky choice: A meta-analysis

Abstract

The framing of decision scenarios in terms of potential gains versus losses has been shown to influence choice preferences between sure and risky options. Normative cognitive changes associated with aging have been known to affect decision making, which has led to a number of studies investigating the influence of aging on the effect of framing. Mata, Josef, Samanez-Larkin, and Hertwig (2011) systematically reviewed the available literature using a meta-analytic approach, but did not include tests of homogeneity or subsequent moderator variable analyses. The current review serves to extend the previous analysis to include such tests as well as update the pool of studies available for analysis. Results for both positively and negatively framed conditions were reviewed using 2 meta-analyses encompassing data collected from 3,232 subjects across 18 studies. Deviating from the previous results, the current analysis found a tendency for younger adults to choose the risky option more often than older adults for positively framed items. Moderator variable analyses found this effect likely to be driven by the specific decision scenario, showing a significant effect, with younger adults choosing the risky option more often in small-amount financial and large-amount mortality-based scenarios. For negatively framed items, the current review found no overall age difference in risky decision making, confirming the results from the prior meta-analysis. Moderator variable analyses conducted to address heterogeneity found younger adults to be more likely than older adults to choose the risky option for negatively framed high-amount mortality-based decision scenarios. Practical implications for older adults are discussed.

Figure 1

Value functions for young adults (solid lines) and older adults as hypothesized by the “loss prevention” (short-dashed lines) and “positivity effect” (mixed-dashed lines) theories.

Figure 2

Search process.

Figure 3

Effect size by study: Positive frame. Numbers present after the source citation indicate separate effect sizes calculated from different sample populations reported within the same manuscript.

Figure 4

Effect size by study: Negative frame. Numbers present after the source citation indicate separate effect sizes calculated from different sample populations reported within the same manuscript.

Figure 5

Effect size by study, partitioned by “combined” moderator variable for both positive and negative frames. Numbers present after the source citation indicate separate effect sizes calculated from different sample populations reported within the same manuscript.

Figure 6

Hypothetical value functions as informed by the empirical effect-size pattern by age group for financial items.

Figure 7

Hypothetical value functions as informed by the empirical effect-size pattern by age group for mortality items.