Decision making is a central activity in the design of an engineered system and has a significant impact on project outcomes. Although much research exists on engineering decision making, relatively little addresses behavioral aspects of how engineers make decisions. This is a potentially significant gap, as factors such as the way in which information is communicated and presented to engineers can matter greatly. For example, cognitive psychology has demonstrated that the choices people make can be strongly influenced by how the options are framed even when the different framings are mathematically equivalent. This paper explores the impact of framing on the types of decisions engineers face. Given engineers' intense mathematical training, it is possible that they are less susceptible to framing effects. Thus, there is motivation to determine whether relevant findings can be replicated in an engineering context. This paper presents a set of positively and negatively framed design scenarios. Consistent with prior experiments, engineers in the positive (gain) framed scenarios were more likely to choose the less risky option for three of the four scenarios. One of the scenarios did not show this bias but did include a longer time horizon which likely explains the difference. Engineers were risk neutral when the scenarios were presented negatively (loss) framed, which is in contrast to prior experiments on nonengineering populations. These results motivate the future research into the impact of framing on engineering decision making and effective guidelines on how to create engineering processes and tools that leverage or avoid inducing cognitive biases.

References

References
1.
Tversky
,
A.
, and
Kahneman
,
D.
,
1981
, “
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
,”
Science
,
211
(
4481
), pp.
453
458
.10.1126/science.7455683
2.
Tversky
,
A.
, and
Kahneman
,
D.
,
1986
, “
Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions
,”
J. Bus.
,
59
(
4
), pp.
S251
S278
.10.1086/296365
3.
Levin
,
I. P.
,
Schneider
,
S. L.
, and
Gaeth
,
G. J.
,
1998
, “
All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects
,”
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes
,
76
(
2
), pp.
149
188
.10.1006/obhd.1998.2804
4.
Mittal
,
V.
, and
Ross
,
W. T.
, Jr.
,
1998
, “
The Impact of Positive and Negative Affect and Issue Framing on Issue Interpretation and Risk Taking
,”
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes
,
76
(
3
), pp.
298
324
.10.1006/obhd.1998.2808
5.
Von Neumann
,
J.
, and
Morgenstern
,
O.
,
2007
,
Theory of Games and Economic Behavior
,
Princeton University
,
Princeton, NJ
.
6.
Keeney
,
R. L.
, and
Raiffa
,
H.
,
1993
,
Decisions With Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs
,
Cambridge University
,
Cambridge, UK
.
7.
Pratt
,
J. W.
,
1964
, “
Risk Aversion in the Small and in the Large
,”
Econometrica
,
32
(
1/2
), pp.
122
136
.10.2307/1913738
8.
Hazelrigg
,
G. A.
,
1998
, “
A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
120
(
4
), pp.
653
658
.10.1115/1.2829328
9.
Hazelrigg
,
G. A.
,
2012
,
Fundamentals of Decision Making for Engineering Design and Systems Engineering
, (online).https://zykudulusi.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/fundamentals-of-decision-making-for-engineering-design-and-systems-engineering.pdf
10.
Thurston
,
D.
,
1990
, “
Multiattribute Utility Analysis in Design Management
,”
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage.
,
37
(
4
), pp.
296
301
.10.1109/17.62329
11.
Thurston
,
D. L.
,
1991
, “
A Formal Method for Subjective Design Evaluation With Multiple Attributes
,”
Res. Eng. Des.
,
3
(
2
), pp.
105
122
.10.1007/BF01581343
12.
Thurston
,
D. L.
,
2001
, “
Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design With Utility Analysis
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
123
(
2
), pp.
176
182
.10.1115/1.1363610
13.
Abbas
,
A. E.
, and
Matheson
,
J. E.
,
2005
, “
Normative Target-Based Decision Making
,”
Manage. Decis. Econ.
,
26
(
6
), pp.
373
385
.10.1002/mde.1234
14.
Abbas
,
A. E.
,
2013
, “
Normative Perspectives on Engineering Systems Design
,”
Proceedings of the IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon)
, Orlando, FL, pp.
37
42
.
15.
Morrow
,
W. R.
,
Mineroff
,
J.
, and
Whitefoot
,
K. S.
,
2014
, “
Numerically Stable Design Optimization With Price Competition
,”
ASME J. Mech. Des.
,
136
(
8
), p.
081002
.10.1115/1.4025703
16.
Kahneman
,
D.
, and
Tversky
,
A.
,
1979
, “
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk
,”
Econometrica
,
47
(
2
), pp.
263
291
.10.2307/1914185
17.
Tversky
,
A.
, and
Kahneman
,
D.
,
1992
, “
Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty
,”
J. Risk Uncertainty
,
5
(
4
), pp.
297
323
.10.1007/BF00122574
18.
Markowitz
,
H.
,
1952
, “
Portfolio Selection
,”
J. Finance
,
7
(
1
), pp.
77
91
.
19.
Scholten
,
M.
, and
Read
,
D.
,
2014
, “
Prospect Theory and the “Forgotten” Fourfold Pattern of Risk Preferences
,”
J. Risk Uncertainty
,
48
(1), pp.
1
17
.10.1007/s11166-014-9183-2
20.
Bohm
,
P.
, and
Lind
,
H.
,
1992
, “
A Note on the Robustness of a Classical Framing Result
,”
J. Econ. Psychol.
,
13
(
2
), pp.
355
361
.10.1016/0167-4870(92)90039-A
21.
Miller
,
P. M.
, and
Fagley
,
N. S.
,
1991
, “
The Effects of Framing, Problem Variations, and Providing Rationale on Choice
,”
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
,
17
(
5
), pp.
517
522
.10.1177/0146167291175006
22.
Fagley
,
N. S.
, and
Miller
,
P. M.
,
1997
, “
Framing Effects and Arenas of Choice: Your Money or Your Life?
,”
Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes
,
71
(
3
), pp.
355
373
.10.1006/obhd.1997.2725
23.
De Martino
,
B.
,
Kumaran
,
D.
,
Seymour
,
B.
, and
Dolan
,
R. J.
,
2006
, “
Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain
,”
Science
,
313
(
5787
), pp.
684
687
.10.1126/science.1128356
24.
Jou
,
J.
,
Shanteau
,
J.
, and
Harris
,
R. J.
,
1996
, “
An Information Processing View of Framing Effects: The Role of Causal Schemas in Decision Making
,”
Mem. Cognit.
,
24
(
1
), pp.
1
15
.10.3758/BF03197268
25.
Fagley
,
N.
, and
Miller
,
P. M.
,
1990
, “
The Effect of Framing on Choice Interactions With Risk-Taking Propensity, Cognitive Style, and Sex
,”
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull.
,
16
(
3
), pp.
496
510
.10.1177/0146167290163008
26.
Kim
,
S.
,
Goldstein
,
D.
,
Hasher
,
L.
, and
Zacks
,
R. T.
,
2005
, “
Framing Effects in Younger and Older Adults
,”
J. Gerontol., Ser. B
,
60
(
4
), pp.
P215
P218
.10.1093/geronb/60.4.P215
27.
Peters
,
E.
,
Västfjäll
,
D.
,
Slovic
,
P.
,
Mertz
,
C.
,
Mazzocco
,
K.
, and
Dickert
,
S.
,
2006
, “
Numeracy and Decision Making
,”
Psychol. Sci.
,
17
(
5
), pp.
407
413
.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01720.x
28.
Liberman
,
N.
, and
Trope
,
Y.
,
1998
, “
The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory
,”
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
,
75
(
1
), pp.
5
18
.10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5
29.
Sagristano
,
M. D.
,
Trope
,
Y.
, and
Liberman
,
N.
,
2002
, “
Time-Dependent Gambling: Odds Now, Money Later
,”
J. Exp. Psychol.: Gen.
,
131
(
3
), pp.
364
376
.10.1037/0096-3445.131.3.364
30.
Steinhart
,
Y.
,
Carmon
,
Z.
, and
Trope
,
Y.
,
2013
, “
Warnings of Adverse Side Effects Can Backfire Over Time
,”
Psychol. Sci.
,
24
(
9
), pp.
1843
1847
.10.1177/0956797613478948
You do not currently have access to this content.