Question 1: Jane Is Trying To Decide Whether She Should

Question 1applied1 Jane Is Trying To Decide Whether She Should Marry

Question 1 Applied 1. Jane is trying to decide whether she should marry Jim. She sits down with a piece of paper and makes a list of all the positive aspects about marrying Jim, and then a list of all the negative aspects. After looking at both lists, she can see that the good things outweigh the bad. So, she calls Jim up and says, “OK, let’s set a date for the wedding!” Jane’s way of making up her mind is an example of: a. felicific calculus b. “distinctiveness decision making” c. decisional framing d. the contrast effect Why is this the best answer?

Paper For Above instruction

Jane’s decision-making process exemplifies decisional framing, which involves viewing a choice through a particular lens or perspective that influences the outcome. In her case, she systematically evaluated the positive and negative aspects of marrying Jim by listing them separately. This method highlights how framing the decision in terms of pros and cons can shape our perception of the choices available. Decisional framing is a well-studied cognitive process wherein individuals interpret information in a way that favors a desired outcome, often leading to a more confident commitment (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).

Fellicific calculus, coined by Jeremy Bentham, is a utilitarian approach that involves calculating the net happiness or pleasure resulting from an action. Although Jane’s process appears similar, it is more aligned with framing her decision based on perceived positives and negatives rather than calculating overall pleasure or pain. “Distinctiveness decision making” refers to making choices based on unique features of options, which does not fit this scenario. The contrast effect involves comparing options against each other to highlight differences, but Jane’s approach was to list positives and negatives rather than directly compare Jim to other potential partners.

Therefore, decisional framing best captures the essence of her method, as she constructs her decision around a mental representation of the advantages and disadvantages, which ultimately guides her behavior in setting the wedding date. This approach demonstrates how cognitive framing can influence important life decisions by emphasizing certain aspects over others, thus impacting the final choice (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984).

References

• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, Values, and Frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350.
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.
• Becker, G. S. (1976). The economic approach to human behavior. University of Chicago Press.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
• Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 173–220). Academic Press.
• Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2007). Prospection: Experiencing the future. Science, 317(5843), 1351–1354.
• Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley.
• Banerjee, A., & Duflo, E. (2011). Poor Economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty. PublicAffairs.
• Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(3), 513–523.