Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T22:03:30.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Frames and rationality: Response to commentators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2022

José Luis Bermúdez Open the ORCID record for José Luis Bermúdez [Opens in a new window]
José Luis Bermúdez*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The thoughtful and rewarding peer commentaries on my target article come from a broad range of disciplinary perspectives. I engage with the commentaries in three groups. First, I discuss the commentaries that apply my basic approach to new cases not considered in the target article. Second, I explore those that helpfully extend and refine my arguments. Finally, I offer replies to those that object either to the overall framework or to specific arguments.

Type
Author's Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e248
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bermúdez, J. L. (2020). Frame it again: New tools for rational thought. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, L. P., & Walton, G. M. (2013). The opportunity to collaborate increases preschoolers’ motivation for challenging tasks. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116(4), 953–961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gross, J. (2019). Revisiting the form and function of conflict: Neurobiological, psychological, and cultural mechanisms for attack and defense within and between groups. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 42, e116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandel, D. R. (2014). Do framing effects reveal irrational choice? Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 143(3), 1185–1198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paul, L. A. (2014). Transformative experience. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. (2011). Levels of information: A framing hierarchy. In Keren, G. (Ed.), Perspectives on framing (pp. 35–63). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101(3), 467–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sturgill, J., Bergeron, J., Ransdell, T., Colvin, T., Joshi, G., & Zentall, T. R. (2021). “What you see may not be what you get”: Reverse contingency and perceived loss aversion in pigeons. Psychonomics Bulletin Review, 28(3), 1015–1020.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vasil, J., & Tomasello, M. (2022). Effects of “we”-framing on young children's commitment, sharing, and helping. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 214, 105278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar