In a decision-making study, participants are randomly assigned to receive risk information in one of two framings that differ only in linguistic emphasis (e.g., "90% survival" vs "10% mortality"), while numerical content is held constant. The authors discuss the effect using a Sapir-Whorf hypothesis lens, arguing that habitual and immediate linguistic framing can bias cognitive evaluation of equivalent outcomes.
Which outcome would be most consistent with this language-thought account?
- Any framing effect would be best explained by stages of language acquisition, because adults in different stages interpret probabilities differently.
- Participants will show identical preferences because numerical information eliminates any influence of language on thought.
- Any framing effect would demonstrate that participants lack object permanence, since they fail to treat the outcome as stable across descriptions.
- Participants will show different risk preferences across framings despite identical probabilities, consistent with linguistic framing shaping evaluation. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis applied to framing effects in decision-making. The hypothesis suggests that linguistic framing can influence cognitive evaluation even when numerical content is identical. Presenting risk as "90% survival" versus "10% mortality" should lead to different risk preferences despite mathematical equivalence, as the linguistic frame directs attention to different aspects of the outcome. This demonstrates how immediate linguistic context shapes thought, supporting answer D. Answer B incorrectly claims numerical information eliminates language effects, but extensive research shows framing influences persist even with explicit numerical data. The key insight is that language doesn't just convey information but actively shapes how that information is cognitively processed.