There are differences in investment decisions between subjects who receive an information sequence of good news followed by bad news (++ -) compared to subjects who receive an information sequence of bad news followed by good news (- ++) in the step-by-step presentation pattern and with the frame conditions reversed. There are differences in investment decisions between subjects who receive an information sequence of good news followed by bad news (++ -) compared to subjects who receive an information sequence of bad news followed by good news (- ++) at the end of the sequence presentation pattern and with the framing conditions consistent with the information. There are differences in investment decisions between subjects who receive an information sequence of good news followed by bad news (++ -) compared to subjects who receive an information sequence of bad news followed by good news (- ++) at the end of the sequence presentation pattern and with the frame conditions reversed.
There is a difference in investment decisions between subjects receiving information with framing conditions consistent with the information compared to subjects receiving framing that is opposite in the step-by-step presentation pattern and in the information order of good news followed by bad news. There is a difference in investment decisions between subjects receiving information with framing conditions consistent with the information compared to subjects receiving framing that is opposite in the pattern of step-by-step presentation and information ordering of bad news followed by good news. There is a difference in investment decisions between subjects receiving information with framing conditions congruent with the information compared to subjects receiving framing that is opposite in the pattern of presentation at the end of the sequence and ordering information of good news followed by bad news.
There is a difference in investment decisions between subjects who receive information with a step-by-step presentation pattern compared to subjects who receive information with end-of-sequence presentation patterns in the information sequence of good news followed by bad news (++ -) and with frame conditions consistent with the information. Hypothesis 1a test results show that there is a significant difference in the final judgment between subjects who received the information sequence of good news followed by bad news (cell 1) and subjects who received the information sequence of bad news followed by good news (cell 2) in the step-by-step presentation pattern and in the frame conditions consistent with the information. 351 Hypothesis 1b results show that there is no significant difference in the final judgment between subjects who received the information sequence of good news followed by bad news (cell 3) and subjects who received the information sequence of bad news followed by good news (cell 4) in the step-by-step presentation pattern and in the frame conditions vice versa.
The results of Hypothesis 1c show that there is no significant difference in the final judgment between subjects who received the order of information about good news followed by bad news (cell 5) and subjects who received the order of information about bad news followed by good news (cell 6) in the end-of-sequence presentation pattern and in the information-congruent framing conditions. The results of Hypothesis 1d show that there is no significant difference in final judgment between subjects who received the order of good news information followed by bad news (cell 7) and subjects who received the order of bad news information followed by good news (cell 8) in the end-of-sequence presentation pattern and in the inverted framing conditions. The results of hypothesis 2a indicate that there is a significant difference in the final judgment between subjects who received information with the information-congruent framing condition (cell 1) and subjects who received the opposite framing (cell 3) in the step-by-step presentation model and in the order of information of good news followed by bad news.
The results of hypothesis 2b show that there is a significant difference in the final judgment between subjects who received information with the frame condition consistent with the information (cell 2) and subjects who received the reverse frame (cell 4) in the step-by-step presentation pattern and in the information order of bad news followed by good news. The results of hypothesis 2c show that there is no significant difference in the final judgment between subjects who received information with the frame condition consistent with the information (cell 5) and subjects who received the reverse frame (cell 7) at the end of the sequence presentation pattern and the information order of good news followed by bad news. Hypothesis 2d results show that there is no significant difference in the final judgment between subjects who received information with the frame conditions consistent with the information (cell 6) and subjects who received the reverse frame (cell 8) at the end of the sequence presentation and the information order of bad news followed by good news.
The results of Hypothesis 3a show that there is a significant difference in the final judgment between subjects who received information with a stepwise presentation pattern (cell 1) and subjects who received information with an end-of-sequence presentation pattern (cell 5) in the order of good news information followed by bad news and with the information-congruent framing conditions. The results of Hypothesis 3b show that there is a significant difference in the final judgment between subjects who received information with a step presentation pattern (cell 2) and subjects who received information with an end-of-sequence presentation pattern (cell 6) in the order of bad news information followed by good news and with framing conditions consistent with. The results of Hypothesis 3c show that there is no significant difference in the final judgment between subjects who received information with a step presentation pattern (cell 3) and subjects who received information with an end-of-sequence presentation pattern (cell 7) in the order of good news information followed by bad news and with the design conditions reversed.
The results of Hypothesis 3d show that there is no significant difference in the final judgment between subjects who received information with a step presentation pattern (cell 4) and subjects who received information with an end-of-sequence presentation pattern (cell 8) in the order of information bad news followed by good news and with the design conditions reversed.
Conclusions, Limitations, Suggestions
This supported condition is strengthened with a significance value that is lower than 0.05, which is equal to 0.000. This unsupported condition is strengthened with a significance value greater than 0.05, which is equal to 0.764. This unsupported condition is strengthened with a significance value greater than 0.05, which is equal to 0.778.
The overall results of the study show that the belief adjustment model of Hogarth and Einhorn (1992) and the three theories, namely prospect theory, fuzzy trace theory, and probabilistic mental theory, partially hold up in investment decision making. The prediction of belief adaptation models and the three theories not supported in this study are: First, this study failed to support that the SbS presentation pattern would cause a recency effect when receiving a short sequence of information and with the framing conditions reversed. Second, this study failed to support that the EoS presentation pattern would cause a primacy effect when receiving a short sequence of information and with conditions of framing consistent with the information and of framing reversed.
Third, this study failed to provide support that the EoS presentation pattern would lead to individuals being stuck in a frame trap. Fourth, this study failed to provide support that testing the presentation patterns by providing framework conditions would conversely lead to differences in investment decisions. There were some participants who were late and thus required the performance to be delayed from the predetermined schedule.
Some participants suddenly canceled their willingness to participate, which resulted in the researcher immediately finding substitutes for other participants. Plan for participants to arrive 45 minutes to 1 hour before the start of the performance to minimize latecomers. We recommend that researchers have backup participants to make it easier to find replacement participants in the event of sudden termination of participation.
Future researchers should use the framing effect of a mixed design to show more accurate research results in future studies to see the framing effect. An empirical investigation of competing theories to explain the design effect in accounting-related decisions. Decision Making: A New Look at Old Problems. Organizational behavior and human decision-making processes.
