306 JONES SEARCH BEHAVIOR In general,people do not consider all aspects of a deci- sion facing them.They must factor the decision to make it manageable,ex- amining only relevant aspects.They do not undertake complete searches for information,and they ignore available information-especially if it is not relevant to the factors they have determined to characterize the structure of the problem. SEARCH MUST INCLUDE BOTH ALTERNATIVES AND ATTRIBUTES Different asn physiological and psychological mechanisms probably underlie the search for euosjad attributes(which is equated in ordinary language with understanding a prob- JO'SMOl lem)and the search for alternatives (which involves the choice under a given 豆 decisional structure,design,or understanding)(Jones 1996). CALCULATIONS People generally cannot perform the calculations necessary useuofeo popeojuMo 9000600 even for a reduced set of options in a decision-making situation.This is actu- ally the least problematic limitation in decision making.They can,given time, write down and manipulate the numbers. COGNITIVE ILLUSIONS AND FRAMING When identical options are described in different terms,people often shift their choices.For example,if a choice is described in terms of gains,it is often treated differently than if it is described in terms of losses.This shift demonstrates the concept of framing,developed by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.They claim that this tendency violates a major,if often unstated,assumption of rational choice- namely the axiom of invariance,which states that the "preference order be- tween prospects should not depend on the manner in which they are described" (Kahneman Tversky 1983:343).They bolster their claim with numerous 666l convincing experiments indicating that decision makers tend to choose differ- ent alternatives when they are described in positive terms (for example,in terms of the number of lives saved with a vaccine)than when they are de- scribed in negative terms (the number of people who will die).Kahneman Tversky(1983:343)state,"In their stubborn appeal,framing effects resemble perceptual illusions more than computational errors." SELF-CONTROL People often seem to need to bind themselves in some way to establish self-control over their behavior in the future.A major mechanism for dealing with likely future lapses in self-control is to establish binding rules that 3 prohibit the unwanted behavior.For example,Thaler(1991)has developed the notion of mental accounting to explain the tendency of people to separate cate- gories of income and impose more constraints on some (investment income) than on others (a Christmas bonus).People also tend to treat gains differently from losses,applying different risk functions to them,essentially being more risk-adverse for gains than for losses(Kahneman Tversky 1983,1985).SEARCH BEHAVIOR In general, people do not consider all aspects of a deci￾sion facing them. They must factor the decision to make it manageable, ex￾amining only relevant aspects. They do not undertake complete searches for information, and they ignore available information—especially if it is not relevant to the factors they have determined to characterize the structure of the problem. SEARCH MUST INCLUDE BOTH ALTERNATIVES AND ATTRIBUTES Different physiological and psychological mechanisms probably underlie the search for attributes (which is equated in ordinary language with understanding a prob￾lem) and the search for alternatives (which involves the choice under a given decisional structure, design, or understanding) (Jones 1996). CALCULATIONS People generally cannot perform the calculations necessary even for a reduced set of options in a decision-making situation. This is actu￾ally the least problematic limitation in decision making. They can, given time, write down and manipulate the numbers. COGNITIVE ILLUSIONS AND FRAMING When identical options are described in different terms, people often shift their choices. For example, if a choice is described in terms of gains, it is often treated differently than if it is described in terms of losses. This shift demonstrates the concept of framing, developed by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. They claim that this tendency violates a major, if often unstated, assumption of rational choice— namely the axiom of invariance, which states that the “preference order be￾tween prospects should not depend on the manner in which they are described” (Kahneman & Tversky 1983:343). They bolster their claim with numerous convincing experiments indicating that decision makers tend to choose differ￾ent alternatives when they are described in positive terms (for example, in terms of the number of lives saved with a vaccine) than when they are de￾scribed in negative terms (the number of people who will die). Kahneman & Tversky (1983:343) state, “In their stubborn appeal, framing effects resemble perceptual illusions more than computational errors.” SELF-CONTROL People often seem to need to bind themselves in some way to establish self-control over their behavior in the future. A major mechanism for dealing with likely future lapses in self-control is to establish binding rules that prohibit the unwanted behavior. For example, Thaler (1991) has developed the notion of mental accounting to explain the tendency of people to separate cate￾gories of income and impose more constraints on some (investment income) than on others (a Christmas bonus). People also tend to treat gains differently from losses, applying different risk functions to them, essentially being more risk-adverse for gains than for losses (Kahneman & Tversky 1983, 1985). 306 JONES Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 1999.2:297-321. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org by UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON - HEALTH SCIENCES LIBRARIES on 09/25/06. For personal use only