本研究主要目的在於探討框架、機率敘述方式及訊息形式三個變項，在風險選擇框架問題是否影響受試者的風險偏好。除了正、負框架對於風險偏好之影響外，本研究認為在框架問題中，機率敘述方式以全有全無（全部獲救或全部死亡）或非全有全無式（部分獲救或部分死亡）、訊息形式以數字或文字呈現，皆可能影響框架效應的產生。另外，本研究也比較受試者在生命議題與金錢議題間的風險偏好行為是否一致。
本研究採用實驗法，以91名大學生做為受試者，與以往相關研究多使用選擇的反應模式不同，本研究採評分方式，讓受試者在不同的風險選擇框架情境下進行風險偏好之評分。研究發現主要有三：第一，在兩個議題皆顯示以數字訊息呈現非全有全無式之機率敘述方式，因增進受試者對框架問題之理解，而降低框架的影響；且以文字訊息詮釋框架問題的情境，會改變受試者的偏好行為。第二，就金錢議題各個框架問題來看，在正框架敘述下，數字訊息以全有全無方式呈現或文字訊息以非全有全無方式呈現，受試者偏好確定選項，而在生命議題無此傾向，顯示受試者在金錢議題有損失厭惡的態度。第三，受試者在生命議題與金錢議題上呈現不一致的決策行為，可能存在脈絡效應而影響本研究自變項之效果。本研究並對後續研究提供建議。

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of framing, formats of probability and information on risk preference for risky choice. Besides the influence of gain/loss frame, the study suggests that the probabilities shown in two-outcome all-or-none (all survived or all dead) or non-all-or-none (some survived or some dead) risky prospect and the risky choice problems presented on numbers or words would lead to the variation on risky preference. In addition, this study compared the consistency of risky preferences on two agendas of human life and money. Ninety-one undergraduates responded to the variants of the Asian Disease Problem, and provided preference ratings for the options. The results were as follow: (1) No framing effect was observed not only when the probabilities were shown in outcome non-all-or-none numerically but also when the framing problem was presented with words. That indicates the two formats enhanced the participants’ comprehensions on the framing problem so that the framing effect was decreased. (2) When outcome involved money in the positive frame, participants preferred the sure-thing option not only when the probabilities were shown in outcome all-or-none numerically but also when the probabilities were shown in outcome non-all-or-none in words. Additionally, in comparison with the human life agenda, the preferences in the money agenda illustrate that participants are likely to take risk aversion. (3) The inconsistency of risky preferences for choice across two agendas shows that they would interact with other variables in the framing problem. The suggestions also provided for the further researches.

中文部分
陳烜之（民96）。認知心理學。臺北市：五南。
英文部分
Brase, G. L., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1998). Individuation, counting, and statistical inference: the role of frequency and whole-object representations in judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127(1), 3-21.
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of personality and social psychology, 92(5), 938-956.
Brun, W., & Teigen, K. H. (1988). Verbal probabilities: ambiguous, context-dependent, or both? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,41(3), 390-404.
Burkell, J. (2004). What are the chances? Evaluating risk and benefit information in consumer health materials. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(2), 200-208.
Cokely, E. T., & Kelley, C. M. (2009). Cognitive abilities and superior decision making under risk: A protocol analysis and process model evaluation. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(1), 20-33.
Dieckmann, N. F., Peters, E., Gregory, R., & Tusler, M. (2012). Making sense of uncertainty: advantages and disadvantages of providing an evaluative structure. Journal of Risk Research, 15(7), 717-735.
Druckman, J. N., & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the framing of risky choice. Political Behavior, 30(3), 297-321.
Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological bulletin,51(4), 380-417.
Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1997). Framing effects and arenas of choice: Your money or your life? Organizational behavior and human decision processes,71(3), 355-373.
Fujii, S., & Takemura, K. (2003). Contingent focus model of decision framing under risk. Technical Report, 67(2), 51-67.
Gigerenzer, G., & Edwards, A. (2003). Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 327(7417), 741-744.
Gigerenzer, G., Hertwig, R., Van Den Broek, E., Fasolo, B., & Katsikopoulos, K. V. (2005). “A 30% chance of rain tomorrow”: How does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts? Risk analysis, 25(3), 623-629.
Gurmankin, A. D., Baron, J., & Armstrong, K. (2004). The effect of numerical statements of risk on trust and comfort with hypothetical physician risk communication. Medical Decision Making, 24(3), 265-271.
Jou, J., Shanteau, J., & Harris, R. J. (1996). An information processing view of framing effects: The role of causal schemas in decision making. Memory & Cognition, 24(1), 1-15.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.
Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 75(1), 23-55.
Kühberger, A., & Gradl, P. (2013). Choice, rating, and ranking: framing effects with different response modes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26(2), 109-117.
Kühberger, A., Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., & Perner, J. (1999). The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 78(3), 204-231.
Kühberger, A., & Tanner, C. (2010). Risky choice framing: Task versions and a comparison of prospect theory and fuzzy‐trace theory. Journal of behavioral decision making, 23(3), 314-329.
Levin, I. P., Gaeth, G. J., Schreiber, J., & Lauriola, M. (2002). A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 88(1), 411-429.
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 76(2), 149-188.
Marteau, T. M., Saidi, G., Goodburn, S., Lawton, J., Michie, S., & Bobrow, M. (2000). Numbers or words? A randomized controlled trial of presenting screen negative results to pregnant women. Prenatal diagnosis, 20(9), 714-718.
Miller, P. M., & Fagley, N. S. (1991). The effects of framing, problem variations, and providing rationale on choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 517-522.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press.
Peters, E., & Levin, I. P. (2008). Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(6), 435-448.
Piñon, A., & Gambara, H. (2005). A meta-analytic review of framing effect: Risky, attribute and goal framing. Psicothema, 17(2), 325-331.
Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1991). Fuzzy‐trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4(4), 249-262.
Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1995). Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learning and individual Differences, 7(1), 1-75.
Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2011). Dual processes in decision making and developmental neuroscience: A fuzzy-trace model. Developmental Review, 31(2), 180-206.
Reyna, V. F., & Ellis, S. C. (1994). Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in children's risky decision making. Psychological Science, 5(5), 275-279.
Reyna, V. F., & Hamilton, A. J. (2001). The importance of memory in informed consent for surgical risk. Medical Decision Making, 21(2), 152-155.
Reyna, V. F., Nelson, W. L., Han, P. K., & Dieckmann, N. F. (2009). How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological bulletin, 135(6), 943-973.
Schneider, S. L. (1992). Framing and conflict: aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(5), 1040-1057.
Shaw, N. U., & Dear, P. R. (1990). How do parents of babies interpret qualitative expressions of probability? Archives of disease in childhood, 65(5), 520-523.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The quarterly journal of economics, 69(1), 99-118.
Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1983). Preference reversals: A broader perspective. The American Economic Review, 73(4), 596-605.
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1999). Discrepancies between normative and descriptive models of decision making and the understanding/acceptance principle. Cognitive psychology, 38(3), 349-385.
Takemura, K. (1994). Influence of elaboration on the framing of decision. The Journal of Psychology, 128(1), 33-39.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
Visschers, V. H., Meertens, R. M., Passchier, W. W., & De Vries, N. N. (2009). Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature. Risk Analysis, 29(2), 267-287.
von Neumann, L. J., & Morgenstern, O. (1947). Theory of games and economic behavior (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton university press.
Wang, X. T. (1996). Framing effects: Dynamics and task domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(2), 145-157.
Welkenhuysen, M., Evers-Kiebooms, G., & d’Ydewalle, G. (2001). The language of uncertainty in genetic risk communication: framing and verbal versus numerical information. Patient education and counseling, 43(2), 179-187.
Wogalter, M. S., Young, S. L., Brelsford, J. W., & Barlow, T. (1999). The relative contributions of injury severity and likelihood information on hazard-risk judgments and warning compliance. Journal of Safety Research, 30(3), 151-162.
Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Fagerlin, A., Keeton, K., & Ubel, P. A. (2007). Does labeling prenatal screening test results as negative or positive affect a woman’s responses? American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 197(5), 528.e1-528.e6.