How Effective is Achievement Gap Framing of Racial Inequity in Education Compared to Alternatives?
Ryan Clare*, Jocelyn Cruz*, Nate Baker * Project Mentor(s): Tonya Buchanan, PhD
The language used to discuss issues can have a powerful effect on how people perceive them. This is referred to as “framing” and can influence the importance people place on certain ideas and even influence policy. One such frame is the use of “achievement gap” to refer to racial disparities in test scores among students. Past research has shown that this framing has negative effects on people’s prioritization of the issue (e.g., Quinn & Desruisseaux, 2022). The current study replicates past findings on the impact of framing on perceptions of racial disparities in education while also testing alternative frames, and the effects of these frames on people’s beliefs around how racial equity should be pursued. Study 1 ( N = 276) compared the impact of "achievement gap," "racial differences," and "racial inequality" framings of educational disparities. Study 2 ( N = 196) examined another alternative; "education debt" framing. Replicating prior research, Study 1 found that participants prioritized the issue more when it was framed as "racial inequality" compared to an "achievement gap," with the "racial differences" condition falling in between. Study 2 found that "education debt" language increased prioritization relative to the "achievement gap" frame. Additionally, both "racial inequality" and "education debt" frames increased participants’ endorsement of structural interventions to promote education equity. Across two studies, our findings suggest that the rhetoric surrounding educational disparities can influence priorities and highlights the need to shift the narrative in order to promote structural solutions for racial inequity in education. Presentation Type: Poster Presentation (May 21, 9:30am–3:00pm) Keywords: Framing Theory, Racial Inequity, Education, Language, Structural Racism SOURCE Form ID: 165 When making decisions, individuals often rely on heuristics or mental shortcuts that simplify complex choices (Dale, 2015; Gigerenzer, 2008). The decoy effect is one such heuristic, in which preferences shift toward a targeted option when a clearly inferior alternative is introduced. (Connolly et al., 2013; Mousavi et al., 2023). Decision-making is also shaped by contextual influences, including emotional states (George & Dane, 2016; Lerner et al., 2015) and the timing of outcomes (Cheng & He, 2017; Keren & Roelofsma, 1995). The current study investigates whether regret (anticipated vs. retrospective) and decision immediacy (decisions for our future vs. current selves) impact the decoy effect. Participants were primed with anticipated regret, retrospective regret, or no regret, and then chose between three job positions designed to measure the decoy effect. The decision was framed as affecting either the participant’s present or future. A total of 233 participants were included in the analysis. Results indicated that the decoy effect was significantly reduced for future decisions compared to present decisions ( β = 0.56, p = .04). There were no significant differences across regret conditions. These findings suggest that adopting a future-oriented perspective may reduce susceptibility to the decoy effect. Future research should investigate whether this is true for other heuristics and biases as well. Given its use in domains such as consumer choice and healthcare (Stoffel et al., 2019; Sun, 2023; Wu & Cosguner, 2020), understanding when individuals are more or less susceptible to such biases can help inform the design of more effective choice environments. Presentation Type: Poster Presentation (May 21, 9:30am–3:00pm) Keywords: Immediacy, decoy effect, heuristics, retrospective regret, decision-making SOURCE Form ID: 149 Thinking Ahead Reduces Susceptibility to the Decoy Effect Jocelyn Cruz * Project Mentor(s): Tonya Buchanan, PhD
152
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator