Search

This paper revisits Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s work on framing. It shows how various conventions involved in economic theory allow for the establishment of different equivalence relations between pairs of problems in framing experiments. Following on from this, an exegesis of their comments on these experiments is conducted. This concerns the relation between their theoretical explanation using prospect theory and the positive/normative distinction involved in models of individual behaviors. Throughout, a methodological framework is developed with a distinction between identity, equivalence and equality (borrowed from philosopher Craig Dilworth) for a critical analysis of the relation between external frames (the empirical structure of a decision problem) and internal frames (the psychological representation of the decision problem by decision makers).