On This Page:ToggleExamplesProspect TheoryOriginsExperimentsAgeHow To Avoid
On This Page:Toggle
On This Page:
The framing effect in psychology refers to the bias where people react differently to a particular decision depending on how it’s presented, or “framed”, emphasizing either the positive (gain) or negative (loss) aspects. The same information, when framed differently, can alter people’s responses.
Take-home Messages
Hand turns a dice and changes the expression “half empty” to “half full” with a glass of water in the background
The salience of certain features over others, as well as the positive or negative connotations pertaining to the information, is more likely than the actual information itself to determine the recipient’s response.
Moreover, individuals are more likely to desire risks when the information is framed negatively but seek to avoid risks when the information is framed positively (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).
Examples
Prospect Theory
Essential to a deeper understanding of the framing effect is the prospect theory.
It describes how people evaluate their losses and acquire insight in an asymmetric fashion. Unlike the expected utility theory, which models the decision-making of perfectly rational agents, the prospect theory aims to describe the actual conduct of individuals and finds application in behavioral finance and economics.
Moreover, while a probabilistic deprivation is favored over a sure deprivation, a definite gain is preferred to a probabilistic gain.
Herein, the framing effect becomes manifest when individuals are offered various options within the context of merely one of the frames (Druckman, 2001).
Origins of the Framing Effect
In 1981, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky studied how various means of phrasing the same information influenced the responses to a hypothetical life-and-death situation (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).
The participants of the study were asked to choose between two options for treatment for 600 people afflicted with a fatal disease.
The first option was likely to result in the deaths of 400 people. On the other hand, the second option had 66% possibility of everyone dying and a 33% possibility of no one dying.
These two options were then presented to the participants of the study with either a negative framing (describing how many would die) or a positive framing (relating how many would live).
Of the participants, 72% chose the first option for treatment when it was framed positively, i.e., as saving 200 lives. However, only 22% chose the same option when it was framed negatively, i.e., resulting in the deaths of 400 people.
Experiments
Plea BargainingAn analysis of plea-bargaining literature has yielded results unveiling the impact of framing on the criminal justice system (Bibas, 2004). Conventional wisdom holds that parties may strike a plea bargain in light of expected trial outcomes.According to this view, following a forecast of the anticipated sentence, the parties would deduct from it the possibility of exoneration and offer a proportional discount.This conventional model, however, notably ignores theheuristics and the psychological biaseswhich may warp the decision-making process. Among these biases are loss aversion, risk preferences, and framing, which can significantly shape the bargaining outcomes.While skillful lawyering may ameliorate some biases, evidence suggests that the impact of framing remains a crucial component in the process.
Plea Bargaining
An analysis of plea-bargaining literature has yielded results unveiling the impact of framing on the criminal justice system (Bibas, 2004). Conventional wisdom holds that parties may strike a plea bargain in light of expected trial outcomes.According to this view, following a forecast of the anticipated sentence, the parties would deduct from it the possibility of exoneration and offer a proportional discount.This conventional model, however, notably ignores theheuristics and the psychological biaseswhich may warp the decision-making process. Among these biases are loss aversion, risk preferences, and framing, which can significantly shape the bargaining outcomes.While skillful lawyering may ameliorate some biases, evidence suggests that the impact of framing remains a crucial component in the process.
An analysis of plea-bargaining literature has yielded results unveiling the impact of framing on the criminal justice system (Bibas, 2004). Conventional wisdom holds that parties may strike a plea bargain in light of expected trial outcomes.
According to this view, following a forecast of the anticipated sentence, the parties would deduct from it the possibility of exoneration and offer a proportional discount.
This conventional model, however, notably ignores theheuristics and the psychological biaseswhich may warp the decision-making process. Among these biases are loss aversion, risk preferences, and framing, which can significantly shape the bargaining outcomes.
While skillful lawyering may ameliorate some biases, evidence suggests that the impact of framing remains a crucial component in the process.
Economists
A study eliciting attention was conducted employing a natural field experiment to analyze the framing effect (Gächter, Orzen, Renner & Stamer, 2009).
The participant pool for this experiment comprised experimental economists, a group that one might perceive to be cognizant of and, therefore, resistant to the framing effect.
The first group presented information concerning the difference between early and late payment fees in a positive frame as a discount. The second group was given the same information in a negative frame as a late penalty.
The results indicated that while the framing effect influenced the junior experimental economists, the more senior economists were not.
Can Advice Overcome the Framing Effect?
Druckman utilized two experiments to demonstrate the role of advice on how individuals should decide when various options are offered.
The first experiment used a variation of the experiment of Kahneman and Tversky described above, choosing a hypothetical treatment for 600 people with a fatal disease.
The second experiment presented the participants with a hypothetical choice between surgery and radiation to treat lung cancer, along with a recommendation from specialists from two prominent medical research organizations on which option to choose.
Results from both experiments seem to indicate that recommendation or endorsement from a supposedly credible source could dramatically decrease or even eliminate the framing effect.
Likewise, when a specialist’s recommendation was upon one option over another, the wording of the choices could not significantly influence the decision-making of the participant.
The Framing Effect in a Foreign Language
A notable study that analyzed the framing effect in a foreign language produced interesting results (Keysar, Hayakawa & An, 2012).
A merely intuitive approach might suggest that the framing effect remains constant despite the language or perhaps that the difficulty associated with a foreign tongue may, in fact, amplify the framing effect because the challenges in comprehension could make the decision-making process less systematic.
However, research demonstrates that employing a foreign language actually reduces decision-making biases. Results from 4 experiments showed that when various options for choice were presented to the participants in their native tongue, they were risk-seeking for losses and risk-averse for gains.
However, when the same options were offered in a foreign tongue, the participants were immune to this framing manipulation. This outcome suggests that the framing effect vanishes when the choices are presented in a foreign language.
Age and the Framing Effect
Childhood
The impact of framing on the decision-making processes of children seems to increase as they grow (Reyna & Farley, 2006).
For instance, while preschoolers tend to base their decisions on quantitative properties like the probability of a certain result, elementary schoolers tend to rely on qualitative reasoning, choosing surer options for gains within a positive frame and riskier options within a negative frame notwithstanding the probability.
This increase in qualitative reasoning is associated with a rise in “gist-based” thinking, which is correlated with age (Reyna, 2008).
Adolescence
Adolescents tend to opt for riskier choices under both loss and gain framing situations (Albert & Steinberg, 2011).
One explanation for this outcome is that adolescents, unlike adults, lack actual real-life experiences of negative repercussions and, therefore, depend too heavily upon conscious risk-benefit analyses which rely on the specific details associated with quantitative evaluation (Schlottmann & Tring, 2005).
This diminishes the influence of the framing effect and induces more consistency between positive and negative frames.
Adulthood
Adults are more susceptible to framing effects than children and adolescents.
For instance, a research study of undergraduate students discovered that they are more likely to eat meat labeled 75% lean meat rather than 25% fat (Revlin, 2012).
Moreover, research suggests that undergraduate students are more willing to buy an item after losing an equivalent amount of money rather than the item itself.
A possible explanation for this phenomenon is that because aging is correlated with the decline of cognitive capabilities, older people tend to lean on less cognitively demanding means when making decisions (Thomas & Millar, 2011).
Moreover, when choosing cancer treatments, framing may shift their focus from short-term to long-term survival (Erber, 2013).
Research also indicates that when presented with a particular treatment, older adults are more likely to choose that treatment if it is described positively than if it is described either negatively or neutrally (Peters, Finucane, MacGregor & Slovic, 2000).
Furthermore, an evaluation of older adults’ ability to remember information from pamphlets on healthcare matters shows that older adults tend to recall positively worded statements more accurately than negatively worded ones (Löckenhoff, 2011).
How to Avoid the Framing Effect
References
Albert, D., & Steinberg, L. (2011).Judgment and decision making in adolescence.Journal of Research on Adolescence,21(1), 211-224.
Bibas, S. (2004). Plea bargaining outside the shadow of trial.Harvard Law Review, 2463-2547.
Druckman, J. N. (2001).Evaluating framing effects.Journal of economic psychology,22(1), 91-101.
Druckman, J. N. (2001). Using credible advice to overcome framing effects.Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization,17(1), 62-82.
Erber, J. T. (2012).Aging and older adulthood. John Wiley & Sons.
Gächter, S., Orzen, H., Renner, E., & Starmer, C. (2009). Are experimental economists prone to framing effects? A natural field experiment.Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,70(3), 443-446.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013).Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. InHandbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I(pp. 99-127).
Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S. L., & An, S. G. (2012). The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases.Psychological science,23(6), 661-668.
Löckenhoff, C. E. (2011). Age, time, and decision making: from processing speed to global time horizons.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,1235, 44.
Peters, E., Finucane, M. L., MacGregor, D. G., & Slovic, P. (2000). The bearable lightness of aging: Judgment and decision processes in older adults.The aging mind: Opportunities in cognitive research, 144-165.
Plous, S. (1993).The psychology of judgment and decision making. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
Revlin, R. (2012).Cognition: Theory and practice. Macmillan.
Reyna, V. F. (2008). A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory.Medical decision making,28(6), 850-865.
Reyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006). Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making: Implications for theory, practice, and public policy.Psychological science in the public interest,7(1), 1-44.
Schlottmann, A., & Tring, J. (2005). How children reason about gains and losses: Framing effects in judgement and choice.Swiss Journal of Psychology,64(3), 153-171.
Strough, J., Karns, T. E., & Schlosnagle, L. (2011). Decision-making heuristics and biases across the life span.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,1235, 57.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981).The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science,211(4481), 453-458.
Further InformationTversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. science, 211(4481), 453-458.Druckman, J. N. (2001). Evaluating framing effects. Journal of economic psychology, 22(1), 91-101.Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I (pp. 99-127).
Further Information
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. science, 211(4481), 453-458.Druckman, J. N. (2001). Evaluating framing effects. Journal of economic psychology, 22(1), 91-101.Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I (pp. 99-127).
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. science, 211(4481), 453-458.
Druckman, J. N. (2001). Evaluating framing effects. Journal of economic psychology, 22(1), 91-101.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (2013). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. In Handbook of the fundamentals of financial decision making: Part I (pp. 99-127).
Saul McLeod, PhD
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
Ayesh PereraResearcherB.A, MTS, Harvard UniversityAyesh Perera, a Harvard graduate, has worked as a researcher in psychology and neuroscience under Dr. Kevin Majeres at Harvard Medical School.
Ayesh PereraResearcherB.A, MTS, Harvard University
Ayesh Perera
Researcher
B.A, MTS, Harvard University
Ayesh Perera, a Harvard graduate, has worked as a researcher in psychology and neuroscience under Dr. Kevin Majeres at Harvard Medical School.
