Framing Effect In Psychology

The framing effect can be described as a cognitive bias wherein an individual’s choice from a set of options is influenced more by the presentation than the substance of the pertinent information (Plous, 1993).

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

Following are some instances wherein the framing of the same information can lead a person to choose one option over another:

• While looking for a disinfectant, you choose a product that kills 95% of all the germs (positive frame), over one which claims that 5% of the germs will survive (negative frame).
• You’re concerned about your blood sugar level, and you choose a chocolate that is ‘90% sugar-free’ (positive frame) over one that is ‘10% sugar (negative frame).’
• You must decide between two elective courses for your final semester in college. You are determined to maintain your high GPA, and you talk with the professor of each class. One tells you that 20% of the students procure A’s (positive frame) while the other tells you that 80% fail to get an A (negative frame). You choose the former over the latter.
• A doctor tells a patient that a procedure has a 90% success rate (positive frame) versus a 10% failure rate (negative frame). The patient is more likely to opt for the procedure with positive framing.
• Saying “Save $100 a year by using energy-efficient appliances” (gain frame) rather than “Lose $100 a year by not using energy-efficient appliances” (loss frame). The gain-framed message may motivate more people to act.

Prospect Theory

Essential to a deeper understanding of the framing effect is the prospect theory.

The prospect theory, originally developed by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in 1979, is a psychological theory of choice (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).

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.

The prospect theory holds that individuals are more influenced by the possibility of a loss than the prospect of an equivalent gain (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).

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.

The results of the experiment demonstrated that choices that people make when they are offered options to choose from are influenced not merely by the substance of the information but also by the framing thereof.

Experiments

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

While adolescents are more likely to be influenced by the framing effect than children, their susceptibility to the phenomenon is not as strong as those of adults (Strough, Karns & Schlosnagle, 2011).

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.

Among adults, however, older adults are more likely to be influenced by the framing effect than young adults (Peters, Finucane, MacGregor & Slovic, 2000).

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).

As such, they are more likely to depend upon readily accessible information and even frames. For instance, research shows that the decision-making of older adults on medical issues is shaped more by how doctors frame the available options than the actual difference between such options.

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

The discussion above, which unveils how the framing effect works, also points to us how it could be avoided. Following are some approaches we can devise to make decisions devoid of biases:

• Closely examine the information on advertisements, and distinguish the raw details from the alluring embellishments employed to entice consumers.
• When presented with a fact with a negative or positive connotation, try to mentally rephrase it to produce the contrary connotation before deciding.
• Before choosing from a variety of options, research and acquire as much information as possible about each option from a broad array of sources, seeking both critical and friendly evaluations of each option.
• When a certain political candidate is demonized by some media outlets, seek alternative opinions of the candidate from those who actively support him/her before forming an opinion of the candidate.

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. In  Handbook 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.

Thomas, A. K., & Millar, P. R. (2012). Reducing the framing effect in older and younger adults by encouraging analytic processing.  Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences,  67 (2), 139-149.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science,  211 (4481), 453-458.