Framing effect bias occurs when the framing of information, whether about gains or losses, alters an individual’s perception and subsequent choices. This cognitive bias is a persuasive force in decision-making, along with other heuristics and psychological biases.
It demonstrates that the same information can lead to different conclusions depending on how it is presented. For example, a 75% success rate seems more appealing than a 25% failure rate, even though the two options both represent the same probability.
- Positive Frame (Gain Scenario): When information is presented in a positive frame, it typically emphasizes the potential gains. Individuals are more likely to be risk-averse, preferring sure gains over the chance for greater gains.
Example: “Saving 200 lives out of 600” focuses on the lives saved. - Negative Frame (Loss Scenario): Conversely, a negative frame centers on potential losses, making individuals more prone to risk-seeking behavior to avoid guaranteed losses.
Example: “Losing 400 people’s lives out of 600 people” spotlights how many would die.
Psychological Foundations of Framing Effect
The framing effect has been repeatedly demonstrated to be one of the most significant biases in decision making. It has a tremendous impact on people’s decisions.
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman have illustrated through their work how people’s preferences can change based solely on the way information is presented — whether as gains or losses, for example. This bias occurs because the human mind is not a flawless calculator; it is influenced by emotion and perception, which can overshadow strict rationality.
In Gain/Loss Framing, if a decision is framed in terms of potential gains, individuals are more likely to avoid risk. Conversely, in a Loss/Gain Frame, when framed in terms of potential losses, they are more inclined to take risks.
Influence of Age on Susceptibility to Framing
Evidence from research suggests that age can affect an individual’s susceptibility to framing effects. Younger individuals, whose cognitive functions are still developing, may demonstrate different framing responses compared to older adults, whose experiences can both add context and introduce cognitive decline, influencing decision-making processes. This trend, however, is not linear and can be affected by a variety of factors such as cognitive load, personal values, and familiarity with the subject matter.
- Younger Individuals: They may be more impressionable due to a lack of experience and therefore potentially more susceptible to framing.
- Older Individuals: Experience and cognitive changes can alter susceptibility; however, this varies widely among individuals.
Multiple studies of undergraduate students have indicated that students favor options that are framed positively. This could be attributable to a number of variables, including a preference for novelty, a more optimistic attitude on outcomes, or even a lower aversion to danger that is inherent in young.
For example, people are more inclined to eat meat branded 75% lean meat rather than 25% fat, or to use condoms advertising as 95% effective rather than having a 5% failure rate.
Because older individuals tend to lack cognitive resources, such as flexibility in decision-making processes, they may be more influenced by emotional frames than younger adults or adolescents. Furthermore, when people get older, they make decisions faster than their younger counterparts. It is notable that, when prompted, older persons would frequently make a less biased selection by reevaluating their earlier choice.
Several studies have found that younger adults make fewer biased decisions than older adults because they base their decisions on interpretations of patterns of events and can better apply decision-making procedures that involve cognitive resources such as working memory skills. In contrast, older folks make decisions based on their immediate reactions to profits and losses.
Prospect Theory and Framing
Prospect theory, developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, suggests that people make decisions based on the potential value of losses and gains rather than the final outcome. The concept of loss aversion is central to prospect theory: we dislike losing more than we enjoy winning.
The term prospect referred to the foreseeable outcomes of a lottery in the theory’s original formulation. Prospect theory, in the current form, can be applied in the forecasting of a range of kinds of behaviors and decisions.
Tversky and Kahneman argue that the way choices are presented — or framed — can significantly influence and even alter decision-making. Research has shown that when options are framed in terms of potential gains, individuals tend to become risk-averse.
Conversely, when framed in terms of potential losses, individuals are more willing to take risks. This pivotal theory in behavioral economics illuminates the inconsistency in human rationality when faced with identical choices presented differently.
How Framing Influences Behavior
The framing effect holds significant sway over the decision-making process in various domains, from legal proceedings to medical practice, eliciting different responses depending on the presentation of information.
Stephanos Bibas, a law professor and judge in the United States, wrote a study in 2004 about the impact of plea bargaining on the criminal judicial system. It came to the conclusion that framing plays an important role in plea bargaining in judicial proceedings, claiming that defendants are less inclined to accept plea deals because they see them through a “loss frame.”
Impact on Medical Decisions
In the realm of medical decisions, framing can significantly influence both clinicians and patients. When surgery risks are presented in a survival frame, patients are more likely to consent to the procedure than when the same statistics are framed in terms of mortality.
A 2013 study highlights this cognitive bias in action and emphasizes the importance of how information is conveyed to achieve informed consent in a medical setting, while noting that real-world problems are frequently more complex than those designed in experiments.
Effect on Financial Decision Making
The intricacies of financial decision-making are heavily impacted by the framing effect. This is particularly evident when individuals make choices about their investment portfolio.
Positive framing of financial opportunities can lead to a higher inclination toward risks hoping for gains, whereas the negative framing of potential losses may make individuals more risk-averse. Such biases can profoundly affect investment behavior and the resulting financial outcomes.
Consumer Behavior and Purchase Decisions
In the realm of economics, consumer behavior is deeply affected by the framing effect. The way a product or service is presented, including its price and benefits, can alter a shopper’s preferences and purchasing decisions.
For instance, a sale might be more enticing if the discount is framed in terms of what the consumer will save rather than what they will spend. Empirical evidence suggests that when it comes to shopping, consumers are more apt to buy goods when potential losses are minimized and gains are maximized in the messaging, even if the economic value is unchanged.
Advertising Strategies and Messaging
Advertising campaigns leverage the framing effect to enhance message receptivity and steer consumer behavior. Marketers carefully craft their language to emphasize positive outcomes or downplay negative ones, thereby influencing preferences and guiding the consumer journey.
For example, a product’s eco-friendliness might be highlighted to appeal to environmentally conscious buyers. A 1986 paper on the biasing effects of framing on business decisions underlines the potent role that deliberately structured communication plays within the spheres of advertising and marketing. In one part of the study, experienced business managers revealed the same pattern of framing-derived decision bias as student subjects.
Strategies to Counteract Framing
A foundational step in counteracting framing bias is enhancing awareness of the existence and effects of cognitive biases. By understanding that framing bias can skew their perception, individuals and organizations can be more vigilant in their decision-making processes.
It is important to foster an environment where critical thinking and qualitative reasoning are valued and promoted. Educational programs can highlight the science behind biases, using empirical studies that illustrate the framing effect to underscore its impact on decision-making. Observational learning has been shown to reduce bias in decision making situations.
Techniques for Reframing and Decision Hygiene
The concept of reframing involves restating the information or problem from different perspectives to reduce the likelihood of bias. This could include considering the inverse of a proposition, seeking out contrary information, or consulting with a diverse range of stakeholders to gain multiple viewpoints.
Decision hygiene refers to the practice of standardizing how choices are made to avoid relying on intuition or gut feelings, which are susceptible to frames. One might advise the use of decision matrices or checklists that prioritize values and relevant criteria, ensuring that decisions are consistent and aligned with objectives.
Extensionality Violation
In the field of logic, the principle of extensionality calls for “two formulas which have the same truth-value under any truth-assignments to be mutually substitutable salva veritate in a sentence that contains one of these formulas.” Simply put, things with the same exterior attributes are equal.
When applied to decision-making, this idea argues that how an issue is characterized should not influence how a decision is made. Because of the extensionality principle, multiple explanations of the same decision problem should not result in different decisions. An extensionality violation occurs when judgments are made based on irrelevant information, as described.
Addressing extensionality breaches requires raising awareness of how differing definitions of a problem might unwittingly impact judgments, and establishing ways to limit such deviations. As a result, decision-makers can use the extensionality principle as a guide in navigating the complexity of choice, focusing on decisions that are more in touch with the intrinsic features of the problem rather than its descriptions.
References:
- Bourgeois-Gironde, Sacha; Giraud, Raphaël (2009). Framing effects as violations of extensionality. Theory and Decision. 67 (4): 385–404. doi:10.1007/s11238-009-9133-7
- Druckman, J. N. (2001b). Using credible advice to overcome framing effects. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization. 17: 62–82. doi:10.1093/jleo/17.1.62
- Gong J, Zhang Y, Feng J, Huang Y, Wei Y, Zhang W. Influence of framing on medical decision making. EXCLI J. 2013 Jan 18;12:20-9
- Jin, J., Zhang, W., & Chen, M. (2017). How consumers are affected by product descriptions in online shopping: event-related potentials evidence of the attribute framing effect. Neuroscience research, 125, 21-28
- Mowen, M.M. and Mowen, J.C. (1986), An Empirical Examination Of The Biasing Effects Of Framing On Business Decisions. Decision Sciences, 17: 596-602
- Plous, Scott (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-050477-6
- Thomas, A. K.; Millar, P. R. (2011). Reducing the Framing Effect in Older and Younger Adults by Encouraging Analytic Processing. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 67B (2): 139–49. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbr076
- Tversky, Amos; Kahneman, Daniel (1981). The Framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 211 (4481): 453–58. doi:10.1126/science.7455683
- Watanabe, S.; Shibutani, H. (2010). Aging and decision making: Differences in susceptibility to the risky-choice framing effect between older and younger adults in Japan. Japanese Psychological Research. 52 (3): 163. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5884.2010.00432.x