 |
| Choices: 98% Effective or 2% Failure Rate? |
The framing effect is a cognitive bias where people react differently to the same information depending on how it's presented, or "framed". This means the way a choice is worded (e.g., as a gain or a loss) can influence a person's decision-making, even if the underlying options are logically equivalent (Sutton, 2025, September 28).
CITE THIS POST
Sutton, G. W. (2025, September 28). Identity erasure and psychology. Psychology Concepts and Theories. https://suttonpsychology.blogspot.com/2025/09/framing-effect.html
Here's a more detailed explanation:
How it works: The framing effect highlights how the way information is presented can subtly influence perceptions and choices. It shows that people are more likely to take risks to avoid losses than to achieve gains, even when the potential outcomes are the same.
Examples
A hand sanitizer described as "99% effective" is perceived more favorably than one described as having "1% failure rate".
A medical treatment framed as saving 200 lives is preferred by some, while others might prefer a treatment framed as having a 1/3 probability of saving all 600 lives, even though the outcomes are identical.
Buying a product labeled "80% lean" might be preferred over one labeled "20% fat," even though the products are the same.
Impact
The framing effect can significantly influence decision-making in various contexts, including:
Marketing: Businesses use framing to make products appear more appealing by emphasizing positive aspects or framing them in a way that minimizes negative ones.
Politics: Political campaigns use framing to influence public opinion by emphasizing specific aspects of candidates or policies.
Medical decisions: Framing can influence patients' choices about treatments, as seen in the example above.
Marketing: Businesses use framing to make products appear more appealing by emphasizing positive aspects or framing them in a way that minimizes negative ones.
Politics: Political campaigns use framing to influence public opinion by emphasizing specific aspects of candidates or policies.
Medical decisions: Framing can influence patients' choices about treatments, as seen in the example above.
Why it matters
Understanding the framing effect is crucial for making informed decisions. It highlights how our perceptions can be manipulated and how important it is to consider all aspects of a situation, regardless of how they are presented.
Note
This page is for education and not personal advice. Consult health care providers for the most recent information and personal concerns.
Post Author
Geoffrey W. Sutton, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Evangel University, holds a master’s degree in counseling and a PhD in psychology from the University of Missouri-Columbia. His postdoctoral work encompassed education and supervision in forensic and neuropsychology and psychopharmacology. As a licensed psychologist, he conducted clinical and neuropsychological evaluations and provided psychotherapy for patients in various settings, including schools, hospitals, and private offices. During his tenure as a professor, Dr. Sutton taught courses on psychotherapy, assessment, and research. He has authored over one hundred publications, including books, book chapters, and articles in peer-reviewed psychology journals.
His website is https://suttong.com
RESEARCH ARTICLES
Tversky and Kahneman (1981) primary article on the framing effect.
The seminal study demonstrated that people’s risk preferences shift depending on whether outcomes are framed as gains or losses, even when options are objectively equivalent. Using problems like the “Asian disease” scenario, they showed systematic risk aversion in gain frames and risk seeking in loss frames, establishing framing as a robust violation of expected utility.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.
***
McNeil, Pauker, Sox, and Tversky (1982) medical decision framing
In clinical choices about therapies, survival versus mortality framing led patients and physicians to prefer different treatments despite identical probabilities. The study highlighted framing’s practical stakes in healthcare, showing that wording alone can alter risk tolerance and treatment preferences.
McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 306(21), 1259–1262.
***
Levin, Schneider, and Gaeth (1998) typology of framing effects
This influential review distinguished three forms of framing—risky-choice, attribute, and goal framing—clarifying that framing operates through different psychological pathways depending on whether risk, evaluative attributes, or action outcomes are emphasized. The typology helped standardize research designs and interpret heterogeneous findings across domains A.
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188.
***
Amsalem and Zoizner (2022) A Meta-analysis of Framing and Politics
Over the past three decades, framing effects have been widely studied as a means of evaluating citizens’ political competence and susceptibility to elite influence. Yet findings across individual studies have been inconsistent, with limited cumulative evidence. This meta-analysis synthesizes results from 138 experiments to assess the overall efficacy of framing in the political domain. The analysis reveals that framing exerts medium-sized effects on political attitudes and emotions, indicating that citizens’ evaluations and affective responses are meaningfully shaped by how issues are presented. However, framing effects on political behavior are negligible, and effects are substantially reduced in studies that incorporate frame competition, reflecting more realistic communicative environments. These findings suggest that while elites can influence public opinion through framing, their capacity to do so is constrained. Overall, the evidence portrays citizens as more discerning and resilient than often assumed, challenging perspectives that emphasize widespread vulnerability to elite manipulation.
Amsalem, E., & Zoizner, A. (2022). Real, but limited: A meta-analytic assessment of framing effects in the political domain. British Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 221–237. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712342000032X
***
Flusberg, Holmes, Thibodeau, Nabi, and Matlock (2024) integrative review of linguistic framing
This comprehensive review synthesizes cognitive, social-pragmatic, and emotional mechanisms of framing and offers a taxonomy of linguistic techniques that shape mental models. It also identifies moderators and boundary conditions, arguing that framing is an intrinsic feature of communication whose effects depend on context and message design.
Flusberg, S. J., Holmes, K. J., Thibodeau, P. B H., Nabi, R. L., & Matlock, T. (2024). The psychology of framing: How everyday language shapes the way we think and act. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. Advance online publication.
Comments