中文

Cognitive biases · Decisions and choices

Framing effect

The same facts can lead to different choices depending on how they are worded.

What it is

The framing effect is when people make different choices about the same situation depending on how it is described. A “90% success rate” and a “10% failure rate” carry identical information, yet they can feel very different. Logically, wording that does not change the facts should not change the decision.

An everyday example

Two gyms near Tom’s apartment offer the same plan at the same price. One advertises “Cancel anytime: 9 out of 10 members stay past a year.” The other says “1 in 10 members quits within a year.” Tom signs up at the first one, feeling it is the more popular gym.

Both statements describe the same retention. Only the spotlight moved.

Why it happens

Descriptions set a reference point. When outcomes are framed as gains, people tend to prefer the safe option; when the same outcomes are framed as losses, they become more willing to take risks (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Losses also tend to weigh more heavily than equal gains, which strengthens the pull of a loss frame.

Positive and negative words also carry emotional tone. “Lean” sounds better than “fat”, even when they describe the same percentages.

How to counter it

  • Flip the frame. Restate the information the other way (“90% stay” becomes “10% leave”) and see if your choice changes.
  • Convert to plain numbers. Write out the outcomes as counts, without adjectives.
  • Separate facts from wording. Ask, “What would I choose if this were described neutrally?”
  • Be alert to who chose the frame. Advertisers, campaigns and negotiators pick wording on purpose.

What the research shows

In the classic “disease problem”, participants chose between programs to respond to an outbreak expected to kill 600 people. When options were described in terms of lives saved, 72% chose the sure option. When the same options were described in terms of deaths, 78% chose the risky one (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).

Later reviews add nuance. Levin, Schneider and Gaeth (1998) distinguished three kinds of framing: risky-choice framing (like the disease problem), attribute framing (such as “75% lean” versus “25% fat”), and goal framing (stressing what you gain by acting versus what you lose by not acting). These work through different processes and should not be treated as one effect.

A meta-analysis found that risky-choice framing is a real effect overall, but its size varies considerably with how studies are designed and which tasks are used (Kühberger, 1998). In short: framing reliably matters, but how much depends on the situation.

Related biases

  • Loss aversion — Losing something tends to feel worse than gaining the same thing feels good.
  • Anchoring effect — The first number we see tends to drag our later estimates toward it.
  • Status quo bias — We tend to stick with the current option or the default, simply because it is already there.

Sources

  1. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
  2. 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. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804
  3. Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2781

All biases