Decisions based on the framing effect are made by focusing on the way the information is presented instead of the information itself. Such decisions may be sub-optimal, as poor information or lesser options can be framed in a positive light. This may make them more attractive than options or information are objectively better, but cast in a less favorable light.

Think of someone who unwisely chooses a high-risk investment portfolio because their broker emphasized the upside instead of the potential downside, or a citizen who votes for a protectionist candidate because media coverage has only highlighted the negative repercussions of past trade agreements. From influencing our investment decisions to our political affiliation, the framing effect can drive many of our beliefs and behaviors. But it’s not all negative. While framing can encourage us to make riskier choices, it can also help us make better choices in the face of fear or uncertainty—when we’re most likely to default to mental heuristics rather than conducting a rational analysis of our options. Making medical decisions is a great example here. If a doctor frames a helpful treatment as 95% effective at reducing symptoms rather than saying there’s a 5% chance that it might not work, we’re more inclined to give the treatment a go. The simple framing of a decision in a positive light can often help us make better choices, especially when uncertainty or doubt might otherwise hold us back.

The framing effect can have considerable influence on public opinion. Public affairs and other events that draw attention from the public can be interpreted very differently based on how they are framed. Sometimes, issues or positions that benefit the majority of people can be seen unfavorably because of negative framing. Likewise, policy stances and behavior that do not further the public good may become popular because their positive attributes are effectively emphasized.¹

For example, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence showing that climate change will result in enormous costs further down the line, and that those costs will be disproportionately borne by low income communities.² Despite this, there are a significant number of voters in North America who deny climate change and believe policies such as carbon taxes will disadvantage the average citizen. This may be because climate change has been framed as a scientifically contentious issue by some media outlets and politicians, who also often highlight the short-term financial costs of environmental policy.

Our choices are influenced by the way options are framed through different wordings, reference points, and emphasis. The most common framing draws attention to either the positive gain or negative loss associated with an option. We are susceptible to this sort of framing because we tend to avoid loss.

We avoid loss

The foundational work of psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky explains framing using their “prospect theory,” a theory in behavioral economics that explains how people make decisions between options involving risk or uncertainty. According to this theory, a loss is perceived as more significant, and therefore more worthy of avoiding, than an equivalent gain—this results in a bias called loss aversion.^.3 What’s more, a sure gain is preferred to a probable one, and a probable loss is preferred to a sure loss. Loss aversion encourages us to seek options with certain or guaranteed gains over those with potential gain that also carry the risk of losses. The way something is framed can influence our certainty that it will bring either gain or loss. This is why we find it attractive when the positive features of an option are highlighted instead of the negative ones.

Our brain uses shortcuts

Processing and evaluating information takes time and energy. To make this process more efficient, our mind often uses shortcuts or “heuristics.” The availability and affect heuristic may contribute to the framing effect. The availability heuristic is our tendency to use information that comes to mind quickly and easily when making decisions about the future. Studies have shown that the framing effect is more prevalent in older adults who have more limited cognitive resources, and who therefore favor information that is presented in a way that is easily accessible to them.⁴ Because we favor information that is easily understood and recalled, options that are framed in this way are favored over those that aren’t.

The affect heuristic is a shortcut whereby we rely heavily upon our emotional state during decision-making, rather than taking the time to consider the long-term consequences of a decision. This may be why we favor information and options that are framed to elicit an immediate emotional response. Research has shown that framing relies on emotional appeals and can be designed to have specific emotional reactions.⁵ Picture this: most of us would be more willing to listen and vote for a political candidate that presents their platform in an emotional speech framed at inspiring change, over a candidate with the same platform that is presented it in a dreary report.

The framing effect can have both positive and negative impacts on our lives. As mentioned above, it can impair our decision-making by shedding a positive light on poor information or lesser options. In other words, overvaluing how something is said (its framing) can cause us to undervalue what is being said, which is usually more important. As a result, we may choose worse options that are more effectively framed over better options or information that is framed badly. This holds true in the smaller decisions we make as consumers and citizens, as well as more significant decisions in our personal and professional lives.

However, we should also be aware of this effect because it can be harnessed to our advantage. Understanding that people are influenced by framing can make us focus on how we present information we want others to accept and act on. Knowing that people are drawn to framing that highlights certain gains can help us present our work in this fashion, making it more attractive and effective. When managing or collaborating with other people, it is important to remember the importance of how we present our message or position. More effective framing may allow us to better leverage our point of view.

There are a few strategies for reducing the framing effect. Research has shown that people who are more “involved” on an issue are less likely to suffer from framing effects surrounding it. Involvement can be thought of as how invested you are in an issue. A 2010 study found that “people who are involved with an issue are more motivated to systematically process persuasive messages and are more interested in acquiring information about the product than people who are less involved with the issue.” More involved individuals were found to be less susceptible to the framing effect, whereas those who were less involved were more susceptible.

What we can take from these findings, is that we should think through our choices concerning an issue and try to become more informed on it. Indeed, the authors posit that previous literature has found that “framing bias would be mitigated or eliminated if individuals thought more carefully about their choices” and that “when older adults examined more information relevant to the decision, they made more effective decisions”.⁷

A more specific strategy that falls in line with this more general approach is to provide rationales for our choices. A 1997 study found this reduced framing effects in participants as it forced them to engage in more detailed mental processing.⁸ This makes sense: If we really think through why we selected an option or relied on certain information, we might realize that the way in which it was presented influenced our decision too much.

What are the different types of framing approaches?

According to researchers Levin, Schneider, and Gaeth, there are three main types of framing effects: risky choice framing, attribute framing, and goal framing.¹³ Let’s go over these and explore where each typically shows up in the real world.

Risky choice framing is the standard framing approach based on Tversky and Kahneman’s research on prospect theory. This type of framing involves presenting a choice between a risky option with an uncertain outcome and a certain option with a guaranteed outcome. People tend to prefer the certain option when the decision is framed positively (“you will win $100” vs. “you have a chance of winning $200”) but prefer the risky option when the decision is framed negatively (“you will lose $100” vs. “you have a chance of losing $200”). Risky choice framing is often used in situations where people face uncertainty, such as in financial decision-making or medical situations.

Attribute framing involves describing a single characteristic of an object in a way that influences that object’s evaluation. This type of framing presents information about a certain attribute in a positive or negative light and is often used in marketing to make products seem more appealing. For example, people will likely evaluate a frozen yogurt product more favorably if it’s framed as 80% fat-free (positive) rather than 20% fat (negative).

Goal framing is concerned with how the consequences or goals of an action are presented. This type of framing emphasizes the positive consequences of a behavior or the negative consequences of avoiding it.  Goal framing is often used in persuasive communication, such as public health messaging. For example, goal framing could be expressed as “If you exercise every day, you'll reduce your risk of heart disease” vs. “If you don’t exercise every day, you’ll increase your risk of heart disease.” Both positive and negative goal framing can be effective, but research suggests that negative framing (this bad thing might happen if you don’t do this) has a greater persuasive impact.¹³

How does cultural context influence the framing effect?

Research suggests that people from different cultures respond to framing differently. One study comparing the effects of framing on Koreans and North Americans found that Koreans were more sensitive to attribute framing.¹⁴ Compared to North Americans, Koreans required significantly more positive reviews to feel good about buying a product when the decision was framed negatively versus framed positively. The researchers explain that it is theorized that Koreans have a greater tendency to avoid negative outcomes (they have a prevention-focused mindset), and therefore are more sensitive to framing that highlights potential risks or downsides. North Americans, on the other hand, tend to be more promotion-focused and seek to maximize gains, so they may be less influenced by negative framing. This study highlights the importance of considering cultural context when employing the framing effect to support decision-making or promote desirable behaviors.

Israeli psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahnemann were the first to systematically study and prove the framing effect’s influence on our decision-making. Their 1979 study established the aforementioned “prospect theory,” exploring how people make decisions under risk and uncertainty.¹² Two years later, they turned to a more exclusive focus on framing effects in The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice where they demonstrated how framing options as gains or losses can make people more or less risk averse.

In this study, Tversky and Kahneman asked participants to decide between two treatments for 600 people who contracted a fatal disease. Treatment A would result in 400 deaths, and treatment B had a 33% chance that no one would die but a 66% chance that everyone would die. This was done with either positive framing (how many people would live) or negative framing (how many people would die). Treatment A received the most support (72%) when framed as saving 200 lives, but dropped significantly (to 22%) when framed as losing 400 lives. This demonstrated that the choices we make are also influenced by the way they are framed.⁹

The framing effect can have a considerable impact on how people evaluate products, which in turn influences consumer purchase intentions. Marketers know this—you can find countless examples of framing just by watching advertisements or reading product packaging. For instance, one often-cited marketing study found that people evaluate meat more favorably when it is framed as 75% lean rather than 25% fat.¹⁵ Recently, researchers have started exploring whether this lean meat framing strategy could be applied to promote the consumption of plant-based meat. A study exploring this idea found that positive framing—describing the health and environmental benefits of plant-based meat rather than the negative consequences of meat consumption—significantly increased consumers’ purchase intentions for artificial meat.¹⁵

You may notice similar framing strategies applied to digital products. Tiered pricing plans are a great example, where the middle tier is often framed as the best value option, discouraging users from opting for the cheapest plan. Consider which of these options sounds like a better deal: paying $10 monthly for limited features or paying just $5 more to access the most popular features? Most people would say the latter. And if the highest tier plan is framed as a premium option, the middle tier even more significantly stands out as the best choice for most users.

Similarly, consider a subscription service that discourages you from canceling by giving you two options: “Cancel now and lose access to premium features” or “Keep your premium access for 20% off our regular renewal price.” This frames the cancellation option negatively while presenting the subscription option in a positive light. Even though you intended to cancel your subscription, this messaging can encourage you to avoid a certain loss and opt for a perceived gain by continuing your subscription. 

While many people have been quick to adopt AI, other potential users are hesitant. Whether due to a fear that these tools will outperform humans or a distrust in AI’s ability to produce accurate information and make sound decisions, many people are reluctant to use AI-powered tools. As with any new technology, fears and uncertainties are bound to inspire caution, but this is where the framing effect can be beneficial. Research suggests that framing can encourage the adoption of technological innovations, specifically by affecting how people perceive specific features or attributes of a technology.¹⁶

Presenting information about AI that minimizes potential losses or risks while focusing on potential gains can help users see AI as an opportunity rather than a threat. This might mean emphasizing how AI can enhance our human abilities, help us save time, or reduce our workloads rather than pointing out its potential to take our jobs or replace our skills. Framing specific AI features more positively could also reduce perceived risk—for example, positioning data collection as a way to enhance user experience rather than merely an invasion of privacy.

Framing effects have been shown to influence legal proceedings. A paper written in 2004 by Stephanos Bibas, a U.S. law professor and judge, looked into how various cognitive biases influence plea bargains in legal trials. He concluded that “framing plays a powerful role in plea bargaining.”

Bibas argued that defendants are less likely to accept plea bargains because they view them through a “loss frame.” That is to say, because defendants are used to being free, and are being faced with a loss of freedom in a plea bargain—even if it is a lesser loss than a conviction without a plea bargain—they are more likely to resist bargaining. Defendants with a loss frame see acquittal as the baseline, and anything worse than this as a loss. Bibas believes this advantages prosecutors, as defendants often stand to gain from concessions and bargaining.

However, he goes on to claim that some defendants see plea bargains through the lens of gains. A defendant that has been in pretrial detention for some time “is more likely to view prison as the baseline and eventual freedom as a gain, particularly if freedom is possible in weeks or months.” So, as a result of pre-trial detention and the gain frame that often ensues, defendants are more likely to accept a plea bargain.¹⁰

A 1989 study by US health science professor Annette O'Connor examined the influence of framing on patients’ preferences surrounding cancer chemotherapy. The study was composed of two groups of participants: the first group was made up of 129 healthy volunteers, and the other of 154 cancer patients. Both groups were asked to choose between two cancer treatment options. The first treatment option was toxic, while the second was non-toxic but less effective than the toxic option.

The option was framed to participants in one of three ways: probability of living (a positive frame), probability of dying (a negative frame), probability of living and dying (a mixed frame). Results showed that when the probability of living was below 50%, and framed negatively as a probability of dying, participants were less likely to choose the more effective toxic treatment. O'Connor concludes that “a negative frame or probability level below 0.5 would seem to stimulate a “dying mode” type of value system in which quality of life becomes more salient in decision making than quantity of life.”¹¹

From a broader public health perspective, it is useful to understand the influence that framing has on patients' decisions surrounding treatment.

What it is

The Framing effect is when our decisions are influenced by the way information is presented. Equivalent information can be more or less attractive depending on what features are highlighted.

Why it happens

The most common framing draws attention to either the positive gain or negative loss associated with an option. We are susceptible to this sort of framing because in accordance with “prospect theory,”  we tend to avoid certain losses. A loss is perceived as more significant, and therefore more worthy of avoiding, than an equivalent gain. The way something is framed can influence our certainty that it will bring either gain or loss. This is why we find it attractive when the positive features of an option are highlighted instead of the negative ones.

“Heuristics” or mental shortcuts might also play a role. Due to the availability heuristic, we favor information that is easily understood and recalled. Options and information that is framed this way are favored over those that aren’t. The affect heuristic may cause us to favor information and options that are framed to elicit an immediate emotional response. Research has shown that framing relies on emotional appeals and can be designed to have specific emotional reactions.

Example 1 - Plea bargaining in court

Framing effects have been shown to influence legal proceedings. A 2004 paper concluded that framing has a significant role in plea bargaining in legal proceedings. The author argues that defendants are less likely to accept plea bargains because they view them through a “loss frame.” Defendants are used to being free, and are being faced with a loss of freedom in a plea bargain—even if it is a lesser loss than a conviction without a plea bargain—they are more likely to resist bargaining. This advantages prosecutors, as defendants often stand to gain from concessions and bargaining. However, a defendant that has been in pretrial detention for some time “is more likely to view prison as the baseline and eventual freedom as a gain, particularly if freedom is possible in weeks or months.” So, as a result of pre-trial detention and the gain frame that often ensues, defendants are more likely to accept a plea bargain.

Example 2 - Cancer treatment preferences

A 1989 study examined the influence of framing on patients’ preferences surrounding cancer chemotherapy. The results showed that when the probability of living was below 50% and framed negatively as a probability of dying, patients were less likely to choose more toxic yet more effective treatment options. From a broader public health perspective, it is useful to understand the influence that framing has on patients' decisions surrounding treatment.

How to avoid it

A 2010 study found that “people who are involved with an issue are more motivated to  systematically process persuasive messages and are more interested in acquiring information about the product  than people who are less involved with the issue.” What we can take from these findings, is that we should think through our choices concerning an issue and try to become more informed on it. A more specific strategy that falls in line with this more general approach, is to provide rationales for our choices. A 1997 study found this reduced framing effects in participants, as it forced them to engage in more detailed mental processing.

How advertisement framing increased loan demand by 25%

In this article, we break down a study exploring how different ways of presenting advertising information can affect behavior. Interestingly, results showed that including a photo of a female on mailed advertisements increased demand for loans as much as offering a 25% reduction in interest rate! Check out the full article to learn more about this study and its other fascinating findings.

Health Incentives Might Work Better When They’re Framed in Terms of Losses

Research suggests that using loss-framed incentives might be more effective than gain-framed incentives when encouraging people to change their behavior. This article explores how emphasizing the negative consequences of not exercising can increase people’s physical activity more than emphasizing the rewards that come with regular activity. We also discuss the ethics of using framing in tech-based incentive programs.