Textbook psychology holds that people usually prefer a certain option over a risky one when options are framed as gains but prefer the opposite when options are framed as losses. However, this pattern can be amplified, eliminated, or reversed depending on whether option descriptions include only positive information (e.g., “200 people will be saved”), only negative information (e.g., “400 people will not be saved”), or both. Previous studies suggest that framing effects arise only when option descriptions are mismatched across frames. Using online and student samples (Ns = 906 and 521), we investigated 81 framing-effect variants created from matched and mismatched pairs of 18 option descriptions (nine in each frame). Description valence or gist explained substantial variation in risk preferences (prospect theory does not predict such variation), but a considerable framing effect remained in our balanced design. Risky-choice framing effects appear to be partly—but not completely—the result of mismatched comparisons.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
BroniatowskiD. A.ReynaV. F. (2018). A formal model of fuzzy-trace theory: Variations on framing effects and the Allais paradox. Decision, 5(4), 205–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000083
4.
ChickC. F.ReynaV. F.CorbinJ. C. (2016). Framing effects are robust to linguistic disambiguation: A critical test of contemporary theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(2), 238–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000158
5.
ChmielewskiM.KuckerS. C. (2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4), 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149
6.
CoppockA.LeeperT. J.MullinixK. J. (2018). Generalizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 115(49), 12441–12446. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1808083115
7.
De BoeckP.DeKayM. L.XuM. (2022). The potential of factor analysis for replication, generalization, and integration. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 117(540), 1622–1626. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2022.2096618
8.
DeKayM. L.GargeP. P. (2023). Probabilities and the risky-choice framing effect: Evidence for an inverted-U pattern. Decision, 10(4), 289–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000214
9.
DeKayM. L.RubinchikN.LiZ.De BoeckP. (2022). Accelerating psychological science with metastudies: A demonstration using the risky-choice framing effect. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(6), 1704–1736. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221079611
10.
DouS. (2020). Investigating mismatched options in the risky-choice framing effect: A new apples-to-apples framework [Unpublished undergraduate thesis, The Ohio State University].
11.
FischhoffB.SlovicP.LichtensteinS. (1978). Fault trees: Sensitivity of estimated failure probabilities to problem representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4(2), 330–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.4.2.330
12.
FisherS. A.MandelD. R. (2021). Risky-choice framing and rational decision-making. Philosophy Compass, 16(8), e12763. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12763
GargeP. P. (2021). Nonstandard risky-choice framing effects with somewhat risky options: Explorations and theory comparisons [Undergraduate thesis, The Ohio State University]. Knowledge Bank. https://kb.osu.edu/handle/1811/92679
15.
HanelP. H. P.VioneK. C. (2016). Do student samples provide an accurate estimate of the general public?PLOS ONE, 11(12), Article e0168354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168354
16.
ImH.ChenC. (2022). To save or lose? A cross-national examination of the disease risk framing effect and the influence of collectivism. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 35(4), Article e2276. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2276
17.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
18.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (Eds.). (2000). Choices, values, and frames. Cambridge University Press.
21.
KleinR. A.RatcliffK. A.VianelloM.AdamsR. B.Jr.BahníkS.BernsteinM. J.BocianK.BrandtM. J.BrooksB.BrumbaughC. C.CemalcilarZ.ChandlerJ.CheongW.DavisW. E.DevosT.EisnerM.FrankowskaN.FurrowD.GallianiE. M.. . . NosekB. A. (2014). Investigating variation in replication: A “many labs” replication project. Social Psychology, 45(3), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178
22.
KühbergerA. (1995). The framing of decisions: A new look at old problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(2), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1995.1046
23.
KühbergerA. (1998). The influence of framing of risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 23–55. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2781
24.
KühbergerA.Schulte-MecklenbeckM.PernerJ. (1999). The effect of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78(3), 204–231. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2830
25.
KühbergerA.TannerC. (2010). Risky choice framing: Task versions and a comparison of prospect theory and fuzzy-trace theory. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(3), 314–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.656
26.
KumleL.VõM. L.-H.DraschkowD. (2021). Estimating power in (generalized) linear mixed models: An open introduction and tutorial in R. Behavior Research Methods, 53, 2528–2543. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01546-0
27.
LevinI. P.SchneiderS. L.GaethG. 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
28.
MagenE.DweckC. S.GrossJ. J. (2008). The hidden-zero effect: Representing a single choice as an extended sequence reduces impulsive choice. Psychological Science, 19(7), 648–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02137.x
29.
MandelD. R. (2001). Gain-loss framing and choice: Separating outcome formulations from descriptor formulations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(1), 56–76. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2932
30.
MandelD. R. (2014). Do framing effects reveal irrational choice?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1185–1198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034207
31.
OkderH. (2012). The illusion of the framing effect in risky decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.715
32.
PeerE.RothschildD.GordonA.EverndenZ.DamerE. (2022). Data quality of platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods, 54(4), 1643–1662. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01694-3
33.
PetersE.LevinI. P. (2008). Dissecting the risky-choice framing effect: Numeracy as an individual-difference factor in weighting risky and riskless options. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(6), 435–448. http://journal.sjdm.org/8407/jdm8407.pdf
34.
PiñonA.GambaraH. (2005). A meta-analytic review of framing effect: Risky, attribute and goal framing. Psicothema, 17(2), 325–331. http://www.psicothema.com/pdf/3107.pdf
35.
ProtzkoJ.KrosnickJ.NelsonL.NosekB. A.AxtJ.BerentM.ButtrickN.DeBellM.EbersoleC. R.LundmarkS.MacInnisB.O’DonnellM.PerfectoH.PustejovskyJ. E.RoederS. S.WalleczekJ.SchoolerJ. W. (2023). High replicability of newly discovered social-behavioural findings is achievable. Nature Human Behaviour, 8, 311–319. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01749-9
36.
RafteryA. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/271063
ReynaV. F.BrainerdC. J. (1991). Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4(4), 249–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960040403
39.
ReynaV. F.BrainerdC. J. (2011). Dual processes in decision making and developmental neuroscience: A fuzzy-trace model. Developmental Review, 31(2–3), 180–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.004
40.
ReynaV. F.BrainerdC. J.ChenZ.BookbinderS. H. (2021). Explaining risky choices with judgments: Framing, the zero effect, and the contextual relativity of gist. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 47(7), 1037–1053. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0001016
41.
ReynaV. F.ChickC. F.CorbinJ. C.HsiaA. N. (2014). Developmental reversals in risky decision making: Intelligence agents show larger decision biases than college students. Psychological Science, 25(1), 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613497022
42.
ReynaV. F.MüllerS. M.EdelsonS. M. (2023). Critical tests of fuzzy trace theory in brain and behavior: Uncertainty across time, probability, and development. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 23(3), 802–828. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-022-01058-0
43.
Sánchez-MecaJ.Marín-MartínezF.Chacón-MoscosoS. (2003). Effect-size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 8(4), 448–467. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.4.448
44.
SchneiderS. L. (1992). Framing and conflict: Aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(5), 1040–1057. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.1040
45.
SteigerA.KühbergerA. (2018). A meta-analytic re-appraisal of the framing effect. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 226(1), 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000321
46.
TeigenK. H. (2015). Framing of numerical quantities. In KerenG.WuG. (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (Vol. 2, pp. 568–589). John Wiley.
47.
TombuM.MandelD. R. (2015). When does framing influence preferences, risk perceptions, and risk attitudes? The explicated valence account. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 28(5), 464–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1863
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(4), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00122574
50.
ZhouL.LiuN.LiaoY.-Q.LiA.-M. (2021). Risky choice framing with various problem descriptions: A replication and extension study. Judgment and Decision Making, 16(2), 394–421. https://sjdm.org/journal/vol16.2.html
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
