Imagine that your doctor has decided that you need surgery. He can tell you that you have a 90% chance of surviving the surgery. This may sound good. He can also tell you that you have a 10% chance of dying on the table. Even if these odds are the same, your reaction may be diffe

Imagine that your doctor has decided that you need surgery. He can tell you that you have a 90% chance of surviving the surgery. This may sound good. He can also tell you that you have a 10% chance of dying on the table. Even if these odds are the same, your reaction may be different. This is because of a common cognitive bias called the framework effect . Let's take a look at how it works and what you can do to avoid it.

What is the frame effect?

The framing effect describes the fact that our choice from a set of alternatives is often influenced more by the presentation of those options than by the substance of the information.

Pioneering research

The first people to demonstrate the framing effect were Israeli psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. In a 1981 paper,[1] they posed a dilemma known as the "Asian disease problem." They asked their study participants to imagine that the United States was preparing for an outbreak of a rare and deadly Asian disease that was expected to kill 600 people. Participants were given two alternative treatments and asked to choose between them.

Half of the participants were presented with a "gain frame" that focused on the positives:

• Plan A, in which 200 people were sure to be saved, or
• Plan B, in which there is a 1/3 probability that 600 people are saved and a 2/3 probability that no one is saved

Half of the participants were presented with a "loss frame" that focused on the negative:

• Plan C, in which 400 people will definitely die, or
• Plan D, in which there is a 1/3 probability that no one will die, and a 2/3 probability that 600 people will die

Since plans A and C and B&D are logically equivalent, there should be no difference in preference, but in the positive frame 72% of participants chose plan A over B, while in the negative frame 22% People prefer plan C to D.

Since then, three different types of frames have been identified: [2]

1. Risk selection frames (such as the "Asian Disease" scenario)
2. Attribute frames, involving objects and their attributes. In these cases, people are more likely to prefer positive frame attributes. For example, consumers are more likely to choose beef described as “75% lean” [3] versus beef described as “25% fat,” and managers are more likely to choose beef when a team’s past performance is framed in terms of success rather than failure. It is possible to allocate funds to R&D projects [4].
3. Goal framework in which people are urged to engage in some desired behavior and emphasize the positive consequences of performing the behavior or the negative consequences of not performing the behavior. In these situations, people are more likely to perform the desired behavior when the disadvantages of not performing it are emphasized rather than the benefits of performing it. For example, women were more likely to perform breast self-exams when they were told that “women who don’t do BSE have a reduced chance of detecting tumors in the early, more treatable stages of the disease” [5] than when they were told to “do Women with mad cow disease have increased chance of detecting tumors early, More Treatable Stages of the Disease

The framing effect is considered one of the most important biases in decision-making and has been observed in a variety of settings, including healthcare,[6] political messaging,[7] time. and money management, [8] and consumer choice. [Note 9]

How does it work? l6

In a previous paper, Kahneman and Tversky proposed the concept of " prospect theory ", which is that we tend to make decisions by considering gains and losses, and we find that losing certain The thought of something is more painful than the thought of gaining something. Therefore, we are more likely to want to avoid a loss than to obtain an equivalent gain. Furthermore, a certain gain is better than a possible gain, and a certain loss is better than a certain loss.

This means that when something is actively built and we get a benefit (lives saved), we become more risk averse. In the Asian disease scenario, the absolute prospect of saving 200 lives is a greater risk than the 1/3 chance of saving 600 lives. When something is framed negatively and we face losses (people dying), we become greater risk takers; a loss of 400 lives has a 2/3 chance of being less acceptable than a loss of 600 lives.

We are particularly susceptible to framing effects because we are lazy thinkers and choosing a sure gain requires less cognitive effort [11] than choosing a risky gain. In contrast, choosing between a certain loss and risking a loss requires just as much cognitive effort. Additionally, choosing a certain loss over a risky loss can be more emotionally taxing because there is no chance of a good outcome. Since we can only process and use a limited amount of information at a time, we naturally prefer options that use the least resources and are least stressful. Unfortunately, this option isn't always the best.

Obviously, we are all unique creatures and we all process decision-making in different ways. For example, research using brain scans [12] shows that people who are better able to regulate their emotions are better able to limit the impact of framing effects.

Personal circumstances are also important. Research plea bargaining [13] suggests that being held in pretrial detention may increase a person's willingness to accept a plea bargain, because incarceration rather than freedom will be the baseline for their work and a guilty plea will be seen as something that will lead to their early release - 1 A gain - rather than an incident that puts them in jail - a loss.

The framing effect also increases with age: young children are less affected by the framing effect than older children [14], who in turn are less affected by the framing effect than adults. [15] Older people [16] are also more susceptible than younger people.

How to avoid

Like most biases, the only way to avoid this one is to use your critical thinking skills. [17] First, carefully examine the information presented and don’t let yourself be rushed. Research shows that making quick decisions increases the likelihood that a person will fall victim to the framing effect [18]. Instead, get as much information as possible about each option from a wide range of key and positive sources before making your choice. Ask yourself what motivates the person you choose. Consider other alternatives. There may be another option with better results.

You can also try "reversing the frame" - mentally rewriting the message to state it in the opposite way. For example, "This product kills 95% of germs" becomes "This product leaves 5% of germs behind." However, keep in mind that negative frames are "stickier": [19] It is harder to transition from negative to positive frames than from positive to negative frames. However, rewriting the choice to include all information - "If plan A is adopted, then 200 people will live and 400 will die" - has been shown [20] to significantly reduce the framing effect.

Try to defend your choice. Research [21] shows that when people are asked to provide reasons for their decisions, they tend to abandon simpler heuristic processing modes and instead adopt a more systematic approach to decision-making.

Ask someone else. Framing effects tend to be less influential when we make decisions for others,[22] possibly because we are less emotionally involved.

Seek expert advice. Research [23] found that when people receive advice from reliable sources, the framing effect is greatly reduced and sometimes even eliminated. Just make sure the source of the expert advice is actually credible; for example, in the 1930s, cigarette ads featured "doctors" who were actually actors, some of whom were famous for playing doctors, successfully convincing many People smoking is not harmful to their health. Sadly, these are not reliable sources.

Finally, remember that everyone falls into framing effects at some point or another. The key is to learn from your mistakes and consider your options more carefully the next time you make an important decision.