The Framing Effect

Another factor that can influence decision-making is the way in which alternatives are presented (or worded). This is called the framing effect.

For example, which of the two below sounds more appealing?

Yogurt, 95% fat free

Yogurt, 5% fat

Your response may have been something like this…

Questions 2 and 3 provide further illustrations of this effect:

Question 2

Imagine Australia is preparing for an impending natural disaster that is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disaster have been proposed. Scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows:

Version A

If Program A is adopted, then 200 people will be saved.

If Program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved and a two-thirds probability that nobody will be saved.

Version B

If Program A is adopted, then 400 people will die.

If Program B is adopted, there is a one-third probability that nobody will die, and a two-thirds probability that 600 people will die.

Question

Which program did you pick? Which program do you think most people picked for the other version? Let’s see how people have responded to this tutorial:

For this question, in Version A the options are expressed in terms of saving lives, whereas in Version B they are in terms of losing lives.

Question

Consider the expected utility of the options in each version of Question 2: you will see that the expected utility is the same across all the options (200 people alive). Despite this, in Version A, Program A is preferred whereas in Version B, Program B is preferred. Why does this happen? HINT: think back to the idea of how people behave in the context of loss (compared to the context of gain) in the previous section.

When the question is framed in terms of saving lives, the decision-maker becomes risk-aversive: They settle for saving 200 people for certain (as per Program A) because the added benefit of saving the additional 400 people is not worth the perceived risk of not saving anyone (as per Program B). In other words, the decision-maker wants assurance of a gain. When the question is framed in terms of people dying, the decision-maker becomes risk seeking: Knowing that 400 people will die if Program A is implemented encourages the decision-maker to take the apparently riskier option in order to have the possibility of having no loss of life (as per Program B). In other words, the assurance of a loss is not comforting, so the option that provides a possibility of no loss is favoured.

As another (perhaps more rooted in the real world) illustration of framing similar to the yogurt example, is a study that looked at people’s perceptions of the effectiveness of condoms as a form of contraception (Linville, Fischer & Fischhoff, 1993). Participants who were told that condoms have a 90% success rate believed condoms to be more effective than did participants who were told that condoms have a 10% failure rate.

Brainstorm

Take a moment to consider when it might be useful to frame something negatively. For example, based on what you have learned above, which of two smoking campaigns would be more effective?

Question 3

Version A

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a warning that by 2015 it is likely, perhaps very likely, that global sea levels will have risen by 3 feet or more. Imagine that you live on the island of Sulasemi. Sulasemi is a very flat island that lies only 3 feet above sea level. Hence, if global sea levels rise by 3 feet, the island will disappear into the ocean. You have been offered the chance to move to another, higher, island, and are trying to decide whether you should move. Please provide a number that you think matches the chances of this rise in sea levels happening. Please express your answer as a number between 0 (it is impossible) and 10 (it will definitely happen): ____________

Version B

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued a warning that by 2015 it is likely, perhaps very likely, that global sea levels will have risen by 3 feet or more. Imagine that you live on the island of Sulasemi. Sulasemi is a very high island protected from the sea by 50-foot cliffs. Hence, if global sea levels rise by 3 feet, life on this island will be unaffected. You have been offered the chance to move to another, even higher, island, and are trying to decide whether you should move. Please provide a number that you think matches the chances of this rise in sea levels happening. Please express your answer as a number between 0 (it is impossible) and 10 (it will definitely happen): ____________

Question

What probability did you assign to the sea levels rising? Do you think people with the other version assigned a higher or lower probability? Again, let’s see the responses from PSYC2071 students:

In this case, the difference in wording is in terms of personal relevance. The typical result (Harris & Corner, 2011) is greater perceived likelihood that sea levels will rise by 3 feet or more when one will be significantly affected by the event compared to when one will be unaffected.

Brainstorm

This problem shows that framing (in terms of personal relevance) can affect people’s judgements of likelihood. How might this problem impact scientists trying to communicate information about climate change to the general public?

Scientists frequently use conservative terms such as likelihood and uncertainty to avoid being incorrect. Interestingly, the important message to come out of this research is that these terms are imprecise and vulnerable to different interpretations according to the context in which they are presented. The implication for action on climate change is that those who believe they will be unaffected by climate change (e.g., because they live in a cool climate, well-above-sea-level) will consequentially believe that climate change is unlikely.