Highlighting the good or the bad by changing the angle that information is presented from. Example: referring to a surgery's survival rate of 90% (positive) or the death rate of 10%.

University of Delaware

People's decisions are affected by the way that the choices are framed (presented).

Framing effect

Gilovich, T., Keltner, D., Chen, S., &amp; Nisbett, R. E. (2019). Social psychology. W. w. Norton &amp; Company. 

Social Psychology

Research has shown that frames affect learning strategy selection, as well as strategies students adopt when faced with a difficult learning task. Depending on how the task is framed, students may be more or less motivated to engage in desirable difficulties.

How the task is framed 

Changing the message by making alterations to how the content is presented, in order to change how the reader feels about it. On the most basic level, the information is the same, but the connotations are different. Example: using the term 'undocumented immigrants' vs. 'illegal aliens'.

Spin framing

Positive and negative framing

The framing effect is the idea in psychology that the way a question or sentence is phrased, or "framed" can influence a person's response to it. This concept was applied to a study conducted by Petrinovich (1996) in which respondents were given moral dilemmas involving the death of another person. However, half of the respondents were given moral dilemmas that used the word "kill" when referring to the deaths, and half were given the word "save." The outcomes of the dilemmas were identical, but results indicated that the actual phrasing of the questions strongly influenced a respondent's response -- showing the way that the framing effect and wording bias can shape our opinions. 

The Relationship Between the Framing Effect and Moral Dilemmas Node: How Wording Influences Moral Intuitions

In a study conducted by Magelssen (2016), participants were asked about their support regarding euthanasia, or assisted dying. Half of the participants were given a question where the word euthanasia was replaced with "intentional killing," while the other half were given a question where the word euthanasia was replaced with "self-determined ending of life." Because of the connotations of the two terms, respondents were far less likely to support euthanasia when they were given the term involving the word "killing," although the two concepts are synonymous -- showing how the framing effect and wording bias strongly influences our views of controversial and complex topics.

The Relationship Between the Framing Effect and Assisted Suicide: How Wording Influences Support for Euthanasia

In a study conducted by Yamagishi (1997), participants were asked to assess the risk of contracting a certain disease. When presented with cancer statistics, participants believed cancer was more dangerous and threatening when it was described as killing 1,286/10,000 people, as opposed to when it was described as killing 24.14/100 people, although the former statistic is higher. The reason for this was the framing of the two statistics led to the perception that the first statistic, which has more shock value, was more threatening -- showing how the framing effect can even lead people's cognitive reasoning and deduction down an incorrect path. 

The Relationship Between the Framing Effect and Risk Assessment: How Wording Influences Respondent's Views of Threat

When reviewing studies regarding the framing effect and wording bias, the concepts it is being applied to are nearly always concepts that are outside of a respondent's control. For example, in the Yamagishi (1997) study, participants were asked to assess the risk of cancer, based on two differently framed statistics. The risk of being diagnosed with cancer is a variable that is outside individual control, which begs the question: what if the variable is within our control, such as jaywalking or lying? If participants were asked whether it is okay to cheat on a test, with two different framed questions, how would that change responses? For example, say half of respondents were told that 40% of people who cheat on tests get caught, and the other half were told that 60% of people who cheat don't get caught. Those statistics are equivalent but framed differently, and the concept of lying is within individual control. How would this alter a respondent's choice?

Learn Before

Related