One of many cognitive biases in psychology is framing bias. The term “framing bias” refers to our propensity to let information presentation affect us.
A salesperson promoting a product would much rather claim “85% of customers were satisfied with the product” than admit “15% of customers were dissatisfied”. But the two statistics actually convey the same information.
Artificial intelligence could avoid the framing effect by focusing just on the substance of data consumed. But people aren’t quite so logical and may, according to Learning Lab, “ignore important facts, instead focusing on side-issues”.
What is framing bias
Framing bias is the tendency to make different choices about the same information depending on how it is presented. In Tversky and Kahneman’s classic 1981 study in Science, 72% of people chose a programme described as saving 200 lives, but only 22% chose the identical option described as letting 400 people die.
Here are 10 real-world instances where framing bias has led to the deception of at least some people.
The Asian disease study by Tversky and Kahneman
The best-known demonstration of framing bias comes from psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman. They asked people to imagine that the US was preparing for an unusual disease expected to kill 600 people, and to choose between two programmes (see the full 1981 paper).
- Gain frame (152 people). Programme A saves 200 people. Programme B gives a one-third chance that all 600 are saved and a two-thirds chance that nobody is saved. 72% chose A and 28% chose B.
- Loss frame (155 people). Under programme C, 400 people die. Under programme D, there is a one-third chance that nobody dies and a two-thirds chance that all 600 die. Only 22% chose C and 78% chose D.
Programmes A and C are identical, as are B and D. The only change was the wording. When outcomes were framed as lives saved, most people avoided risk; when the same outcomes were framed as deaths, most people took the gamble. That reversal is the framing effect, and it shows up in the everyday examples below.
Value frames
Value frames are psychological strategies to make us believe we are receiving a better deal or offer than is actually the case. For example, higher numerical values for discounts lead us to believe that we are getting a better deal.
As a percentage, anything under £100, for example, is more tempting. So, a 10% discount on a £10 item is more tempting than a £1 discount.
For products or services costing more than £100, however, the opposite is true. For example, a £50 discount is more tempting than a 10% discount on a £500 item.
Positive and negative frames
When discussing framing effects, the classic image of the glass half full or half empty comes to mind. Advertisers often use contrasting negative and positive frames to sell their products.
For instance, the ad copy might read: “Sugar consumption causes enamel loss (negative frame), but toothpaste X can stop this (positive frame).” This is an example of contrast in marketing. Create the issue (worrisome tooth decay) before presenting the remedy (shiny toothpaste).
Framing as threat or opportunity
According to cognitive and social psychologists, framing an event as a threat to an individual or a community induces fear. In turn, this results in a more intense and energetic response than framing the same situation as an opportunity.
Wilmot Reed Hastings Jr, the founder of Netflix, and his staff portrayed Netflix as a danger to Blockbuster and the media followed suit, helping turn expectation into reality. Unfortunately, Blockbuster fell into the trap too, viewing online DVD renting as a threat to its established, thriving brick-and-mortar business. Blockbuster switched away from its natural position of strength and eventually folded.
Individual effects
The framing effect is evident when we make decisions by focusing on how information is presented rather than the content itself. Critical information or inferior options might be framed in a positive manner, resulting in sub-optimal selections.
Investment is an area where framing bias routinely causes bad choices. Investors can easily get overexcited by the prospects of gains and getting rich. Additionally, they might be suffering from loss fear.
Psychology training, especially being aware of your own tendencies, can be helpful. According to Mallory: Good investors must be capable of being objective and conducting dispassionate research.’
Systemic effects
The framing effect has a significant impact on public opinion. Public affairs and other events that grab public attention can be perceived in a variety of ways, depending on how they are presented.
Due to negative framing, problems or stances that benefit the majority of people can sometimes be seen negatively. Conversely, when their positive features are properly promoted, policy positions and behaviours that advance the public good may become popular.
An example of systemic bias was the Sandmann defamation case. Numerous media outlets depicted footage of a standoff between a teenager and a man as the result of teenage aggression.
In this case, observations that the man was elderly, Native American, and a war veteran were highlighted. However, more extensive footage showed that when the man approached the teen, he was actually just minding his own business. Context that had no real bearing on the issue had been used to distort events.
Framing with different reference points
We evaluate our choices in terms of their relative importance and compare them to the alternatives that are available. Hence, reference points matter to us.
Assume you have a balance of £2000 in your bank account. Would you be willing to take a 50/50 risk of losing £300 or winning £500? In an experiment, a sizable number of people declined this offer.
Now, framed differently: Would you be willing to take a 50/50 chance of having £1700 or £2,500 in your account?
Despite the fact that both offers are identical, many people accepted only the second time. The value of £2,500 minus £1,700 = £800 looks to be bigger and more profitable than the value of £500 minus £300 = £200.
Auditory frame
Auditory framing is simple to understand. When we are offered two options, the manner in which we are asked might have a big impact on our decision. Are they yelled in a deep, threatening voice or expressed in a soothing manner? The tone can greatly affect our response.
Visual frames
Colour, images, font style, font size, and even body language are all examples of visual frames. Colour, for example, can have a significant impact, with each colour supporting a distinct feature. Pink, for example, is more feminine, so it’s definitely not the best hue to use to sell men’s clothing.
Framing as gain vs loss
Someone’s response to information surrounding a decision can be more affected by particular connotations, associations, fears, and emotions than bare facts. Consider this investment scenario expressed in two different ways.
- If we buy stock X, we could make a 50% profit if everything goes well.
- If we buy in stock X, we could lose everything if anything goes wrong and also miss out on 50% profit.
Although we have a situation with a 50% potential gain and a 100% downside risk (as with any investment), how we frame the decision can have a huge impact on whether or not we invest.
Framing the default choice
Humans are wired to prefer the status quo, such that the majority of customers go with the default option even when it may be irrational.
Take this insurance example. In New Jersey, 80% of people chose “restricted right to sue” when purchasing auto insurance. In contrast, only 25% of people in Pennsylvania did the same.
When the two states were compared, it was discovered that government officials had framed the default choice differently. The two states chose opposite options as the default. That led to extremely different outcomes because, in both states, 75 to 80% of people chose the default that happened to be presented to them.
More examples of framing bias in everyday life
Framing shows up well beyond the laboratory. These examples are drawn from health, politics, money, education, and marketing.
- Survival vs mortality rates. Patients are more likely to choose surgery described as having a 90% survival rate than one with a 10% mortality rate, although both mean the same thing.
- Tax relief vs tax burden. Calling a tax cut “relief” presents it as a benefit, while “burden” makes tax sound oppressive.
- Defence spending vs military budget. “Defence” implies protection and can draw more public support than “military”.
- Protecting wildlife vs regulating hunting. Campaigns about protecting wildlife are often better received than those about regulating hunting, even when the aim is the same.
- Pass rates vs fail rates. Schools and universities usually publish pass rates rather than fail rates.
- Buy one, get one free. Shoppers tend to prefer this to “two for the price of one”, although the offers are the same.
- Limited-time offers. Framing a sale as time-limited creates urgency and makes people more likely to buy.
This section draws on an article by Holly Thompson, PhD, first published on Psychreg in 2023.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between framing bias and the framing effect?
The terms are often used interchangeably. The framing effect is the measurable shift in choices when the same options are described differently; framing bias is the underlying tendency in our thinking that produces it.
How can you avoid framing bias?
Restate the information in the opposite frame (for example, 15% dissatisfied as well as 85% satisfied) and compare the options on the numbers alone. In one randomised study of medical decisions, asking people to list the advantages and disadvantages of each option before choosing removed the framing effect in the scenarios where it had appeared.
Who discovered framing bias?
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman described it in their 1981 paper on the framing of decisions, which built on their earlier work on prospect theory.
What is a simple example of framing bias?
A product that 85% of customers are satisfied with sounds better than one that 15% of customers are dissatisfied with, even though both statements give the same information.
