Framing effect: the influence of words on decisions

The ‘framing effect‘ refers to the impact that the frame has on the subjective interpretation of information, where the term ‘frame’ refers to the structure that is given to the information itself.

Let us imagine that one is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual disease that is estimated to kill 600 people. Two alternative programmes are proposed to deal with this disease:

• if programme A is adopted, 200 people will be saved
• if schedule B is adopted, the probability that 600 people will be saved is 1/3, while the probability that none will be saved is 2/3.

Most people will choose schedule A, for which it is certain that 200 people will be saved.

Let us now consider a second version of the same scenario:

• if schedule C is adopted, 400 people will die.
• If schedule D is adopted, the probability that no one will die is 1/3, while the probability that 600 people will die is 2/3.

In this second version, most people will choose schedule D (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981).

If we carefully analyse the two versions, however, we realise that the two variants are perfectly identical. Saving 200 out of 600 people for certain, as proposed by programme A, offers the same benefit as losing 400 out of 600, as proposed by programme C. Similarly, the 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved is equivalent to saying that there is a 1/3 probability that no one will die.

Several studies, however, have shown that people tend to choose schedule A in the first version and schedule D in the second. While the two sets of choices are objectively identical, changing the descriptions of the effects, and thus the reference point on which we base our choice, from lives saved to lives lost, is enough to change the ideal choice from a safe outcome (and thus risk-averse behaviour) to an uncertain one (risk-prone).

The way information is presented – framing – significantly influences the choices people make, although the differences between the frames should have no impact on a rational decision maker, since the outcome they propose is the same.

In the example given, the framing used leverages on the fact that people treat risks concerning what are perceived as ‘gains’ (e.g. saving lives in programmes A and B) differently from risks concerning ‘losses’ (e.g. losing lives in programmes C and D) and tend to prefer more prudent behaviour in the case of certain gains and riskier behaviour in the case of uncertain losses.

By changing the way a problem is presented, while maintaining the same alternatives, it is possible to change the final outcome significantly.

Framing and the organ donation study

One of the best-known examples of the framing effect is that of organ donation.

In several European countries, which are considered culturally very similar, an abysmal difference has been found in the rates of consent towards organ donation. Take Denmark and Sweden as an example, the former registering only 4.25% donation, the latter 85.9%; or Germany, with 12%, and Austria, 99.8%. Particularly interesting is the case of the Netherlands, where an awareness campaign in favour of donation was launched, with a letter being sent to each citizen, bringing the percentage to 27.5%. Belgium, which is considered to be very similar, records 98% donation rate, without any kind of activity.