Alan Sanfey: What Is The Framing Effect?

The framing effect explains how a problem's phrasing can effect an individual's decision making. When the problem asks if you would be willing to make a gamble where you have a 90% chance to lose 5 dollars and a 10% chance to win 95 dollars, most people say they would not take the gamble (which means they are risk adverse) because the problem states that you have a chance to lose 5 dollars, and this creates a psychological response in the participant because they naturally want to avoid losses.

also vary in terms of their cultural resonance. The more a frame resonates or connects with the culture, the greater its effectiveness or mobilizing potential. The success of framing efforts is also a consequence of its credibility. “The credibility of any framing is a function of three factors: frame consistency, empirical credibility, and the credibility of the frame articulators

Claim:The most important factor in making decisions is what someone gains from the decision. People only do things because of the rewards they gain, which may not always be positive.

Risks can change others way of thinking. It can open their eyes to are your point of view. Martin Luther King Junior did a risk of saying his "I Have a Dream" speech. If they wouldn't have taken those risks,

When making irrational decisions, there are various factors that assists an individual in making those decisions (Schacter et al. 2014). First is the Frequencies and Probabilities factor (Schacter et al. 2014). For people, choosing an opinion based upon the number of times a situation has been repeated, frequency, is proved to be much easier than when they are asked to base their opinion on the number of times a situation might occur, probability (Schacter et al. 2014). Next is Availability bias where, a stored memory forces a person to believe that the situation has occurred more frequently, making the decision

In studying framing effects, Kahneman references the following properties: accessibility and rationality. Accessibility is how efficient a person can determine the true value of an object or idea. For example, consider a person driving, but they have forgotten their spectacles. There is an approaching stop sign, however, with the driver’s impaired judgement, they cannot accurately predict how quickly the brakes need to be engaged. The driver’s accessibility to the distance between the car and stop sign is low. Consider the same situation, but with the driver in possession of their spectacles. In this situation, the driver’s accessibility to the distance is higher. Kahneman presents a variation of this dilemma (Problem 1 – The Asian Disease)

The fundamental bases of our lives have been about taking risks. Choosing or making a decision that could potentially save or worsen the situation is a challenge. Furthermore, our natural response is to try and step out of our own element.

Lejuez et al. (2002). was evaluating the test that measures risk-taking, the Balloon Analogue risk task (BART). They also looked at it in relation to self-measure reporting and real-world behaviours. Risk-taking involves behaviour that involves some danger or harm, where a reward may or may not be the result. What they found was that riskiness on the BART was correlated significantly with scores on the self-report measure of risk-taking. There was some limitation to the study such as

The human mind is a fascinating thing, doing more work then we can possibly imagine and much more than we ever think about. The conscious part of the mind that controls our decision making abilities is itself controlled by many forms of biases operating both in the conscious and unconscious parts of the mind , many of which we never realize are even there. These decision affecting biases can be the difference between making a wise decision and a bad one. One such instance this holds true for is when deciding rather it’s time to give an employee a raise or not.

This was tested with the famous paradox known as The Ellsberg Paradox, which indicates that decision makers are often ambiguity averse, preferring options with subjectively known probabilities to options with unknown probabilities (Weber & Tan, 2012) Similarly, Risk Aversion could be described as, when an individual is presented with two options they choose the option with a lower risk. People were willing to take the risk in Round 5 because they knew that although there was a chance of numerous participants contributing the maximum value, there would still be some amount they would benefit from and receive. However in round 6 there was a chance that they may not participate in the coin toss and there is a 50% chance they may not receive anything at all. Although they pay-offs were higher there was a still a greater probability they may not receive the

Strategic Frame is a proprietary to communications practice and researches that pay close attention to the publics deeply help worldview and widely help assumptions. Strategic frame recognize that there is more than one way to tell a story. Strategic frame taps into decades of research on how communicate and how people think. The result is an empirically-driven communications process that makes academic research interesting, usable to help people solve social problems, and understandable. In 1970’s media framing has been receiving attention. This constructed employer’s to understand communication as a wide range of disciplines that includes economics, speeches, political science, sociology, organizational behavioral, and psychology. Strategic frame involves the technique by communications professionals, retort, and social advocates in fields such as public advertisers and relations. Strategic frame goals are to focus audience attention on particular portions of aspects and message

The results of the trials supported their hypothesis, as more than 50% of participants bet in favor of the gambler’s fallacy (in favor of breaking the run) in the Same Block condition. Those who bet in favor of the gambler’s fallacy (that certain results were “due”) also bet high and confidently, more so than those who bet against the gambler’s fallacy (that the run would continue). The paper noted even those who bet against the gambler’s fallacy were less confident than those who bet in favor of the fallacy, suggesting participants were affected by the ideas behind the gambler’s fallacy despite betting against it. Another point of interest to the researchers involved those in the Different Block condition, as people were more likely to bet in favor of continuing the run from the previous block instead of breaking it, which may be consistent with previous research regarding people’s tendency to choose in favor of continuation when very young, uninterested, or

The ‘‘framing effect’’ is observed when the description of options in terms of gains (positive frame) rather than losses (negative frame) elicits systematically different choices. (Gonzalez 2005) The classic example of this is what chances do you take in the event of a deadly outbreak.

In general, individuals for a long time have been managing risk ever since capable of comprehensible thoughts and these came from ‘investing in the planting of crops for the reward of the harvest; weighing up the risks of attacking large animals against the reward of tasty food; sacrificing to the gods in expectation of reward in the afterlife.’ Individuals took the opportunities out of many risks and risk taking from opportunities comes naturally for those who do. However, making that decision logically, risk management only then can really begin with the coming of probability of certain things.

(Cawley & Price, 2013; Volpp et al., 2008). Another insight from BE, loss aversion also explains this success. It refers to our tendency that people are more sensitive to lose something than they are to obtain something (Thorgeirsson & Kawachi, 2013). This phenomenon help people stick to their resolution because they risk their money by precommitment. This kind of approaches that modify choice architecture to make specific behaviors more likely are collectively called "Nudge" (Bickel, Moody, & Higgins, 2016).