Regular Article
The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis

https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2781Get rights and content

Abstract

In framing studies, logically equivalent choice situations are differently described and the resulting preferences are studied. A meta-analysis of framing effects is presented for risky choice problems which are framed either as gains or as losses. This evaluates the finding that highlighting the positive aspects of formally identical problems does lead to risk aversion and that highlighting their equivalent negative aspects does lead to risk seeking. Based on a data pool of 136 empirical papers that reported framing experiments with nearly 30,000 participants, we calculated 230 effect sizes. Results show that the overall framing effect between conditions is of small to moderate size and that profound differences exist between research designs. Potentially relevant characteristics were coded for each study. The most important characteristics were whether framing is manipulated by changing reference points or by manipulating outcome salience, and response mode (choice vs. rating/judgment). Further important characteristics were whether options differ qualitatively or quantitatively in risk, whether there is one or multiple risky events, whether framing is manipulated by gain/loss or by task-responsive wording, whether dependent variables are measured between- or within- subjects, and problem domains. Sample (students vs. target populations) and unit of analysis (individual vs. group) was not influential. It is concluded that framing is a reliable phenomenon, but that outcome salience manipulations, which constitute a considerable amount of work, have to be distinguished from reference point manipulations and that procedural features of experimental settings have a considerable effect on effect sizes in framing experiments.

References (178)

  • C.S. Elliott et al.

    Subjective framing and attitudes towards risk

    Journal of Economic Psychology

    (1989)
  • N.S. Fagley et al.

    The effects of decision framing on choice of risky vs certain options

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1987)
  • Y. Ganzach et al.

    Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment

    Journal of Business Research

    (1995)
  • G. Gigerenzer et al.

    Domain-specific reasoning: social contracts, cheating and perspective change

    Cognition

    (1992)
  • W.M. Goldstein et al.

    Content and discontent: Indications and implications of domain specificity in preferential decision making

    The Psychology of Learning and Motivation

    (1995)
  • R. Gregory et al.

    The role of past states in determining reference points for policy decisions

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1993)
  • J.C. Hershey et al.

    Prospect theory's reflection hypothesis: A critical examination

    Organizational Behavior and Human Performance

    (1980)
  • S. Highhouse et al.

    Contrast effects on strategic issue planning

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1996)
  • S. Highhouse et al.

    Perspectives, perceptions, and risk-taking behavior

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1996)
  • V.L. Huber et al.

    Decision bias and personnel selection strategies

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1987)
  • A. Jacoby et al.

    The impact of counseling with a practical statistical model on patients' decision-making about treatment for epilepsy: findings from a pilot study

    Epilepsy Research

    (1993)
  • T. Kameda et al.

    The function of the reference point in individual and group risk decision making

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1990)
  • R.M. Kramer

    Windows of vulnerability or cognitive illusions? Cognitive processes and the nuclear arms race

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    (1989)
  • R. Krzysztofowicz

    Strength of preference and risk attitude in utility measurement

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1983)
  • A. Kühberger

    The framing of decisions: A new look at old problems

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1995)
  • T.K. Lant et al.

    Learning from strategic success and failure

    Journal of Business Research

    (1987)
  • I.P. Levin et al.

    Risk taking, frame of reference, and characterization of victim groups in AIDS treatment decisions

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    (1990)
  • I.P. Levin et al.

    How information frame influences risky decisions: Between-subjects and within-subject comparisons

    Journal of Economic Psychology

    (1987)
  • I.P. Levin et al.

    Framing effects in judgment tasks with varying amounts of information

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1985)
  • S. Li et al.

    Is there something more important behind framing

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1995)
  • E.A. Mannix et al.

    Negotiating over time: Impediments to integrative solutions

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1995)
  • H. Mano

    Risk-taking, framing effects, and affect

    Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

    (1994)
  • K. Aquino et al.

    The effects of resource distribution, voice, and decision framing on the provision of public goods

    Journal of Conflict Resolution

    (1992)
  • B.L. Bangert-Drowns

    Review of developments in meta-analytic method

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1986)
  • S.M. Banks et al.

    The effects of message framing on mammography utilization

    Health Psychology

    (1995)
  • T.S. Bateman et al.

    The psychological context of strategic decisions: a model and convergent experimental findings

    Strategic Management Journal

    (1989)
  • L.G. Block et al.

    When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior

    Journal of Marketing Research

    (1995)
  • W.A. Boettcher

    Context, methods, numbers, and words: Prospect theory in international relations

    Journal of Conflict Resolution

    (1995)
  • W.P. Bottom

    Adaptive reference points in integrative bargaining

    (1990)
  • M.B. Brewer et al.

    Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision framing

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1986)
  • V.M. Brier et al.

    Ambiguity seeking in multiattribute decisions: Effects of optimism and message framing

    Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

    (1994)
  • S. Carey

    Conceptual change in childhood

    (1985)
  • H.M. Cooper et al.

    The handbook of research synthesis

    (1994)
  • C. Christensen et al.

    Framing bias among expert and novice physicians

    Academic Medicine

    (1991)
  • C. Christensen et al.

    Pervasiveness of framing effects among physicians and medical students

    Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

    (1995)
  • C.K.W. De Dreu et al.

    The influence of own cognitive and other's communicated gain or loss frame on negotiation behavior

    International Journal of Conflict Management

    (1992)
  • C.K.W. De Dreu et al.

    Frames of reference and cooperative social decision making

    European Journal of Social Psychology

    (1992)
  • L. Diamond et al.

    Fading frames—Data presentation and framing effects

    Decision Sciences

    (1992)
  • G.C.A. Dickson

    A comparison of attitudes towards risk among business managers

    Journal of Occupational Psychology

    (1981)
  • D. Duchon et al.

    Framing the problem and making decisions—The facts are not enough

    IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management

    (1989)
  • Cited by (837)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    K. BorcherdingO. I. LarichevD. M. Messick

    f1

    Address reprint requests to Anton Kühberger, University of Salzburg, Dept. of Psychology, Hellbrunnerstr. 34, A-5020 Salzburg, Austria. Fax: int. + 662 8044 5126. E-mail:[email protected].

    View full text