Our decisions and preferences are affected by how information is presented to us. How something is framed, or presented, can make different features more or less front-of-mind, and alter decision-making and behaviour.
But why do people do this?
This is true even if it’s the same information. For example, framing something as a loss can affect people’s behaviour. One study showed 93% of PhD students registered early when a penalty fee for late registration was emphasised. This framed early registration as a loss. However, only 67% registered when this was presented as a discount for earlier registration. This framed early registration as a gain.
Another example, often used to illustrate our susceptibility to framing, comes from an experiment by Amos Tversky et al. In this experiment, physicians were given statistics about the outcomes of two different treatments for lung cancer: surgery or radiation.
Over the long term, surgery has the best survival rates. However, in the short term, surgery is riskier than radiation. Surgery is typically seen as the better option is most cases. But how to best frame this?
Half of the physicians were shown the information as statistics about survival rates: “the one-month survival rate is 90%” (positively framed). The other half were shown the same information but as statistics on mortality rates: “there is 10% mortality in the first month”(negatively framed).
84% of physicians who were told “the one-month survival rate is 90%” chose to go ahead with the surgery. Conversely, 50% of physicians who were told “there is 10% mortality in the first month” chose to go ahead with the surgery.
Survival is emotionally positive and encouraging. Mortality reminds us that death isn’t far around the corner. Even knowing about framing effects, one can’t help but feel more alarmed by the second example.
Framing in action…
An excellent example of how framing can affect people’s answers to questions of opinion polls is illustrated by the satirical British sitcom ‘Yes Minister’. In this clip, Sir Humphrey Appleby uses leading questions to frame national service (mandatory military service for young people) in a positive, and then negative, light.
When framing military service in a positive light, Sir Humphrey asks questions such as “Are you worried about rising crime among teenagers?” and “Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?”. Resultantly, by the time Sir Humphrey asks the question “might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?”, people have these earlier questions top of mind and they are more salient, so are swayed to say yes.
When framing military service in a negative light, questions such as “do you think there’s a danger in giving young people arms and teaching them how to kill?” are asked. By the time Sir Humphrey asks the key question “would you oppose the reintroduction of conscription?” Mr Wooley catches himself saying yes again, completely contradicting himself.
So what does this all mean?
Framing reminds us how context and presentation can be big determinants in how people respond to information. We all know that it’s not just content that matters – context and presentation are key. So, in research, it can be useful to look at how something has been framed and presented, and what impact that might be having on people’s decision-making – and to explore other ways the same information can be framed. The mantra ‘the same information presented in different ways can lead to radically different behavioural outcomes’ is a very useful check point.
NEXT IN THE SERIES: Every three weeks The Behavioural Architects will put another cognitive bias or behavioural economics concept under the spotlight. Our next article features the concept of loss aversion.
@thebearchitects
PREVIOUS ARTICLES IN THE SERIES:
System 1 & 2
Heuristics
Optimism bias
Availability bias
Inattentional blindness
Change blindness
Anchoring
