Framing effects are well established: Listeners’ preferences depend on how outcomes are described to them, or framed. Less well understood is what determines how speakers choose frames. Two experiments revealed that reference points systematically influenced speakers’ choices between logically equivalent frames. For example, speakers tended to describe a 4-ounce cup filled to the 2-ounce line as half full if it was previously empty but described it as half empty if it was previously full. Similar results were found when speakers could describe the outcome of a medical treatment in terms of either mortality or survival (e.g., 25% die vs. 75% survive). Two additional experiments showed that listeners made accurate inferences about speakers’ reference points on the basis of the selected frame (e.g., if a speaker described a cup as half empty, listeners inferred that the cup used to be full). Taken together, the data suggest that frames reliably convey implicit information in addition to their explicit content, which helps explain why framing effects are so robust.
Fischhoff, B. (1983). Predicting frames.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,9, 103–116.
Frisch, D. (1993). Reasons for framing effects.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,54, 399–429.
Hilton, D. J. (1995). The social context of reasoning: Conversational inference and rational judgment.Psychological Bulletin,118, 248–271.
Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.Econometrica,47, 263–291.
Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames.American Psychologist,39, 341–350.
Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,75, 23–55.
Levin, I. P., &Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product.Journal of Consumer Research,15, 374–378.
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., &Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,76, 149–188.
Levin, I. P., Schnittjer, S. K., &Thee, S. L. (1988). Information framing effects in social and personal decisions.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,24, 520–529.
Marteau, T. M. (1989). Framing of information: Its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients.British Journal of Social Psychology,28, 89–94.
McKenzie, C. R. M., Ferreira, V. S., Mikkelsen, L. A., McDermott, K. J., &Skrable, R. P. (2001). Do conditional hypotheses target rare events?Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,85, 291–309.
McKenzie, C. R. M., &Mikkelsen, L. A. (2000). The psychological side of Hempel’s paradox of confirmation.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 360–366.
McKenzie, C. R. M., & Mikkelsen, L. A. (in press). A Bayesian view of covariation assessment.Cognitive Psychology.
McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C., Jr., &Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies.New England Journal of Medicine,306, 1259–1262.
Meyerowitz, B. E., &Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,52, 500–510.
Moxey, L. M., &Sanford, A. J. (2000). Communicating quantities: A review of psycholinguistic evidence of how expressions determine perspectives.Applied Cognitive Psychology,14, 237–255.
Sanford, A. J., Fay, N., Stewart, A., &Moxey, L. (2002). Perspective in statements of quantity, with implications for consumer psychology.Psychological Science,13, 130–134.
Schneider, S. L. (1992). Framing and conflict: Aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 1040–1057.
Schwarz, N. (1996).Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice.Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,1, 9–60.
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science,211, 453–458.
Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions.Journal of Business,59, S251-S278.
Wilson, D. K., Kaplan, R. M., &Schneiderman, L. J. (1987). Framing of decisions and selections of alternatives in health care.Social Behaviour,2, 51–59.
This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant SES-0079615. Some of the results were presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Orlando, FL.
About this article
Cite this article
McKenzie, C.R.M., Nelson, J.D. What a speaker’s choice of frame reveals: Reference points, frame selection, and framing effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10, 596–602 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196520
- Reference Point
- Framing Effect
- Ground Beef
- Risky Choice
- Human Decision Process