What a speaker’s choice of frame reveals: Reference points, frame selection, and framing effects

Abstract

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.

References

  1. Fischhoff, B. (1983). Predicting frames.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,9, 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Frisch, D. (1993). Reasons for framing effects.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,54, 399–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hilton, D. J. (1995). The social context of reasoning: Conversational inference and rational judgment.Psychological Bulletin,118, 248–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.Econometrica,47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kahneman, D., &Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames.American Psychologist,39, 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,75, 23–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Marteau, T. M. (1989). Framing of information: Its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients.British Journal of Social Psychology,28, 89–94.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McKenzie, C. R. M., &Mikkelsen, L. A. (2000). The psychological side of Hempel’s paradox of confirmation.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 360–366.

    Google Scholar 

  13. McKenzie, C. R. M., & Mikkelsen, L. A. (in press). A Bayesian view of covariation assessment.Cognitive Psychology.

  14. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schwarz, N. (1996).Cognition and communication: Judgmental biases, research methods, and the logic of conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Thaler, R. (1980). Toward a positive theory of consumer choice.Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,1, 9–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science,211, 453–458.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tversky, A., &Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions.Journal of Business,59, S251-S278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Craig R. M. McKenzie or Jonathan D. Nelson.

Additional information

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

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

Download citation

Keywords

  • Reference Point
  • Framing Effect
  • Ground Beef
  • Risky Choice
  • Human Decision Process