Running head: FRAMING EFFECT: CHOOSING THE POSITIVE GAIN FRAME

Framing Effect: Choosing the Positive Gain Frame

Alexis C. Anthony and Ella M. Walsh

Department of Psychology, Mansfield University of Pennsylvania

PSY 3368: Cognition and Memory

Dr. Karri Verno

December 9th, 2019

FRAMING EFFECT: CHOOSING THE POSITIVE GAIN FRAME 2

Framing Effect: Choosing the Positive Gain Frame

Decision making is a process that has been assumed as a rational thought process on

choice. It has been shown though, that the way one frames a decision also has an impact on how

the person will make a choice. This can be tested through posing a question and having all

possible answers give the same outcome but worded in different ways, framing the options with

either a positive or negative spin. This would take ration out of the decision-making process due

to all the options having the same outcome. In these situations, there was still a preferred

answer, which displayed that ration is not the only impact on decision making. The second

influence on decision making is called the framing effect, where people choose the option that is

perceived as being posed in a positive manner. In one study testing how prevalent the framing

effect actually is, they found the framing effect to be an overall true effect with the exception of

when participants had to choose an option and explain the reason why they chose it. In all other

situations, the framing effect, where people chose the perceived positive option, was found to be

present in the participants decision making process (Chen & Proctor, 2017).

Another study investigated the impacts of the framing effect on decision making. They

also wanted to see if people would encode different options that have the same outcome

differently and there would be a favorable choice. This study yielded the same results as the

previous study. Most people chose the option that was framed positively. They found that 82

out of 88 participants, or 93%, all chose the positively framed option that fit the model that was

predicted, choosing perceived gain situations over perceived loss situations (Broniatowski, &

Reyna, 2018).

The framing effect has now been an established indicator for decision making which

assumes that most people are more likely to pick situations that are positively framed over an
FRAMING EFFECT: CHOOSING THE POSITIVE GAIN FRAME 3

option yielding the same outcome, framed in a negative manner. A study performed by Pu,

Peng, and Xia looked into the impact age has on choosing either the negatively or positively

framed choices. They thought that those who chose the positively framed choices could have

more risk avoiding personalities while those who chose negatively framed choices were on the

risk-seeking side. They explored two different scenarios where the framing effect would take

place, lifesaving and money gambling scenarios. In the life saving scenario, there were

differences between the age groups. The young adults had the framing effect present in their

decision-making processes, while in the older adults the framing effect was not present, and their

choices did not follow a pattern. In the gambling scenario, however, there were no differences

present between the age groups. Both age groups displayed the framing effect. The study

attributes these differences to how much emotion and cognitive processing plays into decision

making in older adults compared to younger adults (Pu, Peng, & Xia, 2017).

Statement of Hypotheses

Based on the review of literature presented above, the following hypotheses have been

proposed.

H1 (Question 1 – Decision 2): Participants who consider themselves religious will be more

likely pick the negative, non-risky, “gain frame” scenario rather than the negative, risky, “gain

frame” scenario.

H2 (Question 2 – Decision 2): Participants who have a lower income will be more likely to

choose the negative, non-risky, “gain frame” scenario rather than the negative, risky, “gain

frame” scenario.
FRAMING EFFECT: CHOOSING THE POSITIVE GAIN FRAME 4

Method

Participants

A small sample size of Mansfield University college students and faculty members was

used to conduct this experiment. The sample size was selected through volunteer process. The

age range of the participants varied from 18 to 50. The mean age of the participants was 22.42.

Fifty-seven-point one percent of the participants were female. Forty-two-point nine percent of

the participants were male. Twenty-one participants partook in this study. All the information

collected remained anonymous.

Materials

The materials used in this study were a survey which included; demographics, scenario-

based questions, and a debrief. Pencils were provided to those who did not have a writing

utensil. A script for the researchers to use when speaking to the participants to keep every

interaction the same.

Demographics. Found is Appendix A. This section had the participants state personal

information about themselves; age, gender, religious beliefs, tendencies to make risky decisions,

and annual income.

Scenario-based questions. Found in Appendix B. This section included two scenarios

that each consisted of two separate decisions. For example, one question asked; Imagine that you

have the opportunity to earn up to $1,000. Two alternative options to make as much money as

possible have been proposed. Choose the option you feel is best. In decision one participants had

the following two options; a) Option A: A sure gain of $250 and b) Option B: 25% chance to

gain $1000, and 75% chance to gain nothing. In decision two, participants had the following two

options; a) Option C: A sure loss of $750 and b) Option D: 75% chance to lose $1000, and 25%
FRAMING EFFECT: CHOOSING THE POSITIVE GAIN FRAME 5

chance to lose nothing. Both option A and option B are the positive gain frame, but option A in

the non-risky as option B is risky. Both option C and option D are the same as option A and

option B, but in a negative gain frame. Again, option C in the non-risky option. Option D is the

risky option.

Debrief Statement: Found in Appendix C. This section included a note to thank the

participants for partaking in the study. Along with information on the counseling center located

on campus. This was listed as a precautionary measure for the participants who may have felt

effected by the study. The contact information of the researchers was also provided here.

Procedure

The study began with the conductors distributing surveys to the small sample size and

writing utensils to those participants that needed them. Participants were first asked to complete

the demographics. Once everyone was done with the demographics, they were to complete the

scenario-based questions. Once the scenario-based questions were completed by all participants,

the researchers went over the debrief form; thanked all the participants for their willingness to

partake in the study and offered information on the on-campus counseling center. Once the study

was complete, packets were collected and an analysis on the results was conducted.

Statistical Analyses

This study utilized the experimental approach. Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS

Statistics 21.0. A chi square was performed for the categorical data. A p-value, less than or equal

to 0.5, was used to analyze the data.

FRAMING EFFECT: CHOOSING THE POSITIVE GAIN FRAME 6

Results

Hypothesis One

For analyses of the first hypothesis, a chi square test was used to determine if there was

significance in the results. The hypothesis was that the participants who consider themselves

religious will be more likely pick the negative, non-risky, “gain frame” scenario rather than the

negative, risky, “gain frame” scenario. The chi square revealed that there is no significance (X2

(1, N=21) = .429, p > .05). This meaning that people who consider themselves religious were

actually more likely to pick the negative, risky, “gain frame” scenario, meaning the null

hypothesis was not rejected.

Hypothesis Two

For analyses of the second hypothesis, a chi square test was used to determine if there

was significance in the results. The hypothesis was that the participants who have a lower

income will be more likely to choose the negative, non-risky, “gain frame” scenario rather than

the negative, risky, “gain frame” scenario. The chi square revealed that it is approaching

significance (X2 (2, N=21) = 4.964, p > .05). This meaning, with further research, participants

who had a lower income would be more likely to choose the negative, non-risky, “gain frame”

scenario rather than the negative, risky, “gain frame” scenario and the null hypothesis would be

rejected.

Discussion

Findings

The examination of the two-hypothesis revealed two very different results. For the first

hypothesis, there was no significant relationship. For the second hypothesis, the results were

approaching significance (p value of .08).

FRAMING EFFECT: CHOOSING THE POSITIVE GAIN FRAME 7

Contextualize with Literature

The findings for the first hypothesis are different from what was found in the literature

reviewed for this research study. In particular, a study conducted by Broniatowski and Reyna

(2018), looked at the impacts on the framing effect in finding a favorable choice with oppositely

framed scenarios. They found that most people choose the option that was framed positively, or

the option that was not risky (Broniatowski, & Reyna, 2018). Contrary, in this study, the

participants chose the scenario that was framed negatively and was riskier. The researchers

believe this happened due to the fact of the following limitations.

Limitations in this study may have skewed the results. One limitation the researchers ran

into was a lack of participants. Conducting the study on such a small sample size of Mansfield

University college students and limited faculty members did not allow for varying results and the

possibility of multiple outliers. In order to allow this limitation to be corrected if future research

were to be conducted, would be to allow for a larger sample size of varying ages and genders.

Another limitation in this study would be a lack of information for the participants. The

researchers did not preconceive a definition for what “risky” behavior was considered. If all

participants were to measure this differently, their scores would vary. Future direction, a

definition should be determined and portrayed to the participants prior to completing the study.

Along with this limitation, the participants could have self-perceived their levels of riskiness to

be greater or less than what it may actually be. In order to allow for this limitation to be non-

existent, the researchers should create a situation in which the participants can optionally

undergo a risky act, determining their levels this way.

FRAMING EFFECT: CHOOSING THE POSITIVE GAIN FRAME 8

References

Broniatowski, D. A., & Reyna, V. F. (2018). A formal model of fuzzy-trace theory: Variations

on framing effects and the Allais Paradox. Decision, 5(4), 205–252.

https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000083.supp (Supplemental)

Chen, J., & Proctor, R. W. (2017). Role of accentuation in the selection/rejection task framing

effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146(4), 543–

568.https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000277.supp (Supplemental)

Pu, B., Peng, H., & Xia, S. (2017). Role of emotion and cognition on age differences in the

framing effect. The International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 85(3), 305–

325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091415017691284
FRAMING EFFECT: CHOOSING THE POSITIVE GAIN FRAME 9

Appendix A – Demographics

Please provide the answer that best applies to you.

1. What is your age? _______

2. What is your gender?

a. Male

b. Female

c. Other

3. Are you a member of a church, synagogue, mosque, or other organized religious group?

a. Yes

b. No

4. Do you tend to partake in risky behaviors?

a. Never

b. Sometimes

c. Often

d. Always

5. What is your annual income?

a. $3,000 – or less

b. $3,001 – $10,000

c. $10,001 – $30,000

d. $30,000 – $65,000

e. $65,001+
FRAMING EFFECT: CHOOSING THE POSITIVE GAIN FRAME 10

Appendix B – Decision Making Scale

Please answer the following questions.

1. Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is

expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed.

Choose the program you feel is best.

Decision 1 – Choose between:

a. Program A: 200 people will be saved

b. Program B: there is 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and 2/3

probability that no people will be saved

Decision 2 – Choose between:

a. Program C: 400 people will die

b. Program D: there is 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and 2/3 probability that

600 people will die

2. Imagine that you have the opportunity to earn up to $1,000. Two alternative options to

make as much money as possible have been proposed. Choose the option you feel is best.

Decision 1 – Choose between:

a. Option A: A sure gain of $250

b. Option B: 25% chance to gain $1000, and 75% chance to gain nothing

Decision 2 – Choose between:

a. Option C: A sure loss of $750

FRAMING EFFECT: CHOOSING THE POSITIVE GAIN FRAME 11

b. Option D: 75% chance to lose $1000, and 25% chance to lose nothing

Appendix C – Debrief

**Please feel free to tear this sheet off for debrief and contact information. **

We want to thank you for partaking in our study. We appreciate you taking the time to complete

it. Please note: if you are struggling in any way after completing this study, we would like you to be

aware of the services available on campus. There is a counseling center on the first floor of south hall.

Please consider using these resources to your advantage if deemed necessary.

If you have any follow up questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to contact the two research

conductors. Contact information listed below.

Alexis Anthony – anthonyac19@mansfield.edu

FRAMING EFFECT: CHOOSING THE POSITIVE GAIN FRAME 12

Ella Walsh – walshe13@mansfield.edu