The Framing Effect: How Identical Information Changes Your Decisions

01The Physicians Study

How a Single Word Reversed Expert Medical Decisions

In 1982, a team of researchers at Harvard Medical School and Stanford handed a group of experienced physicians a set of clinical data about two cancer treatments, surgery and radiation therapy.[4] The survival rates, the complication profiles, the long-term prognosis: all identical in both versions of the questionnaire. The only difference was a single word. One version described the outcomes in terms of how many patients would live. The other described how many would die. The physicians (trained specialists who reviewed survival statistics as a matter of professional routine) shifted their treatment preferences by more than thirty percentage points based on nothing but the verb.[4][30] Not the data. Not the evidence. The description.

That study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, did something unusual for its era: it demonstrated that the people we trust most to make rational, evidence-based decisions are just as susceptible to framing effects as everyone else.[4] The phenomenon it illuminated, a systematic reversal of preferences triggered by how information is presented rather than what information is presented, has since become one of the most replicated findings in all of cognitive science.[7]

The scale of the problem is not subtle. In the founding experiment by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, 72% of participants chose a safe option when it was described as saving lives, while only 22% chose the mathematically identical option when it was described in terms of deaths.[1] Same numbers. Same outcomes. Opposite majorities. That 50-percentage-point reversal has been confirmed across cultures, age groups, professional backgrounds, and, remarkably, during a real pandemic with real stakes.[25]

01 · The history

The intellectual foundation beneath framing is prospect theory, published by Kahneman and Tversky in 1979 and now the most cited paper in the history of economics.[2] Its core insight is deceptively simple: people do not evaluate outcomes in absolute terms. They evaluate them relative to a reference point. Whether an outcome is perceived as a gain or a loss relative to that reference point changes everything about how it feels, how it is weighted, and ultimately what is chosen.[2][3]

The asymmetry is not balanced. Empirical meta-analyses across more than 600 estimates find that losses carry roughly twice the psychological weight of equivalent gains, a phenomenon called loss aversion, with a median coefficient of approximately λ ≈ 2.0.[2][3] That asymmetry means a reframe from "lives saved" to "lives lost" does not merely change the emotional colour of a decision. It changes the mathematical weighting the brain assigns to the options.

That matters because framing effect psychology is not about people being careless or uninformed. It is about the architecture of valuation itself. The brain's loss-gain detection system fires before deliberation begins, and it fires differently depending on how information is packaged.[5]

02The Mechanism

The Neural Circuit That Frames Your Choices Before You Think

The mechanism was invisible until brain imaging revealed it. In 2006, Benedetto De Martino and colleagues at University College London placed twenty participants in an fMRI scanner and gave them a carefully designed gambling task that created framing conditions while tracking neural activity in real time.[5] What they found transformed the framing effect from a behavioural description into a neuroscience story.

When participants made choices consistent with the frame (risk-averse under gain framing, risk-seeking under loss framing) their amygdala showed significantly greater activation.[5] The amygdala, the brain's rapid threat-and-reward detector, was not responding to the mathematical value of the options. It was responding to the emotional label the frame had attached. Gain frame: safety signal. Loss frame: threat signal. Same odds, different neural signature.

The critical finding was in the individual differences. Participants whose ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and orbital frontal cortex showed greater activation made choices that were more frame-independent, overriding the amygdala's emotional tagging with what appeared to be a deliberate regulatory process.[5] The framing effect, in other words, has a specific neural architecture: a fast emotional system that labels options and a slower regulatory system that can, but usually does not, override those labels.

The frame fires before you think: the reference point set by wording triggers the amygdala to tag an option as threat or opportunity, the striatum then encodes value with a steeper neural response to losses than gains, and the resulting choice reflects the emotional label, not the objective odds.

Diagram · HPC

The circuit is not as simple as "amygdala bad, prefrontal good." Subsequent neuroimaging work has shown that the mechanism is domain-specific. Zhang and colleagues found in 2022 that the amygdala primarily encodes framing in the gain domain, while the striatum (the brain's reward-value hub) handles loss-domain framing.[18] That dissociation means framing is not a single emotional reaction but a coordinated response across distinct neural circuits, each tuned to a different class of value signal.

The regulatory side of the circuit involves at least two prefrontal regions. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) modulates emotional processing during framing decisions, with fMRI evidence showing it operates through a top-down control pathway that dampens amygdala influence.[19] A separate study using transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) demonstrated that artificially boosting DLPFC activity could reduce the framing effect in social decision contexts.[20] The regulatory pathway exists. Most people simply do not activate it under default conditions.

The genetic layer adds another dimension. A study of 1,317 Chinese Han participants found that variations in the COMT gene and the SLC6A4 gene (both involved in dopaminergic and serotonergic signalling) contribute to individual differences in framing susceptibility.[17] Earlier work by Roiser and colleagues showed that carriers of the short-short (ss) allele of the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTTLPR) exhibited greater amygdala reactivity and correspondingly higher framing bias than long-allele carriers.[9]

03Evidence

The Five Strongest Studies on Framing Effect Psychology

01The claim

The single load-bearing finding

The hero study finds 72 vs 22 % choosing safe option.

Ranking evidence is an editorial act. It requires weighing study design against sample size, causal clarity against ecological validity, replication record against historical significance. The five studies ranked below are not the only important papers in framing research, a field that spans more than four decades and thousands of publications. They are the five that, taken together, establish the strongest combined case for the framing effect's existence, magnitude, neural basis, real-world consequences, and modifiability. The ranking uses a six-criterion rubric weighted toward methodologica

Pooled estimate

72 vs 22

02How we measured

Grading the framing-effect trials

Studies scored on design, sample, rigour, causality, replication.

For framing-effect research, sample diversity is the key criterion: the bias must hold across physicians, patients, and lay populations under real-stakes conditions, not just laboratory vignettes, to justify the strong population-level claims the evidence makes.

Rubric weights

Design/35

Sample/20

Rigour/15

Causality/15

Replication/15

03The spread

Heterogeneity across 5 studies

Effect sizes across the ranked studies.

The hierarchy reveals something that four decades of individual study citations can obscure: convergence. The behavioural evidence, the meta-analytic evidence, the neuroimaging evidence, and the intervention evidence all point in the same direction. Framing is a medium-sized, robust, neural-circuit-level bias that operates in laboratory settings and real clinical decisions with approximately equal force.[7][4][5] A 2025 meta-analysis of 40 studies involving 17,416 participants found an odds ratio of 2.467: participants were nearly two and a half times more likely to make framing-consistent ch

Spread

91 → 78 /100

Range of point estimates across ranked studies.

04What does not hold

Negative knowledge

What the evidence base does not support.

The Levin typology offers one further layer of precision. In 1998, Irwin Levin and colleagues distinguished three types of framing effects: risky-choice framing (the classic Tversky-Kahneman design), attribute framing (how an object's characteristics are described), and goal framing (whether a message emphasises gains or losses from an action).[12] Each type has a distinct psychological mechanism and a different effect size. A three-type meta-analysis found d = 0.44 for goal framing, d = 0.26 for attribute fram

Consumer dose

The studies

5 trials. One pooled answer.

Below: the anchor study in full; then the forest plot at scale; then the supporting trials in ranked order.

01Anchor

: The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice

Tversky & Kahneman 1981 Controlled Experiment · Between-Subjects · Replicated

This is the paper that proved the framing effect exists at population scale. Tversky and Kahneman presented participants with the "Asian Disease Problem" (a choice between a certain outcome and a gamble with identical expected value) framed either as lives saved or lives lost. **The result was a 50-

Rubric breakdown

Design27/35

Sample14/20

Rigour13/15

Causality14/15

Replication10/10

Citations10/10

Total 91/100

The strongest studies, ranked by methodological weight.

Each scored 0–100 against a six-criterion rubric, tagged by design and year; the anchor leads.

Anchor (Rank 1) Supporting

Rank Authors & title Journal · Year Finding Score

Steiger & Kühberger

: A Meta-Analytic Re-Appraisal of the Framing Effect

· 2018

After applying p-curve methodology to correct for publication bias in Kühberger's original 1998 database of 136 studies and ~30,000 participants, the corrected effect size rose from d = 0.31 to d = 0.52: a medium-sized effect that is larger, not smaller, than previously measured. Effect size heterogeneity across task variants ranges from d = 0.16 to d = 0.91.

87/100

De, Martino & Kumaran

: Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain

· 2006

Amygdala activation was significantly associated with framing-consistent choices; vmPFC activity predicted frame-independent decision-making across individuals, identifying the neural substrate of rational override.

79/100

McNeil, Pauker & Sox

: On the Elicitation of Preferences for Alternative Therapies

· 1982

Physicians chose surgery 84% of the time under survival framing and only 50% under mortality framing for identical clinical data. The effect was consistent across all three populations: patients, students, and trained physicians.

82/100

Keysar, Hayakawa & An

: The Foreign-Language Effect: Thinking in a Foreign Tongue Reduces Decision Biases

· 2012

Bet acceptance rose from approximately 50% in participants' native language to approximately 70% in a foreign language: a roughly 20-percentage-point reduction in framing bias from a single cognitive manipulation using real money. Confirmed across six experiments with both between- and within-subjects designs.

78/100

04Stakes

The Invisible Tax on Every Decision You Think You're Making Rationally

Framing does not just distort laboratory gambles. It reshapes medical treatment, retirement savings, organ donation rates, and political outcomes, with consequences measured in lives, money, and policy.

01 System 01 · Medical Decisions

Treatment Choices Reversed by Wording

When outcomes are framed as survival rates, physicians and patients prefer surgery. When identical data are framed as mortality rates, preferences shift toward radiation by more than 30 percentage points.[4][30] A 37-article systematic review confirmed that framing consistently shifts treatment preferences across clinical settings, regardless of professional training.[31] The effect is not limited to hypothetical scenarios; it changes real referral patterns.

In practice

choosing a treatment because of how the data were presented, not what the data showed

02 System 02 · Financial Decisions

Retirement and Investment Distorted by Narrow Framing

People who evaluate investments in isolation (narrow framing) contribute significantly less to retirement savings than those who see the same options as part of a portfolio.[41] Social Security claiming behaviour is similarly distorted: "breakeven analysis" framing encourages early claiming, disproportionately affecting those with lower financial literacy.[42] The frame determines whether people see a contribution as a loss or an investment.

In practice

leaving money on the table because the choice was framed as a gamble rather than a plan

System 03 · Policy and Political Outcomes

Elections and Organ Donation Shaped by Default Frames

Countries with opt-out organ donation defaults achieve approximately 82% consent rates; opt-in countries achieve approximately 42%.[40] That 40-percentage-point gap reflects no difference in values, only in framing. Political decisions are similarly vulnerable: ballot framing influences election outcomes, with the strongest effects on low-salience measures where voters lack independent information.[35] The default frame becomes the socially endorsed choice.

82% The default frame becomes the socially endorsed choice.

In practice

supporting a policy position because of how the question was asked, not what you believe

04 System 04 · Clinical Mental Health

Anxiety Amplifies Framing, Framing Amplifies Anxiety

Anxious individuals show heightened amygdala responses to loss-framed information, creating a feedback loop: anxiety increases framing susceptibility, and framing-distorted decisions generate more anxiety.[21] Age compounds the effect: a meta-analysis of 18 studies found that older adults are significantly more susceptible to negative framing.[24][33] Framing does not just distort single decisions. It compounds through emotional amplification.

In practice

decisions feeling heavier and more threatening than the actual data justify

05Protocol

A 4-Step Framing Debiasing Protocol

The science does not support a magic bullet against framing. It supports a specific sequence of cognitive interventions that increase the probability of frame-independent choice by activating the prefrontal override pathway.

The protocol, as a sequence.

Before Decision → During Analysis → Under Emotional Pressure → After Initial Assessment

01 Step 01 · Before Decision

Invert the Frame

Restate every significant decision in the opposite frame before acting. If it is framed as a loss, rewrite it explicitly as a gain and compare your preferences in both versions.

Why

Exposes frame-dependence before it becomes a committed choice. De Martino's imaging data show vmPFC engagement increases with deliberate counter-frame consideration.[5][1] The goal is to create the cognitive conditions under which the regulatory pathway activates.

Restate every significant decision in the opposite frame before acting. If it is

Common mistake

Only doing the inversion mentally. The reframe must be written out; imagined inversions are too easily overridden by the original frame's emotional residue.

02 Step 02 · During Analysis

Convert to Natural Frequencies

Replace probability formats with absolute numbers. "30% chance of mortality" becomes "30 out of 100 people die." Request absolute risk reduction (ARR), not relative risk reduction (RRR).

Why

Gigerenzer and Hoffrage demonstrated that natural frequency formats dramatically improve diagnostic reasoning, from approximately 10% correct with probabilities to substantially higher with frequencies.[16] Frequency formats bypass the frame by making the denominator visible.

30% Replace probability formats with absolute numbers. "30% chance of mortality" bec

Common mistake

Accepting relative risk statistics from physicians, salespeople, or news reports without asking for absolute numbers, since relative framing is one of the most potent amplifiers of the framing effect.

03 Step 03 · Under Emotional Pressure

Create Deliberate Distance

When loss-framed information triggers strong emotion, ask: "What would I advise a close friend in this situation?" Third-person reframing creates emotional distance analogous to the foreign language effect.[8]

Why

Keysar's six experiments showed a ~20-percentage-point reduction in framing bias when decisions were processed with greater cognitive distance.[8] The mechanism is emotional separation from the frame, not linguistic; any intervention that increases psychological distance from the loss signal should reduce the bias. Boundary conditions exist: the effect varies with proficiency and task type.

8 When loss-framed information triggers strong emotion, ask: "What would I advise

Common mistake

Treating the emotional reaction as an informative signal rather than a framing artefact. The feeling of urgency in a loss frame is real, but its informational content is an artefact of the description, not the situation.

04 Step 04 · After Initial Assessment

Premortem the Frame

Assume the loss-framed outcome has already occurred. Ask: what would I have done differently?

Why

The premortem technique, validated by Klein's applied research, reduces overconfidence by prospectively imagining failure, removing loss-aversion paralysis by making the feared outcome feel already present rather than hypothetically threatening.[41] Before-after data suggest that statistical training is also associated with reduced framing susceptibility, though randomised trials are needed to confirm the causal pathway.[29]

Assume the loss-framed outcome has already occurred. Ask: what would I have done

Common mistake

Confusing the premortem with pessimism. The goal is not to predict failure. It is to neutralise the asymmetric emotional weight the loss frame places on the feared outcome.

Operational logic

The protocol is deliberately simple because the research shows that complexity is the enemy of debiasing. A study of cognitive style and frame susceptibility found that a deliberate analytical approach only modestly reduces framing; the effect is smaller than most people expect.[34] The foreign language research, which represents the strongest experimental demonstration of debiasing, works not through sophisticated reasoning but through blunt emotional distance.[8] The lesson is not "think harder." It is "think from further away."

What the protocol cannot do is eliminate framing entirely. The neural circuit that produces framing is fast, automatic, and partly heritable.[17][9] The vmPFC override pathway can be activated, but it requires deliberate effort and, critically, the awareness that a frame is operating. That is the irreducible minimum: you have to know you are being framed before you can reframe. And the framing effect's most dangerous property is that it feels like a rational response to the information, not a response to the packaging.

---

06Verdict

The verdict.

"The frame is not something applied to a decision. The frame is part of the decision the brain is actually making." -- Benedetto De Martino, University College London

Bottom line

The frame is not the fact. But unless you build systems that separate them, your brain will treat every frame as though it were.

The deepest implication of the framing research is not that people are irrational. It is that rationality (as classically defined) is not the brain's default setting. The default is fast emotional evaluation calibrated by evolutionary priorities that predate every institution humans have built to make better decisions. Medicine, law, finance, engineering: these fields all assume that trained professionals can evaluate equivalent options equivalently. The framing effect says they cannot, not because they lack training, but because the valuation system they are using runs its computation before training has a chance to intervene.[5][4]

The whole argument, on one axis

Same numbers. Opposite majority.

01Claim

The Bias Is Structural

The framing effect is not a failure of attention, education, or intelligence. It is a structural property of the brain's value-computation system (an emotional tagging process that assigns gain or loss valence before deliberation begins), confirmed by converging behavioural, meta-analytic, and neuroimaging evidence.

02Consequence

Expertise Provides No Shield

Medical professionals, financial advisors, and policy experts are measurably just as susceptible to framing as untrained populations.[4][30] The cost is not abstract: it manifests as reversed treatment preferences, distorted investment behaviour, and policy outcomes shaped by question wording rather than evidence.

03Lever

Distance Is the Override

The framing effect can be reduced, though not eliminated, by interventions that increase cognitive distance between the decision-maker and the frame: frame inversion, natural frequency conversion, third-person perspective, and premortem analysis.[5][8][16] These interventions activate the prefrontal regulatory pathway identified in neuroimaging research as the neural basis of frame-independent choice.

07Bibliography

44 sources · ~6h est. corpus read · 44 visible

Meta · 1 Review · 2 Journal · 39 Book · 2

Type

Sort

01 Journal

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D1981

The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice

Science211(4481) · 453–458

doi: 10.1126/science.7455683
02 Journal

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A1979

Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk

Econometrica47(2) · 263–292
03 Journal

Kahneman, D2011

*Thinking, fast and slow*. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Thinking, fast and slow
04 Journal

McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C., & Tversky, A1982

On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies

New England Journal of Medicine306(21) · 1259–1262

doi: 10.1056/NEJM198205273062103
05 Journal

De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J2006

Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain

Science313(5787) · 684–687

doi: 10.1126/science.1128356
06 Journal

Kühberger, A1998

The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes75(1) · 23–55

doi: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2781
07 Journal

Steiger, A., & Kühberger, A2018

A meta-analytic re-appraisal of the framing effect

Zeitschrift für Psychologie226(1) · 45–55

doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000321
08 Journal

Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S. L., & An, S. G2012

The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases

Psychological Science23(6) · 661–668

doi: 10.1177/0956797611432178
09 Journal

Roiser, J. P., de Martino, B., Tan, G. C. Y., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., Wood, N. W., & Dolan, R. J2009

A genetically mediated bias in decision making driven by failure of amygdala control

Journal of Neuroscience29(18) · 5985–5991

doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0407-09.2009
10 Journal

Klein, R. A., et al2018

Many Labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings

Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science1(4) · 443–490

doi: 10.1177/2515245918810225
11 Journal

Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J1988

How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product

Journal of Consumer Research15(3) · 374–378

doi: 10.1086/209174
12 Journal

Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J1998

All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes76(2) · 149–188

doi: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2804
13 Book

Gigerenzer, G2007

*Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious*. Viking.

Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious
14 Journal

Tetlock, P. E., & Gardner, D2015

*Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction*. Crown.

Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction
15 Book

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R2008

*Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness*. Yale University Press.

Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness
16 Review

Gigerenzer, G., & Hoffrage, U1995

How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: Frequency formats

Psychological Review102(4) · 684–704

doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.684
17 Journal

Gao, X., Liu, J., Gong, P., et al2017

Identifying new susceptibility genes on dopaminergic and serotonergic pathways for the framing effect in decision-making

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience12(9) · 1534–1544

doi: 10.1093/scan/nsx062
18 Journal

Zhang, X., et al2022

Domain-specific neural substrates underlie the framing effect

NeuroImage: Reports2(3)

doi: 10.1016/j.ynirp.2022.100103
19 Journal

Gao, S., et al2020

Cognitive framing modulates emotional processing through dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex networks: An fMRI study

Human Brain Mapping41(15) · 4331–4343

doi: 10.1002/hbm.25134
20 Journal

Zhang, Y., et al2020

The neural mechanism of the social framing effect: Evidence from fMRI and tDCS studies

Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2020.00129
21 Journal

Miu, A. C., & Crișan, L. G2014

Anxiety and framing effects on decision making

Journal of Neuroscience34(10) · 3455–3463
22 Journal

Framing effect and skin conductance responses2015

*Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience*, 9, 188

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience

doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00188
23 Journal

Roberts, I. D., Yang, Y., & Hutcherson, C. A2022

Time to pay attention? Information search explains amplified framing effects under time pressure

Psychological Science33(1) · 90–104

doi: 10.1177/09567976211026983
24 Journal

Best, R., & Charness, N2015

Age differences in the effect of framing on risky choice: A meta-analysis

Psychology and Aging30(3) · 688–698

doi: 10.1037/a0039447
25 Journal

Rachev, N. R., Han, H., Lacko, D., et al2021

Replicating the disease framing problem during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic

PLOS ONE16(9)

doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257151
26 Meta

Systematic review of risky-choice framing effects2023

*EXCLI Journal*, 22, 1106–1134. PMC: PMC10620856.

EXCLI Journal1106–1134
27 Journal

Hu, X., et al2024

Attention biases the process of risky decision-making: Evidence from eye-tracking

PsyCh Journal13(1)

doi: 10.1002/pchj.724
28 Journal

Ding, X., Li, M., & Qiao, J2025

Meta-analysis examining the relationship between framing effect and risky decisions

Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics

doi: 10.1016/j.soceco.2025.100187
29 Journal

Borracci, R. A., Arribalzaga, E. B., & Thierer, J2020

Training in statistical analysis reduces the framing effect among medical students and residents in Argentina

Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions

doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2020.17.25
30 Journal

Perneger, T. V., & Agoritsas, T2011

Doctors' and patients' susceptibility to framing bias: A randomized trial

Journal of General Internal Medicine26(12) · 1411–1417

doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1810-x
31 Journal

Influence of framing on medical decision making2016

*Patient Education and Counseling*, 99(5). PMC: PMC4803019.

Patient Education and Counseling99(5)
32 Journal

A neuroimaging investigation of attribute framing and individual differences2014

*Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience*, 10(3), 378–384. PMC: PMC4187265.

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience10(3) · 378–384
33 Journal

Advanced age predicts increased susceptibility to attribute, goal, and risky-choice framing in negative frame valences2024

*Humanities and Social Sciences Communications*, 11

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications1599-024

doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-02658-6
34 Journal

Cognitive style and frame susceptibility in decision-making2018

*Frontiers in Psychology*, 9, 1461. PMC: PMC6095985.

Frontiers in Psychology
35 Journal

Bütler, M., & Maréchal, M. A2014

Framing effects in political decision making: Evidence from a natural and field experiment

Political Behavior36(4) · 883–912
36 Journal

Druckman, J. N2001

The implications of framing effects for citizen competence

Political Behavior23(3) · 225–256
37 Review

Circi, R., Gatti, D., Russo, V., & Vecchi, T2021

The foreign language effect on decision-making: A meta-analysis

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review28(4) · 1131–1141

doi: 10.3758/s13423-020-01871-z
38 Journal

Framing depression as a functional signal, not a disease: Rationale and initial randomized controlled trial2023

*Social Science & Medicine*, 326, 115967

Social Science & Medicine

doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115967
39 Journal

Effect of information framing on wearing masks during COVID-19 pandemic2022

*Frontiers in Public Health*, 10, 811792

Frontiers in Public Health

doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.811792
40 Journal

Johnson, E. J., & Goldstein, D2003

Do defaults save lives? *Science*, 302(5649), 1338–1339

Science302(5649) · 1338–1339

doi: 10.1126/science.1091721
41 Journal

Narrow framing and retirement savings decisions2019

*Journal of Consumer Affairs*, 53(4), 1853–1876

Journal of Consumer Affairs53(4) · 1853–1876

doi: 10.1111/joca.12211
42 Journal

Framing and Social Security claiming behavior2017

*Journal of Gerontology: Series B*, 72(4), 634–641. PMC: PMC5453649.

Journal of Gerontology: Series B72(4) · 634–641
43 Journal

Moderators of framing effects in variations of the Asian Disease problem2018

*Judgment and Decision Making*, 13(6), 529–546.

Judgment and Decision Making13(6) · 529–546
44 Journal

Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L2005

Aging and motivated cognition: The positivity effect in attention and memory

Trends in Cognitive Sciences9(10) · 496–502

doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.005

The Framing Effect: How Identical Information Changes Your Decisions.

How a Single Word Reversed Expert Medical Decisions

The Neural Circuit That Frames Your Choices Before You Think

The Five Strongest Studies on Framing Effect Psychology

The hero study finds 72 vs 22 % choosing safe option.