The DOI matches its Crossref record; 131 of the 134 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects
Abstract
Accentuate the positive or accentuate the negative? The literature has been mixed as to how the alternative framing of information in positive or negative terms affects judgments and decisions. We argue that this is because different studies have employed different operational definitions of framing and thus have tapped different underlying processes. We develop a typology to distinguish between three different kinds of valence framing effects. First we discuss the standard risky choice framing effect introduced by Tversky and Kahneman (1981) to illustrate how valence affects willingness to take a risk. Then we discuss attribute framing, which affects the evaluation of object or event characteristics, and goal framing, which affects the persuasiveness of a communication. We describe the distinctions, provide a number of examples of each type, and discuss likely theoretical mechanisms underlying each type of framing effect. Our typology helps explain and resolve apparent confusions in the literature, ties together studies with common underlying mechanisms, and serves as a guide to future research and theory development. We conclude that a broader perspective, focused on the cognitive and motivational consequences of valence-based encoding, opens the door to a deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of framing effects. Copyright 1998 Academic Press.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Prospect theory, however, demonstrates that a decision maker's perceived utility can be subjectively influenced by the manner in which the information is framed (as a loss/gain or risk/no risk), what reference is being used to evaluate the options, and the relationship/salience of the alternative to the decision maker [47,70-74].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [71]
In the citing paper
“The utilization of heuristics in decision making has been shown to be a robust source of influence in the assessment and judgment of decision options, such as the likelihood of contracting a disease, identifying probabilities of accidental fatalities, information identification, and pharmaceutical risk [66,71,73,75].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [71]
In the citing paper
“Heuristics are cognitive processes where full information processing requirements are bypassed and mental shortcutting occurs [66,71,73,94].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [71]
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk
Kahneman, D. J., & Tversky, A. (1988) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609220.014 · Cited by 32,720
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 18,497
Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/2937956 · Cited by 6,432
Status quo bias in decision making
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00055564 · Cited by 5,897
Toward a positive theory of consumer choice
Thaler, R. H. (1980) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/0167-2681(80)90051-7 · Cited by 5,796
Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice
Thaler, R. (1985) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.4.3.199 · Cited by 4,885
Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior
JONES, E. E. (1987) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,760
Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice
Thaler, R. H. (2008) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.1070.0330 · Cited by 3,477
Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/261737 · Cited by 3,194 · cited 9×
“Loewenstein Assigning value to a Loss frame has Replicated Kahneman et al. (1990) & Issacoffee mug greater impact and showed exaggerated effect charoff when mug ownership was (1994) attributed to good performance versus random assignment. Maheswaran & Blood cholesterol Involvement- Greater impact of loss frame for Mey…”
BackgroundInfluential
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Emby, 1994, Framing and presentation mode effects in professional judgment: Auditors' internal control judgments and substantive testing decisions, Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 13, 102
- Levin, 1987, Associative effects of information framing, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25, 85, 10.3758/BF03330291 · DOI
- Wilson, 1987, Framing of decisions and selections of alternatives in health care, Social Behaviour, 2, 51
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Handbook of Journalism Studies
Josephi, B. (2009) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203877685 · Cited by 1,892
Functional food. Product development, marketing and consumer acceptance—a review
Siró, I., Kápolna, E., Kápolna, B., & Lugasi, A. (2008) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2008.05.060 · Cited by 1,758
Morrison, E. W. (2014) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328 · Cited by 1,836
The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence
Druckman, J. N. (2001) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1015006907312 · Cited by 1,345
The Economic Psychology of Tax Behaviour
Kirchler, E. M., & Braithwaite, V. A. (2007) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511628238 · Cited by 1,340
Metadata
- Authors
- Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J.
- Affiliations
- University of Iowa (US)
- University of South Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Levin, Irwin P.
- Venue
- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1998-11
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 149-188
- ISSN
- 0749-5978 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2080612551
- Cited by
- 2,592
- References
- 134
- Citations by year
- 2026: 105 · 2025: 151 · 2024: 138 · 2023: 125 · 2022: 159 · 2021: 165 · 2020: 180 · 2019: 147 · 2018: 111 · 2017: 114 · 2016: 124 · 2015: 151 · 2014: 103 · 2013: 116 · 2012: 102
- FWCI
- 11.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Keywords
- framing effects, valence framing, positive and negative framing, decision making under risk, attribute framing, goal framing, persuasion, risk-taking
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
