Framing effects: An analytic–holistic perspective
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 Asian disease problem and replications, the majority of participants will select their program choices based on how the information regarding lives saved/fatalities rates is framed.
“Consistently, the majority of participants will select their program choices based on how the information regarding lives saved/fatalities rates is framed [28,70,72-74].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [72]
The Results and discussion of Experiment 1 (page not provided) report that gain/loss framing affected choices when the task had low relevance. The same section reports no framing effect when the task had high relevance, so the unqualified claim that the majority will choose based on framing overstates the paper's findings. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredProspect theory 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.
“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 [72]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524 · see citing works
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 17,604 · see citing works
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.4.341 · Cited by 6,544 · see citing works
All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804 · Cited by 2,592 · see citing works
Adaptive strategy selection in decision making.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1988) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.534 · Cited by 1,955 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Bless, H., Betsch, T., & Franzen, A. (1998). Framing the framing effect: The impact of context cues on solutions to the Asian disease problem. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 287-291.
- Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario Symposium: Vol. 5 (pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Epstein, S., Lipson, A., Holstein, C., & Huh, E. (1992). Irrational reactions to negative outcomes: Evidence for two conceptual systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889-906.
- Evans, J. S., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Psychology Press.
- Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1990). The effect of framing on choice: interactions with risk-taking propensity, cognitive style, and sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 496-510.
- In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: vol 23. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Highhouse, S., & Paese, P. W. (1996). Problem domain and prospect frame: Choice under opportunity versus threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 124-132.
- Johnson, B., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314.
- Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1999). Deductive reasoning. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 109-135.
- Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Byrne, R. M. J. (1993). Models and deductive rationality. In K. Manktelow, & D. Over (Eds.), Rationality: Psychological and philosophical perspectives. Routledge Press.
- Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases. New York: Plenum Press.
- Liberman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1996). The direct effect of personal relevance on attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 269-279.
- McNeil, B., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 306, 1259-1262.
- McNeil, B., Weichselbaum, R., & Pauker, S. G. (1978). Fallacy of the 5-year survival in lung cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 299, 1397-1401.
- Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 113-131.
- O'Connor, A. M., Boyd, N. F., Warde, P., Stolbach, L., & Till, J. E. (1987). Eliciting preferences for alternative drug therapies in oncology. Journal of Chronic Disorders, 40, 811-818.
- O'Connor, A. M., Pennie, R. A., & Dales, R. E. (1996). Framing effects on expectation, decisions, and side effects experienced: The case of influenza immunization. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 1271-1276.
- Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
- Russo, P., Persegani, C., Carucci, C., Vallini, I., Papeschi, L. L., & Trimarchi, M. (2001). Interaction between cognitive style and school environment: Consequences on self-evaluated anxiety and depression. International Journal of Neuroscience, 110, 79-90.
- Simon, H. A. (1956). Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review, 63, 129-138.
- Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3-22.
- Takemura, K. (1994). Influence of elaboration on the framing of decision. The Journal of Psychology, 128, 33-37.
- Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Zenhausern, R. (1978). Imagery, cerebral dominance, and style of thinking: A unified field model. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 12, 381-384.
- Zenhausern, R., & Nickel, L. (1979). Hemispheric dominance and maze learning. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 14, 435-436.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Individual differences in adult decision-making competence.
Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A. M., & Fischhoff, B. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.938 · Cited by 906 · see citing works
McCaughey, D., & Bruning, N. S. (2010) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-39 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
- Authors
- McElroy, T., & Seta, J. J.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
- Corresponding author
- McElroy, Todd
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2003-11
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 610-617
- ISSN
- 0022-1031 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2114750553
- Cited by
- 221
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 4.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- libres.uncg.edu
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- Appalachian State University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Keywords
- framing effects, analytical processing, holistic processing, heuristic processing, decision-making, cognitive style
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
