(940 words, 5-minute read)
Imagine you are at the grocery store with a friend, who hands you two packages of ground beef. One is labelled “75% lean beef”, and the other is labelled “25% fat beef”. Which package of beef are you more likely to purchase?
Again, imagine you are at the grocery store with a friend. Your friend, who has read the labels of two packages of ground beef, hands you the package labelled “75% lean beef”. What will you infer about the other package of beef?
Background
The Framing Effect (FE) occurs when individuals react differently to logically equivalent descriptions of an object or event based on how it is presented. For example, consumers are more likely to purchase a package of beef labelled “75% lean beef” than another package labelled “25% fat beef”. This is because they respond more favourably to the positive frame than the negative frame.
One possible explanation for the framing effect is the Information Leakage Account (ILA), which suggests that the speaker’s choice of frame can subtly “leak” extra details, influencing the listeners’ judgements. For example, when choosing between two packages of beef, consumers are more likely to purchase the package labelled “75% lean beef” if they think a trusted friend recommends it.
Current evidence for the ILA is mixed, which brings us to the question: How valid is the Information Leakage Account?
Our Study: The Lottery Game
139 participants read about a lottery game played with a teammate. In the game, depending on the information frame presented by the teammate, participants had to choose between accepting a guaranteed £10 or picking a ball from a jar filled with red and green balls. The pair wins an unknown sum of money if a green ball is picked (only the teammate knows this amount). The pair wins nothing if a red ball is picked.
There are two versions of the game. In the Choice version, the teammate can choose to present the probability of picking a winning green ball (winning information frame) or the probability of picking a losing red ball (losing information frame). An example of a winning frame is “The chance of picking a winning green ball is 80%”, and an example of a losing frame is “The chance of picking a losing red ball is 20%”. In the No-Choice version, the teammate cannot choose the frame, and instead flip a coin to decide the frame presented (HEADS = winning frame; TAILS = losing frame).
Participants then answered questions assessing information leakage. Firstly, they indicated which game version they would rather play – Choice or No-Choice. They then indicated their intention to use the information frame when deciding to pick a ball or accept the £10 – Yes, No, or Maybe. Lastly, participants stated whether they thought the two frames provided different information – Yes or No.
What We Found – Surprisingly Mixed Results!
76.26% of participants chose to play the Choice version of the lottery game, suggesting that they perceived a better chance of winning when there was leaked information from the frame choice. Indirect support for the ILA is found!
Next, an overwhelming 89.21% of participants indicated that they would or maybe use the information frame in the game trials. It is likely that participants viewed the chosen frame to have additional information that would be helpful for making good decisions in the game trials. Direct support for the ILA is found!
However, only 20.14% of participants perceived a difference in the information provided by the two frames. As a key presumption of the ILA posits that frame choice ‘leaks’ additional information, support for the ILA is not found here.
Discussion
Our study found partial support for the information leakage account.
It was assumed that participants preferred the Choice version as there was leaked information from the chosen frame. However, this may not be the only reason. Participants could have chosen the Choice version simply because they preferred the element of choice, or because they wanted greater control in the game.
Furthermore, although the majority of participants intended to use the information frame to help them make their decision in the game trials, only a minority viewed the frames to provide different information. As such, participants may have thought the question was asking whether the probabilities of picking a red or green ball was logically equivalent, instead of whether there was additional leaked information.
Decision Making in Real Life
The Framing Effect has significant implications in real-life decision-making. Advertisers can strategically frame products to highlight their benefits, leading consumers to perceive them more favourably. In business meetings or negotiations, framing can impact outcomes by shaping perceptions of outcomes.
In addition, subtle clues or hints may sneak into the message when people use a particular frame when communicating information. These ‘leaked’ clues can affect how others interpret the information and make decisions based on it.
In general, understanding the cognitive impacts of framing and information leakage can help navigate the various aspects of daily life, from personal choices to professional interactions.
Key Takeaways
- More direct support for information leakage is needed
- Future research can test for information leakage in real-life contexts
Now, You!
Remember, in a world filled with persuasive tactics and subtle manipulation, it’s crucial to stay vigilant against the sneaky traps of framing effects and information leakage. Your judgement may be greatly swayed by how information is presented!
Always question the information presented, and seek clarity before making decisions. We hope you stay sharp, stay informed, and stay in control of your choices!
References
-
Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame?. The journal of politics, 63, 1041-1066.
-
Leong, L. M., McKenzie, C. R., Sher, S., & Müller‐Trede, J. (2017). The role of inference in attribute framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30, 1147-1156.
-
Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition, 101, 467-494.
-
Ghasemi, O., Harris, A. J. L., & Newell, B. R. (2023). From preference shifts to information leaks: examining the information leakage account of the framing effect. Unpublished manuscript.
-
Dhar, R., & Simonson, I. (2003). The effect of forced choice on choice. Journal of marketing research, 40, 146-160.
-
Grancea, I. (2014, January). Visual Rhetoric and Framing Strategies in Advertising Word-Based Product Categories. In Argumentum: Journal the Seminar of Discursive Logic, Argumentation Theory & Rhetoric (Vol. 12, No. 1).
Credits
-
Cover picture from iStock Photos: https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/concept-of-to-find-a-creative-idea-or-problem-solving-question-mark-and-light-bulb-gm1264262221-370234742
- In-text graphic taken from Ghasemi et al. (2023): Ghasemi, O., Harris, A. J. L., & Newell, B. R. (2023). From preference shifts to information leaks: examining the information leakage account of the framing effect. Unpublished manuscript.