Framing effects demonstrate that decisions are influenced not only by the objective features of choice options but by how those options are described. Tversky and Kahneman's (1981) Asian disease problem is the classic demonstration: when outcomes were framed as lives saved (gain frame), most participants preferred the certain option; when the identical outcomes were framed as deaths (loss frame), most preferred the risky option. The switch from risk aversion to risk seeking was produced entirely by the description, not by the outcomes themselves.
Types of Framing
Attribute framing: describing a single attribute in positive or negative terms ("95% lean" vs. "5% fat" beef). Goal framing: emphasizing gains of desired behavior or losses of undesired behavior. Risky choice framing: describing outcomes of risky choices as gains or losses. All three types reliably influence judgments and decisions. In medical decision making, patients and physicians choose differently depending on whether treatment outcomes are framed as survival rates or mortality rates — logically equivalent information that feels qualitatively different.
Framing effects are a direct prediction of prospect theory: because the value function is concave for gains (producing risk aversion) and convex for losses (producing risk seeking), the same outcomes described as gains vs. losses will elicit different risk attitudes. The reference point — determined partly by the frame — determines whether an outcome is perceived as a gain or loss. This connection between framing and reference-dependent evaluation is one of prospect theory's most powerful explanatory achievements.