Frame effect: this is what this cognitive bias looks like

This bias means that the context in which information is transmitted to us affects our reaction.

In most cases, we are not aware of the effect that the way in which the information is presented to us has on our responses or opinions, to the point of choosing options that are not always beneficial to us but that at first glance are not perceived as a loss.

This is what happens with the frame effect, a type of cognitive bias, which we will discuss which we will discuss throughout this article. We will also review the factors that influence it, as well as its causes.

What is the frame effect?

The frame effect is a psychological phenomenon that belongs to the group of cognitive biases. A cognitive bias refers to a disturbance in the mental processing of information that results in an inaccurate or distorted interpretation of reality. that results in an inaccurate or distorted interpretation of reality.

In the specific case of the frame effect, the person tends to offer a particular answer or choice depending on the way in which the information is presented to them or the way in which the question is asked..

That is to say, the subject's response or predilection when faced with a dilemma will depend on the way in which the dilemma is posed, this being the "frame" of the question.

When this response or choice is related to losses or gains, people tend to avoid taking risks when the question is posed. tend to avoid taking risks when the question or issue is framed in a positive way, whereas if it is framed in a negative way, they tend to avoid taking risks when it is framed in a positive way.When the question or issue is formulated in a negative way, the subject is more willing to take risks.

This theory points to the idea that any loss, however great, is more significant for the person than the equivalent gain. Moreover, according to this assumption, there are a number of principles that apply when a person must make such a choice:

• An assured gain is favored over a probable gain.
• A probable loss is preferable to a definite loss.

The main problem and one of the greatest dangers of the frame effect is that, more often than not, people are only given options in relation to their own choices, people only receive options in relation to gains or losses, not gains/gains or losses.not profit/gain or loss/loss.

This concept helps to facilitate the understanding of framing analysis within social movements, as well as the formation of political opinions in which the way questions are asked in opinion polls condition the respondent's answer. In this way, the aim is to obtain a beneficial response for the organization or institution that commissioned the survey.

Tversky and Kahneman's study

The best way to understand this framing effect is to review the results of studies that analyze it. One of the best-known studies was the one carried out by psychologists at the by the Stanford University psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman.

In this work they tried to demonstrate how the way in which different phrases and situations are posed conditions the response or reaction of the respondents, in this specific case, in relation to a plan for the prevention and eradication of a deadly disease.

The study consisted of posing two problems in which different alternatives are provided to save the lives of 600 people affected by an alleged disease. The first two possibilities were reflected in the following options:

• Save the lives of 200 people.
• Choose an alternative solution in which the probability of saving the 600 people is 33% but there is a 66% chance of saving no one.

The result in this first problem was that 72% of the respondents chose the first alternative, since they perceived the second as too risky. However, this response dynamic changed in the second phase of the study, in which the following choices were posed:

• 400 people die.
• Choose an alternative in which there is a 33% chance that no one dies and a 66% chance that everyone dies.

In this second case, 78% of the participants chose the second option, since the first option (although equivalent to the first problem) was perceived as much more risky.

The explanation is to be found in the different expressions used. The first statement of the alternatives named the choice positively ("Save the lives of 200 people"), while the second stated a negative consequence ("400 die").

Thus, although the two options imply the same type of consequence, the transformation of the alternatives caused respondents to focus more on benefits or losses. From this point of view, people manifest an inclination to try to avoid risks when the choice is presented in terms of gain, but prefer them when it comes to choosing an option that involves losses.

What causes this phenomenon?

Although there are no definite and demonstrable causes that justify the occurrence of this phenomenon, theorists of cognitive psychology appeal to the imperfection of people's reasoning process.. This defect is defined by the general inability we have to generate multiple alternative formulations of a problem, as well as the consequences of each of them.

Therefore, the reason why people give in to the frame effect is that most of the time people tend to passively accept choice conflicts as they are framed, so they are not aware that when their choices are conditioned by the frame rather than by their own interests or benefits.