The Framing Effect of Decision Making

  • Kazuhisa Takemura


The body of utility theory that explains the phenomenon of decision making has developed new theories such as nonlinear utility theory to explain decision making under uncertainty. There is, however, a phenomenon called the framing effect which cannot be explained in its essence by the body of utility theory. The framing effect refers to phenomena in which preference is reversed even for the same decision making problem because of changes in perspectives resulting from differences in the linguistic expressions used to describe the decision making problem, resulting in varied results of decision making.


Test Subject Utility Theory Linguistic Expression Framing Effect Frame Condition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Arrow, K. J. (1982). Risk perception in psychology and economics. Economic Inquiry, 20, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Colman, A. M. (1995). Game theory and its applications in the social and biological sciences. Oxford: Butterworth–Heinemann.Google Scholar
  3. Eiser, J. R., & Bhavnani, K. K. (1974). The effect of situational meaning on the behavior of subjects in the prisoner’s dilemma game. European Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1987). The effects of decision framing on choice of risky vs. certain options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 264–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fishburn, P. C. (1982). The foundations of expected utility. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fishburn, P. C. (1988). Nonlinear preference and utility theory. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fujii, S., & Takemura, K. (2001). Risuku taido to chui: Jokyo izonteki shoten moderu ni yoru furemingu koka no keiryo bunseki [Risk attitude and attention: A psychometric analysis of framing effect by contingent focus model]. Kodo keiryogaku [The Japanese Journal of Behaviormetrics], 28, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnson, E. J., Hershey, J., Meszaros, J., & Kunreuther, H. (1993). Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 7, 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kelly, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Kojima, S. (1986). Kakaku no Shinri: Shohisha ha Nani wo Konyu Kettei no Monosashi ni Surunoka [Price psychology: What measure do consumers use to make purchasing decisions?]. Tokyo: Diamond.Google Scholar
  11. Kuhberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Langer, E. J. (1978). Rethinking the role of thought in social interaction. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 2, pp. 35–58). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. LeBoeuf, R. A., & Shafir, E. (2003). Deep thoughts and shallow frames: On the susceptibility to framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levin, I., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 374–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. The New England Journal of Medicine, 27, 1259–1262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Qualls, W. J., & Puto, C. P. (1989). Organizational climate and decision framing: An integrated approach to analyzing industrial buying decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rybash, J. M., & Roodin, P. A. (1989). The framing heuristic influences judgments about younger and older adults’ decision to refuse medical treatment. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 3, 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schmeidler, D. (1989). Subjective probability and expected utility without additivity. Econometrica, 57, 571–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Simon, A. F., Fagley, N. S., & Halleran, J. G. (2004). Decision framing: Moderating effects of individual differences and cognitive processing. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17, 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Starmer, C. (2000). Developments in non-expected utility theory: The hunt for descriptive theory of choice under risk. Journal of Economic Literature, 38, 332–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Takemura, K. (1992). Effect of decision time on framing of decision: A case of risky choice behavior. Psychologia, 35, 180–185.Google Scholar
  22. Takemura, K. (1993). The effect of decision frame and decision justification on risky choice. Japanese Psychological Research, 35, 36–40.Google Scholar
  23. Takemura, K. (1994a). Influence of elaboration on the framing effect. Journal of Psychology, 128, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Takemura, K. (1994b). Furemingu Koka no Rironteki Setsumei: Risukuka Deno Ishikettei no Jokyo Izonteki Shoten Moderu [Theoretical explanation of the framing effect: Contingent focus model for decision-making under risk]. Japanese Psychological Review, 37, 270–293.Google Scholar
  25. Takemura, K. (1996). Ishikettei no Shinri: Sono Katei no Tankyu [Mentality of decision making: The quest for the process]. Tokyo: Fukumura Shuppan.Google Scholar
  26. Thaler, R. H. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tversky, A. (1994). Contingent preferences: Loss aversion and tradeoff contrast in decision making. Japanese Psychological Research, 36, 3–9.Google Scholar
  29. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. Journal of Business, 59, 251–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kazuhisa Takemura
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations