All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects

Levin et al. (1998). All frames are not created equal.

An older but worthwhile read for everyone who designs messages with the goal of influencing human behavior. The Framing Effect refers to “the finding that decision makers respond differently to different but objectively equivalent descriptions of the same problem” (p. 150)

The paper I’m referring to here briefly distinguishes between three types of framing effects: (1) Risky choice framing, (2) Attribute framing, and (3) goal framing (see Table 1 for an overview).

Knowing the types of frames might be useful for behavioral scientists to clearly identify the frames they are trying to apply, when to apply them, and how to apply them, as each frame may have different “implications for designing [your] research on framing effects” (p. 151).

In our most recent research with a bank in New Zealand, our team has applied what the authors call an attribute frame (p. 158). Our study participants evaluated messages in the simplest attribute frame of favorability measures (as yes/no judgments) to identify messages that will most likely be successful frames that we want to apply as behavioral interventions in our future research with the bank.

Our goal is to help people put aside savings for their future – with the ultimate goal of making people able to cover emergency expenses, have funds for larger future expenses such as a car or house, and finally we would love for New Zealanders to have sufficient funds to be able to enjoy their retirement when this time comes around. The bank’s statistics show 40% of New Zealanders wouldn’t even have NZ$1,000 to cover emergency expenses such as a broken-down car or perhaps a large doctor’s bill (perhaps from the vet, since New Zealanders’ health is well covered by the public insurance scheme ?? )

Source:

Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., and Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 76(2), 149-188.