The framing effect is a cognitive bias by means of which the way in which it poses us a situation will determine the decision that take on the same. Our preferences of election can see influenciadas by the context in which we find us or the form in which they present it to us. Therefore, our taking of decision no always goes to be objective but it will depend on other indirect factors that alter our perception, without darse us.
The framing effect or effect of setting (framing effect in English) uses frequently in the advertising to motivate of unaware way a process of purchase of a product when we have to choose between several options that a priori and of objective way would be equal between himself. When a company or a person wants that another or a group of people or society make a determinate behaviour can use this cognitive bias to direct the thought to the place that more interest him. This manipulation gives in a lot of situations through the advertising, the politics and the media with ends sometimes no too ethical.
The cognitive biases are evolutionary strategies that our brain uses with the purpose to speed up the information that arrives us and his back processing by means of heuristic rules. Although no always it hit, estadísticamente, take these fast decisions improve our capacity of processing since of not being like this would be impossible to give a correct solution to the more than 35.000 daily decisions that invade us of all type, from the smallest like deciding if turn off or no the alarm that sounds us to first hour of the morning to decide what eat this day.
>> Article related: The persuasion and his principles of social influence.
Examples of framing effect , or of how redirect our decisions.
We go to put several examples on how works the effect mark on our decisions or on the perception that see or do us of what are communicating us, beginning with the explanation of the classical social experiment that checked it.
Social example: How you prefer to help to the other? (Classical experiment).
The classical experiment on the effect mark was the made by Tserky and Kahneman in 1981. These social psychologists asked to the participants of the experiment that chose between two options of which would depend the health and the life of 600 people. The two options showed with different settings, one positive in relation to the people that would live and another more negative setting in which it gave greater attention to the people that would die. These were the different settings that gave to the participants:
- First setting (positive), has to choose between one of the two following options to decide on the health of 600 people:
- You can save him the life to 200 people.
- Alternative solution: probability to save to the 600 people is of 33% but exists a possibility of 66% of not saving to anybody.
- Second setting (negative). Same supposition on the life of 600 people:
- They will die 400 people.
- Alternative solution: probability that 33% that not dying anybody and one of 66% that all the people die.
In the first case, 72% of the participants chose the first option, save the 200 lives, because it perceived the second as riskier. However, when the approach of the problem did of negative form invested the option chosen and 78% of the people polled chose the second option, although the first option is exactly the same to the first option of the first setting presented, but that now was considered riskier.
What sucedió is that the people tend to remain us before with the positive data that with the negative to the hour to take a decision to avoid risks or losses of automatic way. When they present us something of form more positive will modify our decision of way more proactiva that if it places of a more negative form although it was exactly equal.
>> Article related: The paradox of election: a lot of options, few decisions.
Political or governmental example: the effect mark to the hour to explain a pandemia.
For example, if a government presents the data of a global pandemia, as it can be the current crisis of the coronavirus, is not the same to present him to the population a percentage in positive that the same percentage in negative. It does not perceive of the same way present a same information in function of the failure that in function of the profits:
- Option To: there is 10% of the population infected.
- Option B: there is 90% of the healthy population.
Express with the option B goes to create a false positive effect in a same approach. It is by this that in politics also uses a lot the effect mark.
Example in consumption: Which product prefer?
This cognitive bias is very used in neuromárketing and advertising. They are used to offer products under labels more positive although they say the same that other less alentadoras that promote the motivation of purchase to the own interests. Example, two products want to say the same in his labels, that contain little fat, but are presented of distinct form:
- Product To: 1% of fat
- Product B: 99% free of fat.
The big majority of the consumers will decant by the option B. Since they perceive that 99% and the free word is more positive in his group. It is not logical, but work like this.
>> Article related: The psychological price: how fix prices using the brain.
Another example in consumption is that it sells much more a billed that gives something directly that a billed with a percentage of discount on a product. That is to say:
- Product To: 2+1 free
- Product B: 33% of discount.
The formula of the product To no only will achieve better sales when including the word “free” but the consumer will buy more quantity to achieve it that with the product to 33% of discount, because perhaps they did not do him fault 3 products but since one goes out free purchases it equally.
>> Article related: What is the subliminal advertising?
Economic example.: Run risks or no? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
To several participants of an experiment them god €50 to each one and had to decide if bet them in a game of chance and posed this question of two different forms:
- Group To: it said them that they could bet the €50 or no, but if they do not bet would lose €30.
- Group B: it said them that they could bet the €50 or no, but if no bets would win €20.
In principle, the two options are equally valid but the verbs lose (negative connotation) or win (connotation more positive) go to influence in the decision to bet or no although both options of rejection to the bet have the same final rewards. A percentage of wide people will decide to remain with the €20 insurances and not betting, but another group of people decided to bet all the money in front of the possibility to lose. Others however, bet independently of this formulation. Therefore we pose us if it affects to all the world by the same the effect mark. In the economic world is very important to take decisions of objective way by what the effect mark can run against of the people that have to take decisions that involve economic risks.
It affects the framing effect to all the world by equal?
No, it does not affect of the same way to all the world. It exists a genetic and physiological explanation by what some people answer better or worse in front of this type of cognitive biases. The most susceptible people to the effect mark are those that present high levels of the cerebral neurotransmitter serotonin that activate the region of our brain known like tonsil and manager of the emotional control, by what those individuals with high levels of serotonin could see more influenciados by this cognitive bias due to the fact that they act of a more emotional way that rational.
>> Article related: Resistance to the persuasion: how avoid be manipulated.
Tversky, To. & Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science; 211(4481): 453-458