Standard and non-standard framing effects: a unified rational interpretation based on the new definition of frame

While the classical or standard framing effect (SFE) has received considerable attention, prospect theory (PT) or cumulative prospect theory (CPT), which was previously considered capable of explaining it, fails to account for its risky decision-making mechanism. To address this, the likely original source of the effect, i.e., the frame, was reconceptualized for the first time to exceed the current sweeping understandings of its meaning. Specifically, the frame was strictly defined as the number axis used in the quantitative description of a decision problem. Among the three essential characteristics of the number axis, the origin and positive direction (also called the analysis structure) were deemed crucial in the definition. Subsequently, an experiment (Experiment 1) was adopted to investigate how the mechanisms of framing effects can be revealed based on this definition and to identify a new behavioural phenomenon dependent on this definition, namely, the non-standard framing effect (NFE). The results indicated that both the origin and analysis structure used in problem descriptions influenced participants’ choices, and the presence of the NFE was evident, thus revealing a unified mechanism underlying the formation of both the NFE and SFE, i.e., variations in the states of the number axis. Based on another experiment (consisting of two concurrent sub-experiments), Experiment 2, the conclusion was verified to be valid when varying the numerical values within the descriptions, and a theoretical interpretation that reveals the unifying mechanism of the two types of framing effects was given, i.e., a normative interpretation based on the range-dependent utility theory (RUT). This interpretation not only replaced existing non-scientific PT/CPT-based interpretations for the SFE and provided a rational interpretation for the newly discovered NFE, but also expanded the scope of behavioural interpretation of RUT in normative decision-making. On a practical level, this also held practical value for guiding real-world risky decisions in various domains related to framing effects.