IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v12y2025i1d10.1057_s41599-025-05604-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Chunhao Li

    (Jilin University)

  • Yuanhao Liu

    (Jilin University)

  • Rongyuan Liu

    (Jilin University)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Chunhao Li & Yuanhao Liu & Rongyuan Liu, 2025. "Standard and non-standard framing effects: a unified rational interpretation based on the new definition of frame," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-05604-2
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-025-05604-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-025-05604-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-025-05604-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simone Cerreia‐Vioglio & David Dillenberger & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Cautious Expected Utility and the Certainty Effect," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 83, pages 693-728, March.
    2. Yaari, Menahem E, 1987. "The Dual Theory of Choice under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(1), pages 95-115, January.
    3. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    4. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri & Kuhn, Michael A., 2012. "Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 1-8.
    5. Emin Karagözoğlu & Kerim Keskin, 2018. "Endogenous reference points in bargaining," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 88(2), pages 283-295, October.
    6. Chateauneuf, Alain & Wakker, Peter, 1999. "An Axiomatization of Cumulative Prospect Theory for Decision under Risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 137-145, August.
    7. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    8. Matthew Rabin, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 68(5), pages 1281-1292, September.
    9. Borie, Dino & Jullien, Dorian, 2020. "Description-dependent preferences," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    10. Quiggin, John, 1982. "A theory of anticipated utility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 323-343, December.
    11. Freling, Traci H. & Vincent, Leslie H. & Henard, David H., 2014. "When not to accentuate the positive: Re-examining valence effects in attribute framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 95-109.
    12. George Wu & Alex B. Markle, 2008. "An Empirical Test of Gain-Loss Separability in Prospect Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1322-1335, July.
    13. Kristina Shampanier & Nina Mazar & Dan Ariely, 2007. "Zero as a Special Price: The True Value of Free Products," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 742-757, 11-12.
    14. Kontek, Krzysztof, 2016. "A critical note on Salience Theory of choice under risk," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 168-171.
    15. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    16. Kazumi Shimizu & Daisuke Udagawa, 2018. "Is human life worth peanuts? Risk attitude changes in accordance with varying stakes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-12, August.
    17. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    18. Gul, Faruk, 1991. "A Theory of Disappointment Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 667-686, May.
    19. Rabin, Matthew, 2000. "Risk Aversion and Expected-Utility Theory: A Calibration Theorem," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt731230f8, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    20. Katarzyna M. Werner & Horst Zank, 2019. "A revealed reference point for prospect theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(4), pages 731-773, June.
    21. James Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj & Bodo Vogt & Utteeyo Dasgupta, 2013. "Is there a plausible theory for decision under risk? A dual calibration critique," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 54(2), pages 305-333, October.
    22. Krzysztof Kontek & Michal Lewandowski, 2018. "Range-Dependent Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(6), pages 2812-2832, June.
    23. Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Köster, Mats, 2015. "Violations of first-order stochastic dominance as salience effects," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 42-46.
    24. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    25. Emir Kamenica, 2008. "Contextual Inference in Markets: On the Informational Content of Product Lines," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 2127-2149, December.
    26. Nicholas C. Barberis, 2013. "Thirty Years of Prospect Theory in Economics: A Review and Assessment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 173-196, Winter.
    27. Wardley, Marcus & Alberhasky, Max, 2021. "Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    28. Marc Scholten & Daniel Read & Neil Stewart, 2019. "The framing of nothing and the psychology of choice," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 125-149, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    2. van Bruggen, Paul & Laeven, Roger J. A. & van de Kuilen, Gijs, 2024. "Higher-Order Risk Attitudes for Non-Expected Utility," Discussion Paper 2024-019, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    3. Jinrui Pan & Craig S. Webb & Horst Zank, 2019. "Delayed probabilistic risk attitude: a parametric approach," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(2), pages 201-232, September.
    4. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2022. "Chance theory: A separation of riskless and risky utility," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 1-32, August.
    5. Ferro, Giuseppe M. & Kovalenko, Tatyana & Sornette, Didier, 2021. "Quantum decision theory augments rank-dependent expected utility and Cumulative Prospect Theory," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    6. Krzysztof Kontek, 2018. "Boundary effects in the Marschak-Machina triangle," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(6), pages 587-606, November.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:6:p:587-606 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Vjollca Sadiraj, 2014. "Probabilistic risk attitudes and local risk aversion: a paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 443-454, December.
    9. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    10. Rablen, Matthew D., 2019. "Foundations of the Rank-Dependent Probability Weighting Function," IZA Discussion Papers 12701, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    11. González-Jiménez, Víctor, 2024. "Incentive design for reference-dependent preferences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 493-518.
    12. Jiakun Zheng & Ling Zhou, 2025. "Too risky to hedge: An experiment on narrow bracketing," Post-Print hal-05063379, HAL.
    13. Katarzyna M. Werner & Horst Zank, 2019. "A revealed reference point for prospect theory," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 67(4), pages 731-773, June.
    14. Patrick DeJarnette & David Dillenberger & Daniel Gottlieb & Pietro Ortoleva, 2015. "Time Lotteries," PIER Working Paper Archive 15-026, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 31 Jul 2015.
    15. Meng, Jingyi & Webb, Craig S. & Zank, Horst, 2024. "Mixture independence foundations for expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    16. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    17. Uri Gneezy & Yoram Halevy & Brian Hall & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2024. "How Real is Hypothetical? A High-Stakes Test of the Allais Paradox," Working Papers tecipa-783, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    18. Michal Skořepa, 2007. "Zpochybnění deskriptivnosti teorie očekávaného užitku [Doubts about the descriptive validity of the expected utility theory]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2007(1), pages 106-120.
    19. Müller, Stephan & Rau, Holger A., 2019. "Decisions under uncertainty in social contexts," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 73-95.
    20. Dorian Jullien, 2016. "Under Uncertainty, Over Time and Regarding Other People: Rationality in 3D," GREDEG Working Papers 2016-20, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    21. Benjamin L. Collier & Daniel Schwartz & Howard C. Kunreuther & Erwann O. Michel‐Kerjan, 2022. "Insuring large stakes: A normative and descriptive analysis of households' flood insurance coverage," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(2), pages 273-310, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:12:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-025-05604-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/palcomms/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.