---
name: Framing effect
slug: framing-effect
category: Decision making
categories: [Onboarding, Pricing]
evidence: mixed
page: /principles/framing-effect/
updated: 2026-10-15
---

# Framing effect

> The same fact can lead to different choices depending on how it is worded.

## What it is

The framing effect is the tendency to judge identical information differently depending on whether it is presented positively or negatively, for example as “75% lean” or “25% fat”.

## Evidence

In Tversky and Kahneman's classic study, people chose between two programs to fight a disease expected to kill 600 people. When the options were described in terms of lives saved, 72% chose the safe option. When the same options were described in terms of deaths, only 22% did. The effect replicated in the Many Labs project. Simpler attribute framing changes how products are judged, too: ground beef described as “75% lean” was rated more favorably than beef described as “25% fat”, although the gap shrank once people tasted it. Framing is not a universal lever, though. A meta-analysis of 93 studies found that gain-framed and loss-framed health messages were almost equally persuasive. Frames matter most before people have tried something, and they weaken once people have direct experience.

## How to apply

- Describe attributes by what people get, such as “99.9% uptime” or “9 in 10 setups take under 5 minutes”, rather than by what goes wrong.
- Pay most attention to framing where people haven't tried the product yet: landing pages, pricing pages and sign-up.
- Write the key claim in two frames and test both. Small wording changes can shift choices, but the effect varies by context.

## What to avoid

- Assuming loss framing (“Don't miss out”) beats gain framing. Across 93 studies of health messages, neither was reliably more persuasive.
- Frames that mislead. A positive frame must describe the same facts the negative frame would.
- Leaving out the unfavorable side when it matters for the decision, such as failure rates or cancellation terms.
- Relying on wording to carry a weak product. Once people try it, the frame matters much less.

## Live examples

- Blue Apron shows shipping as $11.49 struck through to $0.00 and then repeats the figure as “you saved $11.49”, so a membership fee is read as money handed back.
- Skip heads the cart with the discount as a saving and states the distance to free delivery as $26.01 away, framing both the cut and the threshold as something gained.
- Thrive Market closes the receipt on “you're saving $1.50 on today's order”, so the last line of a bill is the gain rather than the amount paid.

## References

- Tversky & Kahneman (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science. — https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
- Klein et al. (2014). Investigating Variation in Replicability: A “Many Labs” Replication Project. Social Psychology. — https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178
- Levin & Gaeth (1988). How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product. Journal of Consumer Research. — https://doi.org/10.1086/209174
- Levin, Schneider & Gaeth (1998). All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. — https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804
- O'Keefe & Jensen (2007). The Relative Persuasiveness of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Messages for Encouraging Disease Prevention Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Health Communication. — https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730701615198

## Similar principles

- Anchoring — /agents/anchoring.md