Experiment #2 · Framing · September 2026
Does the way the same information is framed affect people's reaction to it?
Each participant was given identical information except if the successes or failures were highlighted.
8
Success-first mean
164/200 successes · n = 17
+2
Difference in means
Same 200 procedures
6
Failure-first mean
36/200 failures · n = 15
200 procedures
Not one dot moved. The grid is the same grid either way, and both descriptions are true of it at the same time. The only thing the switch changes is which part of it gets a name.
This study examines whether the way equal information is presented impacts perception of that information, extending prior framing research to an everyday online survey. Drawing on Kahneman and Tversky's framing bias, we predicted that participants shown a success-first framing will report a higher willingness-to-consent level than those shown a failure-first framing. Thirty-two participants were recruited via Reddit, Instagram, and my personal network and were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: a success-first framing (164/200 successes) or a failure-first framing (36/200 failures). Each participant was given identical information except if the successes or failures were highlighted. After that, they were asked how likely they would be to saying yes to having that surgery performed on them. A one-tailed Welch's independent samples t-test revealed a statistically significant difference in mean willingness-to-consent levels between the two groups (t = 2.507, df = 25.06, p = .0096), with the success-first group reporting a mean willingness-to-consent level of 8 compared to 6 in the failure-first group. Effect size was large (Cohen's d = .897), and a 95% confidence interval for the difference in means excluded zero (0.357, 3.643), further confirming the result. These findings are consistent with framing bias and prior work by Levin and Gaeth (1988), suggesting that the way identical attributes are described (75% lean vs 25% fat) has a significant effect on how favorable they are rated even after both products are consumed. Limitations of this study, including small sample size and convenience sampling, are discussed alongside directions for future research.
When someone receives information, they usually don't tend to think deeper on what the information objectively means, but rather develop judgements simply based on what is presented to them. This is the framing bias, first formally identified by Tversky and Kahneman in 1981. They showed that identical information being presented with the positive aspect vs negative aspect highlighted can significantly impact decision making. Simply put, your brain latches onto whatever it's explicitly told, not what's implied in a hidden fashion.
Research question
Does the way the same information is framed affect people's reaction to that information?
Hypothesis
Respondents shown the success-first framing will report a higher willingness-to-consent level, on average, than those shown a failure-first framing, consistent with Levin and Gaeth's (1988) attribute framing bias.
H₀ Null
There is no difference in mean willingness-to-consent levels between the success-first and failure-first group. μ₁ = μ₂
H₁ Alternative
Mean willingness-to-consent levels will be higher for the success-first group than the failure-first group. μ₁ > μ₂
Participants were given a hypothetical situation of requiring knee surgery and were shown a doctor's recent surgery history for that procedure. In both groups it was implied that there were 164 successes and 36 failures, but only one of the pieces of information was explicitly stated.
You have a chronic knee condition, and your friend, a licensed physician, has offered to treat it surgically for free. Of every 200 procedures he has historically conducted, 164 are successes, with patients reporting a recovery of mobility within six months. How likely would you be to say yes to having this surgery performed on you?
Everything outside the highlight is identical, character for character, in both conditions.
Your answer
5
Randomizer validation · n = 10,000
A 49.81 / 50.19 split across ten thousand trials. The assignment mechanism is not the thing moving these results.
How treatment assignment worked
G1
Success-first
Group shown 164/200 successes · n = 17
G2
Failure-first
Group shown 36/200 failures · n = 15
Both groups are drawn in neutral colors on purpose. Coloring one green and the other red would frame this page the same way the survey framed its participants.
Descriptive statistics
| G1164/200 successes | G236/200 failures | |
|---|---|---|
| Mean | 8 | 6 |
| Median | 9 | 6 |
| Standard deviation | 1.837 | 2.563 |
| Range | 8 | 8 |
| IQR | 1.5 | 4 |
| n | 17 | 15 |
| Outliers | 1 outlier, value 2 | None |
Mean willingness to consent · error bars show ±1 SD
Name: one-tailed Welch's independent samples t-test
Alpha level: .05Conditions
Click each to check.
Distribution of responses
G1 stacks above the axis, G2 below. Dashed rings mark outliers; dashed verticals mark each group mean.
Before you scroll. Two points apart, 17 against 15 people. Was that significant at α = 0.05?
Practicality · Cohen's d
0.897
To assess the practical significance of the result, Cohen's d was calculated using the means and standard deviations of both groups. Cohen's d = 0.897 using average variance formula (unpooled), which indicates a largeeffect by Cohen's (1988) conventions (small = 0.2, medium = 0.5, large = 0.8). This suggests that the difference in willingness-to-consent levels between the two framing groups was not only statistically significant but also practically meaningful. The framing had a strong influence on participants' responses, not just a statistically detectable one.
95% confidence interval · difference in means (G1 − G2)
A 95% confidence interval for the difference in mean willingness-to-consent levels (G1 - G2) was calculated as (0.357, 3.643). This means we are 95% confident that the true difference in mean confidence values between the success-framing and failure-framing groups falls between 0.357 and 3.643. 0 not being included within our interval is consistent with our decision to reject the null hypothesis.
My findings support the hypothesis. The group shown the success-first framing reported a mean willingness-to-consent level of 8, while the group shown the failure-first framing reported a mean willingness-to-consent level of 6. Both pieces of information technically conveyed the exact same thing, yet we found significant evidence that people used what was explicitly stated as a reference when considering if they'd take the surgery or not.
The real-world implications span a lot of domains
Each card shows only the stated half. Click for the rest.
These are all examples where consumers have to exercise extra mental effort to discern the negative outcomes, whereas the positive outcomes are prominently stated. These are framing bias in action.
If someone with surgery history answered the survey there would be no way for me to detect it. Their knowledge would likely change the effect of the framing, but I can't track that.
If anyone took the survey twice and saw both treatments, it could contaminate responses.
Because my Instagram account is framed as a behavioral economics account, and I posted in Reddit forums like r/behavioraleconomics along with more general subreddits like r/samplesize and r/takemysurvey, some participants likely went into the survey already expecting some kind of psychological trick.
Ways this experiment could be improved are as follows.
My sample size needs to be substantially larger, ideally upwards of 100 participants per group to improve statistical power and allow for more reliable replication.
I would add a control group shown a table which includes both the 36 failures and 164 successes, seeing what willingness-to-consent levels look like when exposed to both pieces of information.
Future directions to go deeper could include testing till what percentage framing bias holds up (chances are at 50% failure and success rates it won't do much), ask people to identify the “hidden” number, and see if the framing bias still affects them, and test debiasing strategies like showing both to see how to combat framing effect.
Experiment #2 · September 2026