Positive framing example
Regarding the first hypothesis, it was predicted that in the positive framing condition, participants would respond in a risk-averse manner. Per our results, we found support for the effect of positive framing. That is, individuals were more risk averse (i.e., did not gamble) when confronted with a situation in which a loss was probable. These results can be best explained by the phenomenon that human beings make irrational decisions that are grounded in biased and fallacious thinking (Kahneman & Tversky, 1973). Specifically, as shown by Kahneman & Tversky (1973), humans make decisions using heuristics like the representativeness heuristic. In their study, they found support for the idea that humans do not rely on statistical/logical information to make predictions. Instead, we default to biases to make predictions. Our results show the same; humans make decisions based on biases and heuristics. To further support our findings, Donovan and Jalleh (2000) tested the effects of framing on women who were in the plan of expecting a child. They found that the effects of positive framing influenced the decision towards immunizing their child. That is, the participants in the study were influenced by the framing effect. Taken together, this evidence support our current results.
The current study has important implications for real-world contexts. For example the framing of decisions can be important for marketing or politics. That is, different companies can frame their advertisements in different ways to persuade consumers to purchase various products. Regarding politics, politicians can frame their campaigns in such a way that they persuade voters to support them.