ReviewEXCLI journal2023
A systematic review of risky-choice framing effects.
Review in EXCLI journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex, Drugs, and the Language of Donor Narratives: Associations With Kidney Acceptance.Transplantation direct · 2026Article
- How Time Pressure Amplifies Framing Effects in Risky Decision-Making: The Role of Attentional Allocation and Information Presentation.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- You've Been Framed: The Impact of Risk and Time Framings on Contraceptive Preferences in a Discrete Choice Experiment.Health economics · 2026Article
- Choroidal melanoma patient views on the importance of treatment characteristics and outcomes, and physicians' information provision in the Netherlands.Acta ophthalmologica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Classic decision theory requires that rational agents show description invariance: which description is chosen should not matter for judgments, preferences, or choices given the descriptions are co-extensive. Framing research has amply demonstrated a failure of description invariance by showing that the choice of the description has a systematic effect on judgments, preferences, and choices. Specifically, framing research has shown that linguistically different descriptions of seemingly equivalent options frequently lead to preference reversals. I summarize the research on framing in situations entailing risk. This includes the characterization of different research designs used, the size and robustness of the framing effects reported for those designs, and the theoretical accounts put forward to explain framing effects. The theoretical accounts are evaluated with respect to their merits, empirically and theoretically. I end by providing the implications of framing research. My central point is that the existence of framing effects points to the adaptiveness of the processes underlying human judgment and choice rather than simply showing human irrationality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.