Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39738252›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Choosing the right frame: how context preferences facilitate subsequent decisions.

Lauren S Treiman, Wouter Kool

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Lauren S TreimanDivision of Computational & Data Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA. laurenst1006@icloud.com.
Wouter KoolDivision of Computational & Data Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Context shapes how we perceive choices and, therefore, how we decide between them. For instance, a large body of literature on the "framing effect" demonstrates that people become more risk-seeking when choices are framed in terms of losses. Despite this research, it remains unknown how people make choices between contexts and how these choices affect subsequent decision making. To address these questions, we designed the Frame Selection Task (FST). On each trial in the FST, participants first choose how risky and safe options are framed, either in terms of gains or losses, and then select between them. We found that participants exhibited frame preferences, with a predominant preference for the gain frame, and that they were willing to incur costs to select options within their preferred frame. Moreover, participants selected frames that aligned with their risk preferences: people with stronger risk aversion displayed a stronger gain-frame preference. These results demonstrate how people choose between contexts and that they can combine these preferences with cognitive biases to facilitate decision making.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorDecision MakingRisk-TakingAdultFemaleHumansMaleYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39738252
PMCPMC11685499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.