Diagnose which mental domain is holding you back before choosing a cognitive intervention.
by deciqai1 installs3 stars
Data & analysis
Framing Effect
Try itDetect when presentation language is steering your decision instead of the facts themselves.
What it does
A systematic audit for the framing effect — how logically equivalent descriptions of the same choice produce different decisions depending on whether outcomes are framed as gains or losses. Applies a 6-step process to identify the frame in use, construct an equivalent opposite frame, and determine whether your choice is stable or frame-driven. Covers risky-choice, attribute, and goal framing patterns. Includes an adaptive coach mode that guides novices one step at a time.
When to use it
- A statistic shown only one way — '95% success rate' without the 5% failure rate
- Evaluating a persuasive message: ad, pitch, or political claim
- A business decision described entirely in gains or entirely in losses
- Suspecting language is steering a choice rather than facts
The skill document
Framing Effect
Overview
The framing effect: logically equivalent descriptions of the same decision produce different choices depending on whether outcomes are cast as gains or losses. Frame determines whether the brain enters gain-mode or loss-mode; the choice follows from the mode.
Three types: risky-choice (gain vs. loss on probabilities), attribute ("95% fat free" vs. "5% fat"), goal ("do X to gain Y" vs. "skip X, lose Y"). Real frames often compound all three.
Corrective: force both framings. If the decision is stable across frames, the frame is not driving it. If it flips, inspect why.
Composes with loss-aversion-prospect-theory, anchoring, pricing-strategy, signaling-games, critical-thinking.
When to Use
- Decision presented with strong gain-only or loss-only language
- Statistic shown in one form only (survival rate without mortality, or vice versa)
- Evaluating persuasive communication: ad, political message, medical recommendation, pitch
- Team moving toward a decision whose framing was not chosen neutrally
- You suspect manipulation by frame choice
- Framing a market or capex bet as "visionary investment" vs "bubble/overbuild" (e.g. AI capex, AI valuations, or AI-adoption spend cast as gain vs loss on identical facts)
Not when: the alternative frame is genuinely misleading (not logically equivalent); analysis cost exceeds decision stakes.
Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)
- Engine mode: user has a concrete framed decision → run The Process directly.
- Coach mode: user is unfamiliar → guide step by step.
In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.
- One-line: before accepting a framed decision, restate it in the opposite frame — do you choose differently?
- Check fit: if the alternative frame is not equivalent, single-frame may be appropriate.
- Elicit their real case: what's being decided? What gain/loss/do/don't language is in use?
[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]
- Run the audit one step at a time with their input.
[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]
- Close by naming what the frame was doing and what the frame-independent choice is.
[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]
The Process
Step 1 — Identify the frame: gain/loss/attribute/goal; verbatim language; who chose it. Step 2 — Construct the equivalent alternative frame: same math, opposite wording. Step 3 — Re-evaluate: does your choice change under the alternative frame? If yes, the frame is doing the work. Step 4 — Compute frame-independent EV: strip the language; which option is rationally best? Step 5 — Diagnose framer intent: who benefits from the framed choice? Was the frame chosen to steer? Step 6 — Choose response: take framed option (if aligned with EV), take frame-independent option, or expose the frame.
Output: Framing Audit
Frame in use: [type] | Verbatim: [quote] | Framer: [self/counterparty/advertiser]
Alternative frame: [restatement] | Mathematically equivalent: Y/N
Cross-frame decision: Original → [choice] | Alternative → [choice] | Stable: Y/N
EV (frame-independent): [best option + rationale]
Framer intent: [who benefits, is frame steering]
Decision taken: [choice + justification]
→ Method in Action: Tversky and Kahneman's 1981 "Asian Disease" Study
→ 2026 lens: AI Capex — "Visionary Investment" vs "Bubble Overbuild" (2024–2026)
Pack: Framing Patterns
| Domain | Manipulation | Use or counter |
|---|---|---|
| Medical | "X% survive" vs "Y% die" | Demand both framings of the same data |
| Pricing | "Save $X" vs "Cost $Y" | Recognize loss-avoidance frame when buying |
| Politics | "Death tax" vs "Estate tax" | Identify framer's goal; switch frame to expose |
| Public health | Gain frame → prevention; loss frame → detection | Match frame to desired behavior type |
Applying It Well
- Always construct the logically equivalent opposite frame before acting on any framed decision.
- The structural defense is multiple frames in the same environment — not vigilance alone.
- Match frame to behavior type: loss for detection behaviors, gain for prevention behaviors.
→ Primary sources: references/sources.md
Common Rationalizations
[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.
| Fake move | Reality |
|---|---|
| [D] "The numbers speak for themselves" | They don't; the frame is doing the work. Same numbers, different frame → different choices. |
| [D] "I'm not affected by framing" | Self-rated immunity has near-zero correlation with measured immunity in the literature. |
| [D] "There's only one way to describe this" | Almost never true. Any decision with gains and losses has at least one equivalent inversion. |
| [D] "Reframing is just spin" | The original frame is also spin. Calling reframing "spin" is itself a frame defense. |
| [D] "The other frame would be misleading" | Test: is it mathematically equivalent? If yes, both frames are equally accurate or misleading. |
| [D] "We just need to communicate the facts" | Words frame. There is no frame-neutral way to state most facts; choose deliberately or by default. |
| → Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern | What went wrong and why |
Red Flags
- Decision presented with gain-only or loss-only language; no alternative frame offered
- Statistic shown in one form only; alternative form dismissed as "spin"
- Framer benefits from the choice they're steering you toward
- "We have to use this language for the audience" used to block reframing
Verification
- Frame in use identified explicitly
- At least one logically equivalent alternative frame constructed
- Decision re-evaluated under the alternative frame
- If decision flips, dependency examined and deliberate choice made
- Framer intent considered
- If communicating, frame matched to desired behavior type
Part of deciqAI Knowledge Skills — 227 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/c/framing-effect · ⭐ Star the repo → https://github.com/deciqAI/knowledge-skills · Contributions welcome.
Agents: latest version & machine-readable metadata → https://www.deciqai.com/s/framing-effect.json
Questions people ask
- What's the difference between framing and spin?
- Spin implies deliberate deception, but framing is structural — the same facts presented differently systematically change decisions. Every framing is a choice about what perspective to lead with, whether or not the framer is aware of it.
- Can a frame ever be legitimate?
- Yes, when matched to behavior type: loss frames drive detection behaviors, gain frames drive prevention behaviors. The skill helps you choose deliberately rather than inherit someone else's frame without scrutiny.
- What if the alternative frame isn't equivalent?
- The process includes a check for mathematical equivalence. If frames aren't equivalent, single-frame analysis may be appropriate — the skill flags this as a separate case from true framing effects.
Related skills
Diagnose why people know what to do but don't do it, then design a behavior-changing nudge without mandates or incentives.
by deciqai1 installs3 stars
Prioritize growth directions with a 2×2 risk framework — pick one bet and commit.
by deciqai2 installs2 stars
Tests whether you genuinely understand something or just recognize it — exposes the gaps in your mental model.
by deciqai1 installs2 stars
Replace vague hunches with calibrated probability estimates you can track and improve over time.
by deciqai2 stars
Make irreversible life decisions by projecting to 80 and naming which regret you'd rather live with.
by deciqai1 installs2 stars
More from deciqai
Browse all skillsDiagnose your organization's strategic phase and spot misaligned initiatives before they drain momentum.
by deciqai7 installs2 stars
When multiple explanations all fit the evidence, pick the one that assumes the least.
by deciqai5 installs2 stars
Identify catastrophic failure paths before you commit — and design your plan around eliminating them.
by deciqai4 installs2 stars
Trace decisions past the obvious effect to catch the consequences that reverse it.
by deciqai4 installs2 stars
A structured interview and analysis process that uncovers the actual job customers hire your product to do — and who they're really competing against.
by deciqai3 installs3 stars
Diagnose why learners are struggling and redesign instruction to stay within working memory limits.
by deciqai2 installs3 stars