People make different decisions based on different descriptions of the same problem. If framed positively, many people will be conservative and content with modest gains. If framed negatively, many people will take risks to seek a complete resolution.
Suppose we are dealing with a rare disease that will cause 600 deaths. There are two treatment options available.
1. Plan A can save 200 people. Plan B has a 1/3 chance of 600 people surviving, and a 2/3 chance of no one surviving. Here, most people chose A.
Plan A will result in 400 deaths. Plan B has a 1/3 chance of no one dying, and a 2/3 chance of 600 people dying. At this point, most people chose B.
We always need various types of information to understand a fact, but information is often filtered, processed, and re-edited during transmission, resulting in very limited true information that we ultimately receive. This filtering generally has three layers:
Limited objective transmission. For example, some details and fleeting information are not preserved and therefore cannot be spread.
Limited subjective observation. For example, if observation methods are crude and observation angles are singular, the information obtained is insufficient.
Limited expression and description. For example, differences in the communicator's cognitive attitude, language, and culture can make information impure.
However, as long as the speaker's stance and intention are added, a framing effect favorable to oneself can be created. You can erase some objective information to make the facts incompletely revealed. You can restrict certain channels to make the observation angle singular. You can also add personal emotions during the retelling process, making objective information impure.
Merchants can combine the strong quality advantages of their products to downplay the price weakness, prompting consumers to place orders. Partners can describe more favorable prospects and benefits without mentioning risks and uncertainties to promote the achievement of cooperation. Disseminators can retain favorable information and cover up some details to form public opinion sentiment favorable to them. What is the relationship between information and facts? Information is a description of facts. Part of the information is a description of part of the facts, and part of the facts is only a part of the facts, not the facts themselves. If judgment relies on part of the facts, it will inevitably cause cognitive bias about the facts themselves. If a little more of someone else's intention is added, then this bias will lean towards the party favorable to them.
How do we escape the frame? Since frames arise from limited information, we just need to avoid having our information restricted. Buyers can proactively compare offerings across multiple stores, looking at how other shops describe the comparisons among similar competing products, and they will always discover shopping considerations they hadn't thought of before. The party invited into a partnership can learn some industry rules and reputational standing within the field before committing, uncovering more of the unmentioned potential risks. Bystanders consuming a whistleblower's revelations would do best to wait until the full truth comes out before drawing conclusions. Let the bullet fly a while before voicing your own opinion. At this point, some may worry: since the full picture of many facts is inherently hard to obtain, how could we ever so easily escape a frame? That's true. Since a frame cannot be easily escaped, you can instead switch to a different frame and make your choice again under that new frame. Returning to Kahneman's original experiment, the idea is that when you hear options A and B, try rephrasing them yourself and choose once more—you'll know whether you were influenced by the frame. Since a frame is only part of the facts, another frame can be used to complete the full picture of the facts, thereby approaching the truth.