Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Framing Effects03:26

Framing Effects

Information is everywhere and its presentation—such as how and when items are presented—can impact our perceptions and decisions surrounding the info. This broad concept umbrellas framing effects—influences that occur due to the way information is framed in its appearance, whether it’s purely the order or the specific wording of a message. Let’s take a look at numerous ways in which two versions of something can objectively say the same thing, yet we respond in different ways based on the...
Unrealistic Optimism Bias01:30

Unrealistic Optimism Bias

Unrealistic optimism bias is the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of positive outcomes. This cognitive bias makes individuals believe they are less likely to experience failures, setbacks, or risks and more likely to succeed than others. For example, people may assume they are less prone to health issues, accidents, or financial struggles than their peers, even when they share similar risk factors.One key component of this bias is the above-average effect, where individuals perceive...
Personal Choice and Fate Attributions01:19

Personal Choice and Fate Attributions

Some individuals interpret life events as a consequence of their personal choices and actions, while others believe that outcomes are dictated by fate or destiny. This divergence in perspective has been examined in psychological and cross-cultural studies, particularly in relation to religious faith and cultural beliefs about causality.Fate and Personal ResponsibilityPeople who emphasize personal responsibility view events as direct consequences of their decisions. For instance, breaking a leg...
Counterfactual Thinking01:19

Counterfactual Thinking

Counterfactual thinking is a cognitive process wherein individuals mentally reconstruct alternative versions of past events, often beginning with “what if” or “if only.” This reflective mechanism plays a significant role in shaping emotional experiences and guiding future behavior. Though typically triggered by unfavorable or unexpected outcomes, counterfactual thinking can also emerge in mundane, everyday decisions and experiences, revealing its deep entrenchment in human cognition.Types of...
Hindsight Biases01:12

Hindsight Biases

Hindsight bias leads you to believe that the event you just experienced was predictable, even though it really wasn’t. In other words, you knew all along that things would turn out the way they did. Can you relate this to the phrase "Hindsight is 20/20" now?
Fundamental Attribution Error01:14

Fundamental Attribution Error

According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is due to situational variables, and thus to the person’s state. This erroneous assumption is called the fundamental attribution...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Future-oriented chance prioritarianism: survival prospects as the distributive currency.

Medicine, health care, and philosophy·2026
Same author

Neural correlates of belief change in political and non-political domains among left-wing individuals confronted with counterarguments.

Scientific reports·2026
Same author

Personal memory and distant reading can complement each other: a reply to Gillon.

Journal of medical ethics·2025
Same author

Threat Perceptions and Closeness to Refugees: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study.

Personality & social psychology bulletin·2025
Same author

Data governance must consider the interests of the global community.

Nature medicine·2025
Same author

Correction: Discussions on Human Enhancement Meet Science: A Quantitative Analysis.

Science and engineering ethics·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 13, 2026

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods
13:04

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods

Published on: September 19, 2012

Risky choice framing effects, doing vs. allowing harm, and fairness in uncertain prospects.

Tomasz Żuradzki1, Marta Maj2, Paulina Szwed3,4

  • 1Institute of Philosophy & Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics, Jagiellonian University in Kraków, ul. Grodzka 52, Kraków, 31-044 Poland.

Synthese
|July 12, 2026
PubMed
Summary

Risky choice framing effects may not indicate irrationality. This study suggests framing influences decisions by highlighting different moral reasons, showing choices can be rational when based on these considerations.

Keywords:
Doing vs. allowingFairnessFramingRationalityReasonsThe Asian Disease Problem

More Related Videos

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task
06:08

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task

Published on: July 22, 2025

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 13, 2026

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods
13:04

Measuring the Subjective Value of Risky and Ambiguous Options using Experimental Economics and Functional MRI Methods

Published on: September 19, 2012

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task
06:08

Exploring the Role of Deontic Reasoning and World Knowledge in Wason´s Selection Task

Published on: July 22, 2025

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies
08:24

The Joint Effect of Social Comparison and Social Distance on Evaluation of Intertemporal Choice Outcomes in Event-related Potential Studies

Published on: August 25, 2023

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Decision Science
  • Moral Philosophy

Background:

  • Risky choice framing effects are often interpreted as evidence of human irrationality.
  • Standard models struggle to explain choices in canonical experiments like the Asian Disease Problem (ADP).

Purpose of the Study:

  • To propose a reason-based approach to understanding risky choice framing effects.
  • To investigate whether non-consequentialist moral reasons explain choices in sacrificial dilemmas.

Main Methods:

  • A new experimental study was conducted.
  • Examined the influence of the doing/allowing distinction and fairness considerations on choices in sacrificial dilemmas.

Main Results:

  • Framing effects in moral contexts are not fully explained by standard outcome-based models.
  • Participant choices were sensitive to non-consequentialist moral reasons.

Conclusions:

  • Framing can rationally influence decision-making by highlighting distinct reasons.
  • Responsiveness to moral reasons in decision-making can be rational, challenging traditional views of irrationality in framing effects.