The same information, presented differently, changes the decision.
Would you rather have a medicine with 80% effectiveness, or one with 20% ineffectiveness? Most people choose the first, even though both mean exactly the same thing. Our decisions change according to how the alternatives are presented, not only according to their actual content.
The spread of the lionfish, an invasive species, came to be declared a national security matter in Colombia for threatening the biodiversity of Caribbean reefs. The Ogilvy agency launched the campaign "The lionfish invasion, terribly delicious," which replaced descriptors like "threat" and "invasive fish" with "has textured meat, is nutritious and delicious." It spread recipes and helped control the overpopulation by increasing its consumption, without changing the fish itself, only how it was talked about.
We don't evaluate options in isolation, but in relation to how they're framed as a gain or as a loss. The same outcome presented as a gain is perceived differently than presented as a loss, and that difference changes the decision. A study on cancer treatments showed exactly this. Framing a treatment in terms of survival probability, instead of mortality probability, increased both the reasons participants gave in favor of it and how often they chose that treatment, even though the information was the same.
Source: Almashat, S., Ayotte, B., Edelstein, B. & Margrett, J. (2008). Framing Effect Debiasing in Medical Decision Making. Patient Education and Counseling, 71(1), 102-107.
Reframing means choosing which real part of the information to highlight first. Everything communicated remains true. Communicating insurance as "protection for your family" instead of "monthly expense," or a procedure as "confirm your data" instead of "update your information," changes the decision without changing the product.
Related concepts