Decision Making
Risky Framing Task
Also called: risky choice framing, framing effect task, gain-loss framing, Asian disease problem
Measure the framing effect in risky choice: participants choose sure or risky plans worded by what is saved or by what is lost, scored by the rise in risky choices under loss wording.
6-9 minUntimed
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 57
- Evidence grade
- D
- Registered clinical studies
- 0
What it measures
Measures the framing effect in risky choice. Participants choose between a sure plan and a risky plan of equal expected value in 8 everyday situations, each worded once by what is saved and once by what is lost. The main score is the rise in risky choices when the plans are worded as losses.
Constructs
- Framing effect
- Decision under risk
- Risk attitude
- Consistency of preferences
Research uses
- Judgment and decision-making research
- Risk communication studies
- Individual differences in decision making
- Within-study group comparison
How the paradigm works
The risky framing task measures the framing effect in risky choice (Tversky and Kahneman, 1981), the risky choice type in the typology of Levin, Schneider and Gaeth (1998). Each of 8 situations puts something of value at risk: crates of apples before a hailstorm, the jobs at a factory, a club's savings, cake orders, old books in a flooded storeroom, ice cream in a power cut, sacks of rice and hotel bookings. Two plans have the same expected value. The sure plan keeps a set part; the risky plan keeps everything with a stated chance (1 in 2, 1 in 3 or 1 in 4) and nothing otherwise. The gain wording states both plans by what is saved or kept, and the loss wording states the same plans by what is lost. The situations were written for this task in mild everyday domains, with no illness, injury or death, and are shown in the session's language.
More about the paradigm
By default each participant sees both wordings of every situation: 16 choices in two halves, each half with one wording of every situation, and the two wordings of a situation at least four positions apart, as in studies that give both wordings to the same people (LeBoeuf and Shafir, 2003). The loss wording names its plans C and D, so the labels of the earlier wording do not recur. A setting shows each situation once instead, half in each wording, so no one meets a situation twice. The order, the wordings and which plan comes first on the screen are drawn from the session's seed. There is no time limit, and one practice choice comes first.
The main score is the framing effect: the share of risky choices in the loss wording minus the share in the gain wording, from -1 to 1. Positive values are the classic pattern, avoiding risk when outcomes are described as gains and taking it when the same outcomes are described as losses. With both wordings, the share of situations answered alike in both measures consistency; LeBoeuf and Shafir (2003) found that people high in need for cognition were more consistent across the two wordings, though not less framed on the first. As in the source, the sure plan names only what is saved or only what is lost; Mandel (2014) found the effect vanished when that number was stated as exact. The effect also disappeared when the choices were made in a foreign language (Keysar, Hayakawa and An, 2012), so sessions should run in the participant's first language. Scores support research and do not diagnose.
Scores
- Framing Effectscore
- Share of risky choices in the loss wording minus the share in the gain wording, from -1 to 1. Needs at least 2 choices in each wording.
- Positive is the classic framing effect; 0 means the wording made no difference
- Risky Choices, Gain Wording%
- Share of choices in the gain wording, plans stated by what is saved or kept, that took the risky plan.
- Informational
- Risky Choices, Loss Wording%
- Share of choices in the loss wording, plans stated by what is lost, that took the risky plan.
- Informational
- Risky Choices%
- Share of all choices that took the risky plan.
- Higher means more risk taking
- Situations in Both Wordingscount
- Situations answered in both wordings; empty when each situation was shown once.
- Informational
- Framed Reversalscount
- Situations where the sure plan was chosen in the gain wording and the risky plan in the loss wording.
- Informational
- Opposite Reversalscount
- Situations where the risky plan was chosen in the gain wording and the sure plan in the loss wording.
- Informational
- Consistency Across Wordings%
- Share of situations in both wordings where the same plan was chosen both times.
- Higher means less swayed by the wording
- Median Decision Timems
- Median time from a situation's screen to the choice, over choices at or after 100 ms.
- Informational
- Choices Under 100 mscount
- Choices made less than 100 ms after the screen appeared.
- 0 expected
- Choicescount
- Choices scored.
- 16 with both wordings, 8 with one
Use and evidence
57 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 14% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 243 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 11 |
| 2024 | 7 |
| 2023 | 11 |
| 2022 | 9 |
| 2021 | 19 |
| 2020 | 13 |
| 2019 | 14 |
| 2018 | 15 |
| 2017 | 10 |
| 2016 | 14 |
| 2015 | 9 |
| 2014 | 9 |
| 2013 | 10 |
| 2012 | 6 |
| 2011 | 4 |
| 2010 | 6 |
| 2009 | 2 |
| 2008 | 12 |
| 2007 | 2 |
| 2006 | 6 |
| 2005 | 3 |
| 2004 | 7 |
| 2003 | 3 |
| 2002 | 3 |
| 2001 | 4 |
| 2000 | 1 |
Use grade D
30 to 99 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade D
Little published measurement evidence found.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 0
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 10
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 0
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Situations
- 8 written for this task about harvests, jobs, savings, orders, stored goods and books, with no illness, injury or death. They are shown in the session's language.
- Plans
- A sure plan and a risky plan of equal expected value, for example 300 of 900 crates saved for sure, or a 1 in 3 chance that all 900 are saved. The chances are 1 in 2, 1 in 3 or 1 in 4.
- Wording
- The gain wording states both plans by what is saved or kept, labeled A and B; the loss wording states them by what is lost, labeled C and D. The situation itself reads the same in both.
- Frames
- Both wordings of every situation (standard): 16 choices in two halves, the two wordings of a situation at least 4 positions apart. Or one wording of each: 8 choices, half in each wording, drawn from the session's seed.
- Choice
- Click or tap a plan. No time limit. Whether the sure plan is the first button is drawn from the seed and kept for the session.
- Practice
- One practice situation, a choice between two picnic places, not scored.
- Scores
- The framing effect: the share of risky choices in the loss wording minus the share in the gain wording. Also the risky share in each wording and how often a situation got the same answer in both.
Tversky and Kahneman (1981) gave each wording to a different group and asked about lives. Here the situations are mild everyday losses written for this task, and each participant sees both wordings, as in LeBoeuf and Shafir (2003). The framing effect disappeared when choices were made in a foreign language (Keysar, Hayakawa and An, 2012), so run sessions in the participant's first language. The scores support research and do not diagnose.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: the scored run's choices of the sure or the risky plan. No plan is correct, so accuracy is not judged against chance, and choosing one kind of plan throughout is accepted. A run with fewer than half its planned choices is invalid and any other shortfall is flagged. Choices under 200 ms on at least half the items invalidate.
Why these rules
There is no correct option to compare with chance, so accuracy is not judged against chance. The two plans of each scenario have the same expected value, so preferring the sure or the risky plan throughout is a stable attitude to risk, and repeated answers are not checked. The framing effect compares the share of risky choices between the two wordings, so it needs choices in both. An answer under 200 ms is faster than a simple visual reaction, so it cannot reflect the item. Following response-time effort screening for untimed tests (Wise and Kong 2005), the session is invalid only when at least half the answers are that fast.
No percentile. Scores and quality flags only.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Frames per situation | Both wordings of each situation (standard) | Both wordings of each situation (standard), One wording of each situation |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- No percentile. Scores and quality flags only. How norms work
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Risky Framing Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Tversky A, Kahneman D, 1981), with the standard settings (frames per situation: Both wordings of each situation). The main score was framing effect (share of risky choices in the loss wording minus the share in the gain wording, from -1 to 1).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
- Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804Risky choice framing among the types of framing effects.
- LeBoeuf, R. A., & Shafir, E. (2003). Deep thoughts and shallow frames: On the susceptibility to framing effects. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(2), 77-92. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.433Both wordings in one session and consistency across them.
- Mandel, D. R. (2014). Do framing effects reveal irrational choice? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 1185-1198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034207How the sure plan's number is read.
- Keysar, B., Hayakawa, S. L., & An, S. G. (2012). The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological Science, 23(6), 661-668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611432178The framing effect in a foreign language.
Source papers
- Tversky and Kahneman (1981): preference reversals between gain and loss wordings of the same choice. LeBoeuf and Shafir (2003): both wordings given to the same participants.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Risky Framing Task take?
About 6 to 9 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Untimed test: runs on desktops, laptops, tablets and phones. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Framing Effect, Risky Choices, Gain Wording, Risky Choices, Loss Wording, Risky Choices, Situations in Both Wordings, Framed Reversals, Opposite Reversals, Consistency Across Wordings, Median Decision Time, Choices Under 100 ms and Choices. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Risky Framing Task used in research?
57 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 14% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 243 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade D). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Risky Framing Task have?
In the published research, 0 papers report its test-retest reliability and 0 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade D in the ConductCognition test census).
Does it report a percentile?
No. Scores and quality flags only.
Which settings can a researcher change?
Frames per situation (Both wordings of each situation (standard), One wording of each situation). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese, with its words in the same language. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.