Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Sep 1.
Published in final edited form as: Dev Rev. 2011 Sep;31(2-3):180–206. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2011.07.004

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Sixty money and lives framing problems (30 gain and 30 loss) were presented within subjects to 38 adults. Two sets of materials were constructed; subjects saw the gains problems from one set and the loss problems from the other set. The mixed versions were the traditional complete framing problems as they are typically presented. The gist versions juxtaposed the zero complement of the gamble (e.g., 2/3 probability that no one will saved) and the sure thing (e.g., 200 saved for sure), whereas the verbatim versions juxtaposed the non-zero complement (e.g., 1/3 probability that 600 will be saved) and the sure thing (e.g., 200 saved for sure). Non-focal complements were presented as part of the preamble to each problem, eliminating ambiguity.