Table 3.

Effect sizes for Framing Manipulations: Estimated subcategory averages (and SEM) from the Framing manipulation-only meta-analytic model and individual-publication effect sizes.

Subcategory or Study	Population	Manipulation	DV	Effect on Impulsivity		Effect Size	p
Framing of Time						0.45 (0.08)	<.001
DeHart & Odum (2015)	College students	Date framing (vs. delay)	AUC	↓		CNC
Dshemuchadse et al. (2013)	College students	Date framing (vs. delay)	AUC	↓		0.34
Klapproth (2012)	Substance Users	Date framing (vs. days framing)	k	↓		0.96*
	Healthy Controls			↓		0.05*◊
LeBoeuf (2006)	College students	Date framing (vs. delay)	LLR amount/delay	↓		0.72*
Read et al. (2011)	Adults	Date framing (vs. delay)	% Choosing LLR, indifference pt	↓		0.68*
Framing of Outcomes						0.54 (0.12)	< .001
Reward segregation
Grace & McLean (2005)	College students	LLR separated into SSR amount plus bonus	k	↓		CNC
Imuta et al. (2013)	3-year olds	LLR displayed as SSR amount plus bonus	LLR Choices	↓		1.25*
	4-year olds			↓	n.s.	0.32
Explicit Zero
Magen et al. (2008)	Online volunteers	Explicit zero (vs. usual task)	SSR Choices	↓		0.68*
Radu et al. (2015)	College students	Explicit zero (vs. usual task)	SSR Choices	↓		CNC
Wu & He (2012)	College students	Explicit zero (vs. usual task)	LLR Choices	↓		0.45
				↓		0.72 (low future orientation)
				↓	n.s.	0.18 (high future orientation)
			% Choosing LLR	↓		0.66‡ (low future orientation)
				↑		0.10‡ (high future orientation)

n.s., No statistically significant effect; AUC, area under the discounting curve; CNC, could not calculate effect size

^*Effect sizes averaged across experiments or comparable conditions.

^◊Average is a combination of significant and non-significant effects.

^‡Statistical analyses comparing the proportions choosing LLR were not conducted for these particular group comparisons in the original paper.