| Course | PS 350 Cognitive Psychology |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Problem solving and decision paper |
| Length | About 1,020 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PS 350 Unit 7
Two Hundred Saved or Four Hundred Lost: The Framing Effect From Tversky and Kahneman's Original Problem, Through Its Replication, to a Treatment Choice Described in Survival or Mortality Terms
Student Name
Psychology, Herzing University
PS 350: Cognitive Psychology
Instructor Name
October 20, 2026
Two Hundred Saved or Four Hundred Lost: The Framing Effect From Tversky and Kahneman's Original Problem, Through Its Replication, to a Treatment Choice Described in Survival or Mortality Terms
The Effect and Its Source
This paper examines one documented effect in decision making, the framing effect, rather than surveying many biases. Tversky and Kahneman (1981) showed that people's choices between options can reverse when the same outcomes are described in terms of gains rather than losses. The effect matters because a rational decision maker, on standard accounts, should choose the same way whenever the outcomes are the same, however they are described.
The Problem Participants Were Given
In the best-known demonstration, participants read that a country was preparing for the outbreak of an unusual disease expected to kill 600 people, and that two programs had been proposed. One group read the programs described in terms of lives saved: under one program, 200 people would be saved; under the other, there was a one-third probability that all 600 would be saved and a two-thirds probability that no one would be saved. Most participants in this group, 72 percent, chose the certain option. A second group read the same programs described in terms of deaths: under one, 400 people would die; under the other, there was a one-third probability that nobody would die and a two-thirds probability that all 600 would die. In this group, 78 percent chose the risky option.
The two descriptions are equivalent: 200 saved out of 600 is the same outcome as 400 dying. The change in wording reversed the majority preference.
What the Effect Shows About Judgment
Tversky and Kahneman (1981) explained the effect through their account of choice under risk: people evaluate outcomes as gains or losses relative to a reference point, tend to avoid risk when choosing among gains and to seek risk when choosing among losses, and adopt the reference point suggested by the wording. The saved description sets the reference point at 600 deaths, so outcomes look like gains; the die description sets it at no deaths, so outcomes look like losses.
Why the Effect Is Not Simply Carelessness
It is tempting to explain framing as inattention: participants did not notice that the descriptions were equivalent. The pattern argues against that reading. The reversal is systematic, risk aversion for gains and risk seeking for losses, which is what a consistent evaluation relative to a shifted reference point would produce, not what random inattention would produce. The effect also appears among experienced professionals, as the medical study reported below shows, and professionals reading carefully about their own field are unlikely to be inattentive in the way that explanation requires. That suggests the frames tap a stable feature of how outcomes are evaluated rather than a misreading that would disappear with more care. The effect therefore reveals something about the structure of judgment: people do not evaluate outcomes in absolute terms but relative to a reference point, and descriptions can set that point.
Why This Effect Was Chosen
Several other effects in the decision literature could have anchored this paper. Framing was chosen because its demonstration uses outcomes that are numerically identical, which makes the departure from consistent choice unambiguous; because it has survived a large replication; and because it has been tested directly in a high-stakes setting rather than only extended to one by analogy. An effect with all three features gives an application something solid to stand on.
Whether the Effect Holds Up
Many effects in this literature have weakened when tested again, so its standing matters. Klein et al. (2014) included a version of the gain-loss framing problem in a large replication project conducted across dozens of samples in several countries, and the framing effect replicated. The effect is therefore a stable feature of how people respond to such problems, not an artifact of one sample.
The Judgment It Is Applied To
McNeil et al. (1982) asked whether framing affects a real kind of medical choice. Participants, including patients, graduate students and physicians, were given information about two treatments for lung cancer, surgery and radiation therapy. Surgery carried a higher risk of death during or shortly after treatment but better long-term survival. The same information was presented either as the probability of surviving or as the probability of dying at several time points. Surgery was chosen more often when outcomes were framed in terms of survival than when they were framed in terms of mortality, and the effect appeared among physicians as well as among patients and students.
The application is plausible because the conditions of the original effect hold: the choice is between a certain early risk and an uncertain later benefit, the outcomes can be described as gains or losses, and the description is supplied by someone else. A composite patient choosing between surgery and radiation, told that ninety of a hundred patients survive surgery rather than that ten of a hundred die, is in the situation the research describes.
What the Application Implies, and What It Does Not
The research implies that how outcomes are described can shift a treatment choice independently of the outcomes themselves. One response, consistent with the findings, is to present both frames, survival and mortality, so that the choice does not depend on which one a clinician happened to use. The research does not show which treatment a patient should choose, nor that patients' choices under one frame are mistaken; it shows that the choice is sensitive to description, which is a reason to make descriptions complete. Presenting both frames does not remove the influence of description entirely, but it prevents a single, arbitrary choice of wording from deciding the matter for the patient.
A Decision Gone Wrong at Work?
Analyzing one's own workplace decision can illustrate the effect but rarely tests it, since there is no comparison with the same decision described another way. The published experiments, which presented equivalent descriptions to comparable groups, are what establish the effect. A personal case can still be useful as a reminder to ask, before a decision, how the options would look if described the other way.
References
Klein, R. A., Ratliff, K. A., Vianello, M., Adams, R. B., Bahník, Š., Bernstein, M. J., Bocian, K., Brandt, M. J., Brooks, B., Brumbaugh, C. C., Cemalcilar, Z., Chandler, J., Cheong, W., Davis, W. E., Devos, T., Eisner, M., Frankowska, N., Furrow, D., Galliani, E. M., ... Nosek, B. A. (2014). Investigating variation in replicability: A "many labs" replication project. Social Psychology, 45(3), 142-152. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000178
McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C., Jr., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 306(21), 1259-1262. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198205273062103
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
What the PS 350 Unit 7 instructions ask for
The seventh PS 350 unit asks students to name one documented effect in problem solving or decision making, credit it to the work that demonstrated it, describe the problem participants were given, and apply it to a judgment where the same conditions plausibly hold. Expect to report the original numbers, explain the mechanism and check whether the effect has replicated. The applied judgment can be professional, medical or everyday, but the conditions should match the original. One effect examined in depth is better than several mentioned. Analyzing a decision you got wrong at work can illustrate the effect but cannot test it, so the published evidence should carry the argument.
How this PS 350 Unit 7 example is built
The effect and its source are introduced first. The disease problem is described as participants received it, with both versions, the choice percentages and the equivalence that makes the reversal meaningful. A section explains the reference point account. Another argues that the effect is not carelessness. A section explains why framing was chosen, and its replication standing is reported. The application section reports McNeil and colleagues' treatment-choice study with its participants, frames and results, then explains why the original conditions hold for a composite patient. A section sets out what follows and what does not, and the close addresses personal examples. The original percentages are given so the reversal can be checked.
Where the points sit in the PS 350 Unit 7 rubric
Herzing's rubric for the problem solving and decision paper usually allots points to accurate attribution, a precise description of the problem, an explanation of the mechanism, evidence about replication, and an application where the conditions plausibly hold, with clear writing. Researchers and dates should be named to earn the attribution points. Problem description scores when equivalent options and choice rates are reported. Mechanism earns points when tied to the pattern. Replication is increasingly expected and is credited when reported. The application is often weighted most heavily and rewards papers that show why the original conditions apply rather than assuming they do. Showing that the applied setting shares the original conditions is usually decisive.
PS 350 Unit 7 help before you submit
Decision papers lose points when they become a catalog of biases with a sentence each. Another common weakness is describing the framing problem without showing that the options are equivalent, which hides why the result matters. Students often apply an effect to a setting where its conditions do not hold. Some skip replication. Others treat a framing effect as proof that one choice is wrong. Using a personal workplace decision as the main evidence weakens the argument. Overlooking studies that tested the effect directly in the applied setting is a missed opportunity. Treating the effect as a reason to distrust a particular clinician or patient goes beyond what the research shows.
Get a PS 350 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Bring over the Unit 7 instructions with the PS 350 rubric and the reasoning effects your section assigns. We write a custom example that reproduces the original problem wording, cites the later work beside the first report, matches the judgment on structure and names the mismatch. First custom sample free, back in 24 to 48 hours.
More PS 350 papers and psychology samples
- PS 350 Unit 1: Cognitive methods paper
- PS 350 Unit 2: Attention paper
- PS 350 Unit 3: Working memory paper
- PS 350 Unit 4: Long-term memory and encoding paper
- PS 350 Unit 5: Memory distortion paper
- PS 350 Unit 6: Language or knowledge paper
- PS 350 Unit 8: Applied cognition paper
- PS 360 Unit 7: Treatment evidence paper
- PS 101 Unit 7: Psychological disorder overview
- PS 105 Unit 7: Adulthood and aging paper
- PS 130 Unit 7: Ethics and professional conduct paper
PS 350 Unit 7 questions, answered
Which effect makes the best subject?
One your readings cover with the original problem reproduced, so you can quote the wording and apply it honestly. Widely known effects have the advantage of a large follow-up literature to cite, which gives you the qualification section. What tends to go badly is an effect you know from popular writing but have not read a study on.
Should the applied judgment be a professional one?
Only if your instructions ask for it. A medical, financial or hiring judgment gives the paper stakes, but it also raises the bar on what you may claim, and a lower-stakes judgment matched properly on structure earns the same marks. Choose on whether the information really arrives in the same form, not on how serious the setting sounds.
Can I analyze a decision I got wrong at work?
Describe the shape of it and leave the workplace out. Cases, files, colleagues, clients and anything an employer holds stay behind, and a decision retold from memory also carries the outcome you already know, which is precisely the kind of hindsight these studies control for. A constructed judgment with the same structure works better and is fairer to everyone involved.
Where can I find a free PS 350 Unit 7 sample paper?
The whole PS 350 Unit 7 decision paper on framing is free above, with the original problem, the replication, the treatment-choice application and margin notes. Writing about another effect? Pass along the assignment and a paper on that effect is prepared free.
Which effect makes the best subject for PS 350 Unit 7?
One with an unambiguous demonstration, good replication evidence and a direct test in a real setting. The sample chose framing because it has all three.