# Framing effect



## akaskar (Nov 13, 2012)

I beg that only SFs answer this poll. Similar poll is found in NT forum, if you are one.

Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the programs are as follows:

A: Program A: "200 people will be saved"
B: Program B: "there is a one-third probability that 600 people will be saved, and a two-thirds probability that no people will be saved



Tversky and Kahneman (1981)


----------



## akaskar (Nov 13, 2012)

This thread doesn't seem to be popular=)


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

I don't see how A is different from B so I pick A because it is straight forward.
B? Come on...


----------



## peabrane (Nov 1, 2009)

I'd choose B, but how is this about framing if the choices are not essentially the same...?


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

peabrane said:


> I'd choose B, but how is this about framing if the choices are not essentially the same...?


Okay I see the difference now. I didn't read the OP well. I read it as "there is a one-third _of_ 600 people will be saved."And I agree with you here.

I would still pick A. B is kind of weird and doesn't quite make sense. And 1/3 probability is actually quite low, so probably no one will survive under B.


----------



## seeg (Jan 7, 2010)

I'd go for B. I think its worth the gamble to get everyone through. At least everyone is treated equally.
How could you tell the relatives of the 400 people you let die that they will be killed using the method you chose, but the method you declined would have given them a 1/3 chance to live.


----------



## Mith (May 5, 2013)

Yea, I chose B for the sole reason that there is a chance for everybody.


----------

