In typical experiments examining the role of gain-loss framing on risky-choice, great care is taken to ensure that the scenarios are generic enough to avoid outside sources of bias. However, policy proposals in the real world that can have significant effects on human lives or involve large sums of money often originate from a partisan source. I examine the extent to which partisan identity influences choice in a standard risky-choice framing paradigm. I also test dual-process theory predictions for how the conflict between partisan loyalty and frame should reduce framing bias (but not partisan bias). Participants were given 12 hypothetical framing problems(6 gain/6 loss) in which the U.S. Congress was entertaining two policy proposals (sure/risky) in each scenario. In 8 of the problems, I manipulated which political party (Republican/Democrat) proposed which option. In the remaining 4, both options are bipartisan (Plan A/Plan B). I also measured participants’ partisan identity. Consistent with standard framing, participants were more risk-averse when options were framed as gains and more risk seeking when framed as losses. However, independent of the effect of frame, decision-makers’ risk-preferences also shifted in favor of their preferred party’s proposal. Data, syntax, and preregistration can be found at https://osf.io/gcbez/.
","journal":null,"year":null,"id":607773,"datarank":0.0,"base_score":0.0,"endowment":0.0,"self_citation_contribution":0.0,"citation_network_contribution":0.0,"self_endowment_contribution":0.0,"citer_contribution":0.0,"corpus_percentile":null,"corpus_rank":null,"citation_count":0,"citer_count":0,"citers_with_citation_signal":0,"citers_with_endowment":0,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"is_dataset":false,"is_dataset_confidence":null,"is_data_producer":false,"deposit_databanks":null,"is_oa":false,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"has_version_chain":false,"published_date":null,"fair_score":null,"fair_percentile":null,"algorithm_id":"datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6","ranking_scope":"data_only","authors":[{"id":1560706,"name":"Jonathan Charles Corbin","orcid":null,"position":0,"is_corresponding":false}],"reference_count":0,"raw_metadata":{"has_enrichment":true,"resolved":true,"title":"The Effects of Frame and Partisan Bias on Risky-Choice","abstract":"In typical experiments examining the role of gain-loss framing on risky-choice, great care is taken to ensure that the scenarios are generic enough to avoid outside sources of bias. However, policy proposals in the real world that can have significant effects on human lives or involve large sums of money often originate from a partisan source. I examine the extent to which partisan identity influences choice in a standard risky-choice framing paradigm. I also test dual-process theory predictions for how the conflict between partisan loyalty and frame should reduce framing bias (but not partisan bias). Participants were given 12 hypothetical framing problems(6 gain/6 loss) in which the U.S. Congress was entertaining two policy proposals (sure/risky) in each scenario. In 8 of the problems, I manipulated which political party (Republican/Democrat) proposed which option. In the remaining 4, both options are bipartisan (Plan A/Plan B). I also measured participants’ partisan identity. Consistent with standard framing, participants were more risk-averse when options were framed as gains and more risk seeking when framed as losses. However, independent of the effect of frame, decision-makers’ risk-preferences also shifted in favor of their preferred party’s proposal. Data, syntax, and preregistration can be found at https://osf.io/gcbez/.
","is_dataset_classified":null,"base_score":0.0,"endowment":0.0,"datacite_reuse_total":0,"file_count":0,"downloads":0,"views":0,"has_version_chain":false,"is_dataset":false,"is_oa":false,"pmid":"21097893","pmcid":null,"openalex_id":"https://openalex.org/W3164847636","authors":[],"funders":[],"total_grants":0,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"citation_trend":[],"oa_status":"gold","license":"cc-by","oa_locations":[{"url":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/u6wg9","host_type":""},{"url":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/u6wg9","host_type":""},{"url":"https://osf.io/u6wg9","host_type":"repository"},{"url":"http://doi.org/10.31234/OSF.IO/U6WG9","host_type":"repository"}],"fields_of_study":["Economic and Environmental Valuation","Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics"],"mesh_terms":[],"keywords":["Framing (construction)","Framing effect","Social psychology","Loyalty","Politics","Prospect theory","Political science","Loss aversion","Economics","Psychology","Microeconomics","Law","Engineering","Persuasion"],"sdg_mappings":[{"sdg_number":0,"sdg_label":"Peace, Justice and strong institutions"}],"linked_datasets":[],"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"database_accessions":[],"source":"live","citation_network_status":"fetched"},"created_at":"2026-07-30T06:58:36.817123Z","pmid":null,"pmcid":null,"fwci":null,"citation_percentile":null,"influential_citations":0,"oa_status":null,"license":null,"views":0,"total_file_size_bytes":0,"version_count":0,"fair_f":null,"fair_a":null,"fair_i":null,"fair_r":null,"fair_zscore":null,"fair_rationale":null,"fair_model":null,"fair_agent_version":null,"fair_fulltext_source":null,"fair_has_llm":null,"fair_computed_at":null,"clinical_trials":[],"software_tools":[],"db_accessions":[],"linked_datasets":[],"topics":[]}