effectus formulationis
The framing effect is the differing evaluation of logically equivalent content on account of its presentation. The proposition is unchanged; the wording moves, and judgment moves with it.
Taxonomy - Semantic-presentation bias, intensional distortion. The defect is a failure to preserve judgment under equivalence.
Informal Example - "90% survive" feels better than "10% die," though the numerical content is equivalent.
F1(P) ≡ F2(P), yet Judge(F1(P)) ≠ Judge(F2(P))
One proposition, two verdicts; only the frame has changed.
Invalid Evaluation Pattern:
Presentation(P) ⇏ TruthDifference(P)
A change in wording does not necessarily change propositional content.
Missing Necessary Condition
Different judgments require a genuine semantic or evidential difference:
¬(F1(P) ≡ F2(P))
If the frames are equivalent, judgment should remain invariant.
Biased Model:
Frame(P) → Evaluation(P)
Corrective Model:
Content(P) → Evaluation(P)
Frame may aid communication, but equivalent content should not produce contradictory logical evaluation.
If two frames are equivalent, then in all models:
□(F1(P) ↔ F2(P))
Biased judgment violates invariance:
Accept(F1(P)) ∧ Reject(F2(P))
𝔼(FrameDifference) ⇏ □(ContentDifference)
A difference in wording does not justify belief in a difference of truth conditions.
Equivalent Frames
F1(P) ≡ F2(P) ∧ DifferentResponse(F1,F2)
The different response is explained by presentation, not logic.
Non-Equivalent Frame
F1(P) ¬≡ F2(P)
Not every framing difference is biased; some formulations change content.
There is no established Latin name for the framing effect. The Neo-Latin effectus formulationis is descriptive.
Historical parallels are strongest in rhetoric and semantics: wording can move assent without changing proof.
Bacon's idola fori, the idols of the marketplace, are especially relevant because they concern how words and common usage can mislead understanding.
© Logicae. A logic reference project.