Valence framing, where equivalent information is presented in either a positive or negative light, is a nuanced topic that has previously not been well accounted for in choice modelling literature. We endeavour to introduce a valence framing typology into a choice modelling study in a transport context, to illustrate that different types of framing should be acknowledged more thoroughly, because this better reflects realistic decision environments. We conduct a stated choice survey where three valence framing types are investigated simultaneously in one, multi-attribute decision context, which has yet to be explored. We ask participants to make sequential choices between two trains, where the attributes of seat availability, service quality and relative CO2 emissions are framed using different valences and types of framing: risky-choice, attribute and goal framing. While no framing interaction effects are identified, we find a difference in preferences for CO2 emission levels, depending on whether information is presented as a gain or loss. We discuss the potential reasons for a lack of risky-choice and attribute framing effects, including both theoretical and methodological explanations. We explore further avenues for analysis that could refine and add depth to these findings. By clarifying a typology, we can better understand expected valence framing effects in multi-attribute decision making and recognise the heterogeneity of these effects, thereby enhancing the interpretation of framing results in choice modelling research. Furthermore, results could be valuable from a marketing perspective, illustrating how the presentation of CO2 emissions may nudge consumers toward more sustainable choices.
Barnes et al. (2025) studied this question.