Reference	Gain Frame	Loss Frame	Actual LOR	BR Baseline	CDM Model
n	P	n	P	LOR	SE	\( \chi^2 \)	LOR	SE	\( \chi^2 \)
Standard ADP; one presentation, between-subjects, low PISA
Tversky and Kahneman (1981)	152	28	155	78	2.20	1.65*	.26	4.34	1.86	.26	1.83
Reyna and Brainerd (1991)	36	53	36	81	1.31	1.72	.54	.57	1.79	.54	.79
Tindale et al. (1993)	144	42	144	79	1.63	1.71	.26	.10	1.77	.26	.27
Wang and Johnston (1995)	50	40	50	68	1.16	1.73	.42	1.83	1.74	.45	1.71
Highhouse and Yüce (1996)	122	29	122	74	1.94	1.68	.29	.82	1.69	.28	.80
Wang (1996)	31	42	34	77	1.50	1.71	.54	.14	1.62	.55	.05
Stanovich and West (1998)	148	32	144	65	1.37	1.74	.25	2.34	1.78	.26	2.43
Druckman (2001a)	50	32	55	77	1.93	1.70	.44	.27	1.51	.43	.94
Druckman (2001b)	69	32	79	76	1.91	1.70	.37	.34	1.66	.36	.49
Mayhorn et al. (2002), Young	29	24	29	86	2.98	1.68	.69	3.52	1.50	.58	5.89*
Mayhorn et al. (2002), Older	29	21	29	69	2.14	1.70	.61	.53	1.54	.58	1.06
LeBoeuf and Shafir (2003), Exp #1	48	49	55	56	1.40	1.74	.25	1.77	1.54	.43	.12
LeBoeuf and Shafir (2003), Exp #2(Stein, 2012)	147	25	146	57	1.47	1.71	.43	.32	1.58	.25	.13
47	40	57	68	1.16	1.73	.41	1.89	1.72	.44	1.55
TOTAL of 14 predicted: 13 (93%)
Standard ADP; one presentation, between-subjects, high PISA
Takemura (1994)	45	20	45	69	2.18	1.39	.49	2.56	1.52	.47	2.02
Mandel (2001)	26	54	26	85	1.55	1.44	.67	.03	1.40	.61	.08
Fischer et al. (2008)	17	36	17	77	1.78	1.43	.76	.21	1.43	.78	.20
Zhang and Miao (2008) #1	65	66	68	87	1.21	1.47	.44	.34	1.44	.37	.29
Zhang and Miao (2008) #2	45	67	48	88	1.25	1.46	.54	.14	1.41	.45	.08
Zhang et al. (2008), Military	134	54	130	83	1.44	1.44	.29	.00	1.48	.27	.05
Zhang et al. (2008), Civilian	60	65	58	90	1.54	1.43	.51	.04	1.48	.40	.05
Haerem et al. (2011)	29	59	26	73	.65	1.48	.58	2.02	1.46	.59	1.93
Okder (2012)	52	37	53	76	1.68	1.42	.43	.34	1.66	.43	.01
Kühberger and Gradi (2013), Exp #1	63	32	63	68	1.53	1.43	.38	.06	1.45	.39	.02
Kühberger and Gradi (2013), Exp #2	14	57	15	73	.72	1.46	.80	.85	1.52	.86	.87
Mandel (2014), Exp #2	38	42	38	74	1.35	1.45	.49	.04	1.57	.51	.16
Mandel (2014), Exp #3	25	32	25	80	2.14	1.42	.66	1.20	1.54	.63	.92
TOTAL of 13 predicted: 13 (100%)
Standard ADP; within-subjects, low PISA
Stanovich and West (1998)	292	32	292	54	.9	.94	.24	1.58	.96	.17	.08
Levin et al. (2002)	102	28	102	56	1.2	.92	.30	.94	.94	.29	.74
LeBoeuf and Shafir (2003) Exp #2	287	25	287	46	.57	1.05*	.17	7.86	.81	.17	.52
TOTAL of 3 predicted: 3 (100%)
Standard ADP; multiple presentations, between-subjects, low PISA
Fagley and Miller (1990), Exp #1	94	51	96	70	.79	.95	.30	.27	1.38	.31	3.01
Fagley and Miller (1990), Exp #2	54	39	55	73	1.43	.92	.41	1.55	1.28	.41	.16
Miller and Hagley (1991)	23	43	23	67	.89	.94	.61	.01	1.40	.65	.40
Jou et al. (1996)	80	35	80	80	2.01	.87*	.36	9.66	1.13	.33	6.99*
Rönnlund et al. (2005) Young	32	41	32	69	1.19	.93	.53	.23	1.30	.55	.07
Rönnlund et al. (2005), Older	32	28	32	56	1.17	.94	.52	.20	1.40	.55	.16
TOTAL of 6 predicted: 5 (83%)

Standard ADP; multiple presentations, between-subjects, High PISA
Kühberger (1995), Exp #1	25	48	23	78	1.36	.73	.64	1.31	.86	.61	.64
Kühberger (1995), Exp #2	16	56	14	57	.04	.81	.74	.81	1.10	.80	1.76
Druckman and McDermott (2008)	101	45	113	67	.94	.71	.28	1.84	.46	.28	2.57
TOTAL of 3 predicted: 3 (100%)

Allais Paradox gambles; low PISA
Conlisk (1989)	236	49	236	86	1.83	1.68	.23	.44	1.70	.21	.55
Carlin (1990)	65	40	65	78	1.7	1.71	.39	0	1.75	.45	.03
TOTAL of 2 predicted: 2 (100%)

Allais Paradox gambles; low PISA
Huck and Müller (2012) Laboratory	70	66	70	87	1.26	1.73	.44	1.14	1.32	.46	.03
TOTAL of 1 predicted: 1 (75%)

Other framing problems; multiple presentations, between-subjects, low PISA
Reyna et al. (2014) College Students	63	35	63	55	.85	.95	.37	.02	.99	.37	.21
Reyna et al. (2014) Adults	54	40	54	60	.8	.95	.39	.01	1.12	.41	.60
Reyna et al. (2014) Experts	36	38	36	71	1.37	.93	.5	.18	.69	.49	2.01

Reyna et al. (2014) Adults	54	26	54	73	2.05	1.87	.44	.15	1.83	.44	0.23
Reyna et al. (2014) Experts	36	20	36	81	2.84	1.85	.59	2.72	1.86	.54	3.29
Nonzero-complement truncated framing problems; one presentation, between-subjects, low PISA
Kühberger and Tanner (2010) Water contamination	93	25	93	85	2.84	2.61	.38	.39	2.31	.35	2.24
Kühberger and Tanner (2010) Crops	93	29	93	78	2.19	2.7	.34	2.28	2.27	.35	.09
Kühberger and Tanner (2010) Fish diseas	93	22	93	83	2.87	2.61	.37	.49	2.21	.34	3.48
Kühberger and Tanner (2010) Endangered forest	93	15	93	65	2.33	2.68	.36	.96	2.30	.35	.02
Total of 3 predicted: 3 (100%)
Certain-option disambiguated problems; single presentation, between-subjects
Mandel (2001) Exp #1	23	52	22	50	-.09	0	.6	.02	.28	.62	.34
Mandel (2014) Exp #3	22	41	24	50	.37	0	.6	.38	.03	.60	.31
Total of 4 predicted: 4 (100%)
Certain-option disambiguated problems; multiple presentations, between-subjects
Kühberger (1995) ADP #1	26	62	23	57	-.21	0	.58	.13	.18	.59	.45
Kühberger (1995) Plant #1	26	46	23	52	.24	0	.57	.18	.11	.59	.05
Kühberger (1995) Cancer #1	24	50	23	35	-.63	0	.6	1.1	.35	.60	2.61
Kühberger (1995) ADP #2	22	41	19	37	-.17	0	.64	.07	.28	.65	.47
Kühberger (1995) Plant #2	13	31	19	37	.27	0	.77	.13	.17	.75	.02
Kühberger (1995) Cancer #2	7	71	13	62	-.45	0	1.01	.19	.13	1.02	.28
Total of 2 predicted: 2 (100%)
"400 not saved" certain-option disambiguated and truncated problems; multiple presentations, between-subjects, high PISA
Kühberger (1995) ADP #1	25	60	23	43	-.67	-.79	.59	.04	.07	.59	1.64
Kühberger (1995) Plant #1	27	44	23	57	.49	-.88	.57	5.68*	.11	.58	.50
Kühberger (1995) Cancer #1	24	75	23	43	-1.36	-.74	.63	.98	.11	.60	6.21*
Kühberger (1995) ADP #2	16	50	19	37	-.54	-.79	.69	.13	.12	.70	.85
Kühberger (1995) Plant #2	14	57	14	50	-.29	-.8	.76	.45	.15	.79	.29
Kühberger (1995) Cancer #2	14	50	16	44	-.25	-.8	.73	.56	.15	.76	.26
Total of 5 predicted: 6 (83.3%)
Certain-option disambiguated, zero-complement truncated problems; single presentation, between-subjects, high PISA
Mandel (2014), Exp #3	26	58	25	32	-1.06	-1.46	.58	.45	.02	.58	3.59
Total of 1 predicted: 1 (100%)
"400 not saved vs. 2/3 chance that 600 not saved" truncation problem; single presentation, framing manipulated between-subjects
Mandel (2001) Exp #1	23	57	24	58	.07	0	.59	.02	1.09	.64	.01
Mandel (2001) Exp #2	36	64	37	59	-.19	0	.48	.15	1.02	.63	.00
TOTAL of 3 predicted: 3 (100%)
OVERALL TOTAL of 88 predicted: 82 (93.2%)
* Indicates results with Wald statistics over 1 degree of freedom
Note: Bolded rows indicate results where CDM outperforms BR