Framing effects, documented extensively by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, show that people make different decisions based on identical information depending purely on how it's worded. Their classic 'Asian disease problem' asked people to choose between programs to fight an outbreak: framed as lives saved, most people picked the safe option; framed as lives lost (mathematically identical outcomes), most people picked the risky option. Nothing about the actual odds changed — only the frame did.
This is loss aversion doing quiet, powerful work: loss-framed language ('you'll lose this benefit') triggers stronger reactions than gain-framed language describing the identical outcome ('you'll keep this benefit'), which is why negotiators, marketers, and policymakers choose their framing deliberately rather than neutrally. The practical defense is a habit, not a one-time trick: whenever a statistic or offer feels unusually persuasive or alarming, try restating it in the opposite frame (survival rate instead of mortality rate, cost instead of savings) and see whether the underlying facts still support the same reaction.