The isolation effect is integral to prospect theory, which describes how individuals make decisions. It highlights a tendency to concentrate on what distinguishes options rather than what they have in common, resulting in a narrow focus that can lead to inconsistent decision-making. Choices are often inconsistent because they are influenced by how the options are presented. This is because changing the description of the options from gains to losses, or vice versa, changes how people perceive the risks involved. 

For example, Liam, a manager, is deciding on an energy-saving initiative. In the first scenario, with a $1,500 budget, he has two choices: Plan A guarantees saving $700, while Plan B offers a 50% chance of saving the entire $1,500 and a 50% chance of saving nothing. Liam chooses Plan A, preferring the certainty of a gain, which reflects risk aversion. This demonstrates the certainty effect from prospect theory.

In another scenario, he faces a loss with a $3,000 budget. Plan C guarantees losing $700, while Plan D offers a 50% chance of losing $1,500 and a 50% chance of losing nothing. This time, Liam opts for Plan D, seeking to avoid the certainty of a loss, showing risk-seeking behavior. 

Despite these scenarios being equivalent—Plan A corresponds to Plan C, and Plan B to Plan D—the framing affects Liam’s decisions. He disregards the overall similarities and focuses solely on the perceived savings or losses.

The isolation effect highlights how framing can bias decision-making by emphasizing differences between options and  focusing on immediate outcomes rather than overall expected value. Understanding this bias allows people to evaluate choices more comprehensively, resulting in more rational and consistent decisions that consider the entire context, rather than just how the options are presented. One way to mitigate the isolation effect is to reframe decisions by considering all potential outcomes.