Does the option to be neutral alter the framing effect?

The framing effect—whereby decision preferences shift based on whether outcomes are presented as gains or losses—has been extensively studied using binary forced-choice paradigms. However, real-world decisions often include neutral or indecisive options. We examined whether introducing a neutral option modulates the framing effect. In a preregistered study (N=457), participants completed a ternary choice task featuring sure, risky, and neutral alternatives across multiple scenarios, with the Disease scenario as primary focus. Participants who initially selected the neutral option were subsequently required to make a binary choice without the neutral option. Results demonstrated that framing effect persisted: participants initially choosing to be neutral later exhibited classic patterns of risk aversion under gain frames and risk-seeking under loss frames. The likelihood of choosing neutral option is significantly higher in the loss frame than in the gain frame. Confidence ratings did not differ between neutral and committed choices, suggesting neutrality reflects deliberate deferral rather than frame immunity. These findings indicate that neutrality functions as temporary indecisive rather than immunity to framing bias, advancing theoretical understanding of how additional options interact with cognitive biases in decision-making.