Wright and Goodwin (2002) maintain that, in terms of experimental design and ecological validity, Hodgkinson et al. (1999) failed to demonstrate either that the framing bias is likely to be of salience in strategic decision making, or that causal cognitive mapping provides an effective means of limiting the damage accruing from this bias. In reply, we show that there is ample evidence to support both of our original claims. Moreover, using Wright and Goodwin's own data set, we demonstrate that our studies did in fact attain appropriate levels of ecological validity, and that their proposed alternative to causal cognitive mapping, a decision tree approach, is far from 'simpler.' Wright and Goodwin's approach not only fails to eliminate the framing bias-it leads to confusion.