This study presents a theoretical framework that can explain the framing effect, which has shown discrepancies between theoretical research and practical application in the domain of losses. Thaler (1985) argued that consumers prefer an integrated frame in the loss domain, whereas Gourville (1998) contended that consumers perceive a segregated frame as more valuable when spending on prices, thus presenting conflicting views on the framing effect. This study hypothesized that consumers' perceived uncertainty regarding transaction situations could cause such discrepancies, and examined how perceived uncertainty influences consumers' value perception of choice options through a 2 (perceived uncertainty: high vs. low) × 2 (choice option: integrated frame vs. segregated frame) experiment. The results showed that when perceived uncertainty about the transaction situation was high, consumers preferred the integrated frame, whereas when uncertainty about the transaction situation was low, they preferred the segregated frame. These findings can be interpreted not as existing research results being mutually contradictory, but rather as the framing effect manifesting differently depending on the level of transaction uncertainty perceived by consumers. Furthermore, these results suggest that mental accounting principles other than the hedonic editing hypothesis proposed by Thaler (1985) may exist.