The framing effect: how language shapes your perception of reality
Our judgements, decisions and moral feelings are not based on reality, but on how reality is framed.
The framing effect is our tendency to be unjustifiably influenced by the way information is formulated (framed). Different ways of presenting the same information (frames) tend to lead to different perceptions, interpretations, judgements, emotions, decisions and actions.
This influence is unjustified in the sense that it is not based on the information itself, but on the way the information is formulated. Our judgements, decisions and moral feelings are not based on reality, but on how reality is framed. They are not based on content, but on descriptions.
The psychology of the framing effect
From a logical perspective, two statements have the same meaning if they describe the same state of the world. For example, after a match between teams A and B, the statements ‘Team A won’ and ‘Team B lost’ describe the same state of the world.
From a psychological perspective, the meaning of a statement depends on the (often implicit) associations that our brain forms between the statement and knowledge, beliefs, values, personal experiences and feelings in our memory. The two statements above evoke different associations. ‘Team A won’ brings up thoughts about team A and what it did to win, while ‘Team B lost’ brings up thoughts of team B and what it did that caused it to lose.
A frame is a perspective through which we view and make sense of a particular subject. It can be thought of as a cognitive lens or filter through which we view the subject. Frames shape how we perceive, interpret and respond to the world around us. They focus our attention by emphasizing aspects that fall within the frame, while ignoring or downplaying aspects that fall outside the frame.
Different formulations (frames) of the same information can evoke different associations. For example, a 90% survival rate conjures up hopeful thoughts about surviving, while a 10% mortality rate conjures up scary thoughts about dying. Framing climate change as caused by human activities leads to completely different associations, decisions and actions than framing it as natural climate variability.
Usually we only see one frame at a time. Our brains tend not to generate alternative frames to find out whether they evoke a different response. Reframing takes a lot of effort and our brains are naturally lazy. We passively accept information as it is framed unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise. What you see is all there is.
Examples of the framing effect
Here are some examples of the framing effect in action.
👉 Positive framing to combat loss aversion
Positive framing involves framing information in a way that emphasises the positive aspects or gains, rather than the negative aspects or losses, to evoke positive associations and combat loss aversion.
We tend to prefer to avoid losses rather than achieve equivalent gains (loss aversion).
Claiming that a medical procedure has a 90% survival rate (positive frame) is much more reassuring than claiming it has a 10% mortality rate (negative frame), even though both statements represent the same information. The word ‘survival’ conjures up encouraging thoughts and images of living (gain), whereas the word ‘mortality’ conjures up frightening thoughts and images of dying (loss).
A product framed as 95% fat-free is more attractive to consumers than a product framed as 5% fat, even though it technically means the same. The word ‘fat-free’ conjures up thoughts of desirable healthy outcomes (gain), while the word ‘fat’ is associated with undesirable unhealthy outcomes (loss).
In situations where purchases paid for on credit are more expensive than those paid for with cash, credit companies prefer to frame the higher prices as cash rebates rather than credit surcharges. People are more likely to forego a discount than pay a surcharge. The two are economically the same, but not emotionally the same. Forgoing a discount (gain) is psychologically less aversive than paying a surcharge (loss).
👉 The sure option versus the gamble (prospect theory)
Suppose a disease is expected to kill 600 people. If health program A is implemented, 200 people will be saved. If health program B is implemented, there is a one-third chance that 600 people will be saved and a two-thirds chance that no people will be saved. Will you choose program A or B?
If health program C is implemented, 400 people will die. If health program D is implemented, there is a one-third chance that nobody will die and a two-thirds chance that 600 people will die. Will you choose C or D?
Most people choose programs A and D. This doesn’t make sense, since the consequences of A and C are identical, and the consequences of B and D are identical. From a logical point of view, people should choose A and C or B and D. Psychologically we tend to prefer the sure option over the gamble if the outcomes are good, and the gamble over the sure option if both outcomes are bad (prospect theory). Saving lives with certainty is good, letting people die with certainty is bad. Risk-averse and risk-seeking preferences are not based on reality, but on frames.
👉 Mental accounting: narrow and broad frames
Story 1: A woman has bought a ticket to the theatre. When she arrives at the theatre, she discovers that the ticket is missing. Do you think she will buy a new ticket?
Story 2: A woman arrives at the theatre intending to buy a ticket. When she opens her wallet, she discovers that the money she wants to buy the ticket with is missing. She can use her credit card. Do you think she will buy a ticket?
When shown only the first or second story, most people think that the woman in the first story will not buy a ticket, and that the woman in the second story will.
Financially the stories are the same: the woman’s wealth has decreased by the same amount in both stories. But the different situations evoke different mental accounts (frames). The lost tickets are mentally placed in a narrow account associated with the play. The cost of attending the play appears to have doubled, which may be more than the experience is worth. The lost cash is mentally placed in a broad financial account. The small reduction in her wealth is unlikely to deter the woman from buying a ticket.
The broader frame is more reasonable because sunk costs should be ignored: in both stories the loss has been incurred and cannot be recovered. History is irrelevant and all that matters are the options the women have now. To broaden her frame, the first woman can ask herself whether she would buy a ticket if she had lost the equivalent amount of cash. Broader frames generally lead to more rational decisions.
👉 Default options
Many countries maintain an organ donor register of individuals who are willing to donate their organs after their death. The percentage of organ donors varies greatly between countries due to a framing effect caused by their donor policies. Countries with high donation rates have an opt-out policy (presumed consent): individuals are considered organ donors unless they have completed an opt-out form. Countries with low donation rates have an opt-in policy (explicit consent): individuals are considered not to be an organ donor unless they have completed an opt-in form.
People tend to take the path of least resistance: sticking to the default option is the path that requires the least effort because it has already been chosen for them. Deviating from the default option requires effort, thought, and often a specific reason. Many people trust that the default option is the sensible choice and therefore see no reason to deviate from it.
👉 Framing effects in the news
The way news stories are framed plays a very significant role in the way we perceive events. Language matters. Words are powerful. Our moral feelings and preferences are attached to frames, to descriptions of reality, not to reality itself.
Some examples of controversial frames used in the news or on social media, for illustrative purposes only: Framing climate change as caused by human activities versus framing it as natural climate variability. Framing NGO workers who transport immigrants from Africa across the Mediterranean to Europe as rescuers or human traffickers. Framing people who kill unarmed civilians for ideological reasons as crusaders or terrorists.
How to reduce the impact of the framing effect
Protecting yourself from the negative consequences of biases can be impractical and tiresome, but can be worth it when the stakes are high.
⚒️ Become aware of the framing effect
Becoming aware of the potential influence of the framing effect is the first step in mitigating its impact.
When you make an important decision or judgement, take a step back to examine whether the framing effect might influence the decision. Ask yourself questions such as:
🤔 How is the information presented (framed)? For example, is it framed in a positive or negative light? As potential gain or loss?
🤔 Is there a default option that influences decision making?
🤔 Does the frame evoke feelings that influence the decision? For example, fear or enthusiasm.
🤔 What are the longer term consequences? Thinking about the long term implications (a broad frame) can help you look beyond the immediate, narrow frame.
🤔 Could the frame be intentionally manipulative or deceptive?
If you become aware that the framing effect is influencing your decision or judgement, reframe the information to reduce its impact.
⚒️ Reframe the information
Look at things in a different way by consciously reframing the information presented. This means presenting the information in a more helpful, balanced and objective way so that we can weigh the pros and cons of a decision or judgement.
For example, if a product is positively framed as 95% fat-free, actively consider the negative frame of 5% fat as well. Instead of framing going to the gym as ‘I have to go to the gym,’ reframe it as ‘I get to go to the gym to take care of my body.’ Or instead of framing something as a problem or obstacle, reframe it as an opportunity for growth and learning.
🎉👏🎈
When we are aware of the way information is presented to us, we can make more informed decisions and judgements. By recognising and mitigating the impact of the framing effect, we can increase our ability to make decisions and judgements that align with our life purpose and personal values.
References
Thinking, Fast and Slow, by Daniel Kahneman
My blogposts about biases and heuristics are available here:
https://www.a3lifedesign.com/blog-english/category/Biases
