[wordup] the framing of decision making.

[Adam Shand]

so teresa and i were reminiscing over a beer last night and first year
psych classes come up.  we starting trying to remember what "framing"
was until we got annoyed enough that we looked it up on the internet. :)

the basic concept is that people tend to be risk adverse and that you can
manipulate their decision making ability by how you ask a question.

for a simple (and silly) example:

a disease is about to break out which will kill 1000 people.  two cures
are proposed and people are asked to decide on which one to implement.

 1. if we adopt cure A 200 people will still die.
 2. if we adopt cure B 800 will live.

people will almost always choose "cure B" because they don't want people
to die.  in fact this tendency is strong enough that often you can weight
the odds and people will still make the positively framed decision, eg.

 1. cure A 300 people will die
 2. cure B 600 people will live.

100 more people die woth "cure B" but you can use the framing of the
decision to heavily weight peoples decisions.

in case you hadn't guessed this is the heart and soul of marketing and
public politics.

SO NEXT TIME YOU READ A STATISTIC, TAKE A SECOND TO TURN IT AROUND AND SEE
IF IT CHANGES YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THE MATTER.

-----

here are some more complicated example which shows you some ways that this
is used in everyday live and traps we all fall into.

From: http://www.workingpsychology.com/3victim.html

1. A college undergraduate who has recently moved into his own apartment,
Franklin is wrestling with a decision: he is considering whether or not to
purchase a VCR with his limited funds. He now stands before a display of
VCRs at the local electronics store, considering the purchase. He thinks,
"With a VCR, I can watch high-quality movies instead of the trash on
network TV. And, the selection of movies on video is much larger than
what's on TV. Plus, movies don't have ads!" Armed with three unassailable
reasons, Franklin carries his prize to the cashier's counter.


2. Across the street Lisa and Jon are looking over the menus at their
favorite restaurant. Jon orders a burger, but Lisa demurs, saying that she
is watching her weight. "Don't worry," smiles the waitress. "Our burger's
made of hamburger that's 75% lean." Lisa orders the burger, and notices it
tastes better than most.

3. Several blocks away, an encyclopedia salesman is talking to two young
parents. He is well into his routine, and has already gotten them to admit
that a quality education is of utmost importance to their children's
future. He approaches the topic of price with great skill. "Although this
investment may seem substantial at first glance," he admits, "with our
extended payment plan, this set of encyclopedias will cost you less than
40 cents a day. Why, that's less than a can of soda! Wouldn't you say your
children's education is worth more than a daily can of soda?" Having never
thought of it in just that way, the young couple decide to purchase the
set.

Franklin, Lisa, and the young parents are the latest casualties of the
insidious framing device. As subtle as it is powerful, the frame allows a
communicator to manipulate choice alternatives in order to influence
thinking processes and obtain consent--without ever appearing to attempt
to persuade. The target of influence is seldom aware that a particular
response has been induced.

Franklin was the victim of his own reframe, the least detectable and
perhaps most powerful type of frame. Although he entered the store with
the frame of [VCR vs. no VCR], he allowed the frame to slip onto an
entirely different topic: [TV vs. Cinema]. Once the decision was reframed,
Franklin was unable to generate any reasons for not buying . . . cinema,
which is what Franklin really purchased. Franklin might have reframed the
purchase decision in other ways, too. He could have considered [VCR vs.
new computer], which might have led him to the computer section. And had
Franklin reframed the decision as [mindless entertainment vs.
productivity] he might have sped out of the store as he hurried home to
get busy with something really important. But once Franklin allowed the
decision to become one between [TV vs. cinema], the decision was foregone.
After all, who in his right mind could argue that TV is better than
cinema?

Lisa is the victim of a focus frame. She has been led to focus on the
leanness, rather than the fatness, of her burger. Would it have made a
difference if Lisa had been told her burger was 25% fat? You bet it would!
In fact, researchers Levin & Gaeth (1988) conducted a study using just
this frame manipulation. The researchers gave identical samples of ground
burger to two groups of tasters in their experiment. The only difference
between them was that one group was told the beef was 75% lean, and the
second group told it was 25% fat. Those that had been told it was 75% lean
rated the beef as significantly more lean, of higher quality, more
greaseless, and better tasting than "ordinary" hamburger. Those that had
been told it was 25% fat rated the burger as more fatty, lower quality,
and more greasy than regular burger. Pity poor Lisa! Framed, by her
waitress, into gaining rather than losing weight!

Finally, the young couple fell victim to the contrast frame. The salesman
craftily shifted the focus of decision away from the amount the young
family could afford to spend. Instead, he focused attention onto the
mundaneness and unimportance of a can of soda. Using it as a reference
point, he then compared it to the value of . . . not his encyclopedia set,
but . . . successfully educated children. He substituted associations for
the actual item. I think you will agree: given the frame [can of soda vs.
children's education], education will win every time. And out came the
checkbook.