Framing: Difference between revisions

From BurnZero
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 18: Line 18:
== Use of Framing ==
== Use of Framing ==
[[File:McLean.jpg|alt=McLean|thumb|202x202px|'''''Figure 3.''''' The McLean, is framed as 91% Fat Free! But it could be framed 9% pure fat? Or even 99% pure sugar?]]
[[File:McLean.jpg|alt=McLean|thumb|202x202px|'''''Figure 3.''''' The McLean, is framed as 91% Fat Free! But it could be framed 9% pure fat? Or even 99% pure sugar?]]
Framing has been known as a method of psychological manipulation for a very long time<ref>Propaganda, [[Edward Bernays]], 1928.</ref>. In the modern era, it has been used by the marketing industry to help sell more products. An example of this, is this Mcdonalds advert ('''Figure 3''') which emphasises the fact that their new hamburger is 91% fat free, instead of highlighting it contains 9% pure fat!  
Framing has been known as a method of psychological manipulation for a very long time<ref>Propaganda, [[Edward Bernays]], 1928.</ref> and is used as the basis of many [[Dark Patterns]]. A simple example of this, is this Mcdonalds advert ('''Figure 3''') which emphasises the frame that their new hamburger is 91% fat free, instead of highlighting it contains 9% pure fat!  


=== Framing in Politics ===
== Pluralism ==
[[File:Political framing.jpg|alt=Political framing|thumb|'''''Figure 4.''''' Political framing]]
[[File:Political framing.jpg|alt=Political framing|thumb|'''''Figure 4.''''' Political framing]]


''So that's framing, but how does this distort everyday life?'' Framing involves the social construction of a social phenomenon – by mass media sources, political or social movements, political leaders, or other actors and organizations. Participation in a language community necessarily influences an individual's ''perception'' of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Politically, the language communities of advertising, religion, and mass media are highly contested, whereas framing in less-sharply defended language communities might evolve imperceptibly and organically over cultural time frames, with fewer overt modes of disputation.
Framing reveals that there is no singular, [[The Objectivity Assumption|fixed interpretation of reality]]—only perspectives shaped by context, identity, language, and prior experience. What one person sees as truth may be a distortion or abstraction through another's lens. These differing “truths” are not necessarily in conflict; they are parallel expressions of a deeper, multifaceted reality. Just as a story changes depending on who tells it, the world itself can look entirely different depending on how it is framed. Recognizing that there are ''multiple valid interpretations'' of the same event or experience is essential to transcending binary thinking and cultivating a more nuanced, inclusive worldview.


[[File:Left and Right defined in the US.png|thumb|'''''Figure 5.''''' Left and Right defined in the US (click to expand)]]
[[Psychedelics]] often act as powerful tools for metacognitive expansion—the ability to think about one’s own thinking. Under their influence, the rigid scaffolding of fixed frames can temporarily dissolve, allowing individuals to step outside their default frames of reference. In this expanded state, people frequently report heightened awareness of the subjectivity of their beliefs, emotions, and perceptions. They begin to see that their personal truth is one among many, and that multiple, even contradictory, perspectives can coexist without invalidating one another. This experience can cultivate a lasting openness—a humility of mind—that helps people embrace complexity, contradiction, and the deep plurality of human experience.
Here's an experiment you can do at home. Ask a friend simply, ''what does the political Left stand for?'' Then ask someone else, you will find that it is difficult to pinpoint precisely exactly what Left and Right stand for they are very generalist terms<ref>https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/08/14/left-wing-vs-right-wing-its-complicated</ref>. The image to the right shows a general breakdown of what this is considered to be in the US, however, to concretely state that the Left believes in on policy and the right believes in another is a supposition.
 
The media have the power and tendency to immediately portray a political point to the public in either of two camps. However, this very method of portrayal, angle of attack can affect the perceptions of the general public which is trying to be objectively informed of the new policy<ref>Issue framing in online voting advice applications: The effect of left-wing and right-wing headers on reported attitudes https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0212555</ref>. The unfortunate consequence of this is instead of taking a new idea on the basis of merit by putting it into a specific camp you immediately generate opposition and polarise groups to one another. In reality a political ideal can benefit everyone around the table.
 
== Experimental demonstrations ==
In a well-known experiment, two groups of people are instructed to analyze the crime figures for a fictional city called Addison<ref>When Do Natural Language Metaphors Influence Reasoning? A Follow-Up Study to Thibodeau and Boroditsky (2013) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4260786/</ref>. They are then asked to describe what strategy the authorities 10 should adopt to make the city safer. The language used in the instructions is different for each group. Group 1 is told that crime is like a predator lurking in an increasing number of neighborhoods, while Group 2 is told that crime is like a virus infecting an increasing number of neighborhoods. Both groups are then asked to analyze the numerical data and identify the best way to tackle the problem. It turns out that the wording of the assignment affects the respondents’ interpretation of the data. If crime is a predator, the natural response is to hunt it down.  
 
The first group accordingly opts for stronger enforcement. On the other hand, if crime is a virus, the natural response is to attack it at the source. The second group of respondents accordingly believes that efforts should focus on the causes of crime, such as poverty and lack of educational opportunities. One might be inclined to think that this is an obvious outcome given the heavy-handed nature of the metaphors employed. In a follow-up experiment, the instructions therefore refer only once to the predator or the virus, while the rest of the instructions consists of a detailed technical description of the case. In spite of this, the outcome is the same. Language shapes the way in which the respondents perceive the world.
 
Next – and this is where things really get interesting – the respondents are asked why they had chosen either approach. They all respond that their choice is based solely on the crime figures. The wording of the instructions has thus become the filter through which the respondents perceive the facts, but they are unaware of this. They think that their opinions are based on objective numerical data. This has enormous implications. Politicians who are able to impose their language can make us perceive the world through a specific filter without us even realizing it.


=== References ===
=== References ===

Revision as of 00:10, 9 May 2025

This is a picture of a rabbit looking to the right. Can you see it?

Duck-rabbit explanations.png
Duck or rabbit?
Figure 1. Duck or rabbit? Or both?

Actually, it's a duck—looking to the left.

If you haven't seen this image before, initially being told it's a duck makes you more likely to see it that way. In reality, the picture is ambiguous, it could be either a duck or a rabbit (see Figure 1).

What's happening here is called framing or optics. Your brain takes the suggested "duck" as a shortcut instead of expending energy to analyze the image critically. When information is unclear, we often rely on external cues—especially from authority figures—rather than thinking deeply ourselves.

Lastly, try this Coffer, ambiguous figure... There are 16 rectangles, can you see them?

Coffer Illusion
Solved coffer illusion
Figure 2. The circles within the Coffer Illusion.

Actually, there are 16 circles above. Have a look at the highlights presented in the image to the right (Figure 2).

Framing occurs when you are given a suggestion that shapes your perception, and your mind accepts it as reality due to availability bias—the tendency to rely on the most immediately available information rather than analyzing alternatives.

Use of Framing

McLean
Figure 3. The McLean, is framed as 91% Fat Free! But it could be framed 9% pure fat? Or even 99% pure sugar?

Framing has been known as a method of psychological manipulation for a very long time[1] and is used as the basis of many Dark Patterns. A simple example of this, is this Mcdonalds advert (Figure 3) which emphasises the frame that their new hamburger is 91% fat free, instead of highlighting it contains 9% pure fat!

Pluralism

Political framing
Figure 4. Political framing

Framing reveals that there is no singular, fixed interpretation of reality—only perspectives shaped by context, identity, language, and prior experience. What one person sees as truth may be a distortion or abstraction through another's lens. These differing “truths” are not necessarily in conflict; they are parallel expressions of a deeper, multifaceted reality. Just as a story changes depending on who tells it, the world itself can look entirely different depending on how it is framed. Recognizing that there are multiple valid interpretations of the same event or experience is essential to transcending binary thinking and cultivating a more nuanced, inclusive worldview.

Psychedelics often act as powerful tools for metacognitive expansion—the ability to think about one’s own thinking. Under their influence, the rigid scaffolding of fixed frames can temporarily dissolve, allowing individuals to step outside their default frames of reference. In this expanded state, people frequently report heightened awareness of the subjectivity of their beliefs, emotions, and perceptions. They begin to see that their personal truth is one among many, and that multiple, even contradictory, perspectives can coexist without invalidating one another. This experience can cultivate a lasting openness—a humility of mind—that helps people embrace complexity, contradiction, and the deep plurality of human experience.

References

  1. Propaganda, Edward Bernays, 1928.

Share your opinion