Questions to reflect on
- Why does the same choice sound different when different words are used?
- Why does ‘90% survival’ feel more reassuring than ‘10% mortality,’ even though the figures mean the same thing?
- Why can one word already shape my image of a person or group?
- Why do events sound different when a supporter or opponent describes them?
- Can framing also happen unconsciously?
- How can I recognize framing without immediately calling every difference in language manipulative?
- And how do I find out which facts lie behind the wording?
What is the framing effect?
The framing effect means that our judgment or choice can change depending on how the same or similar information is presented.
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman showed in classic research that people could express different preferences when the same decision situation was framed in terms of gain or, instead, loss.
A simple example:
90% survive
versus
10% dieMathematically, both statements refer to the same ratio.
But they direct attention to something different:
90% survival
↓
attention on
positive outcome
10% mortality
↓
attention on
negative outcomeResearch into medical decisions has actually shown that framing treatment outcomes in terms of survival or death can influence treatment preferences, even among doctors.
Framing does not necessarily change the facts
This distinction is important.
In a pure framing effect, the underlying facts can stay the same while the presentation changes.
FACT
5 grams of fat
per 100 grams
FRAME 1
“95% fat-free”
FRAME 2
“contains 5% fat”Both can be factually correct.
Yet 95% fat-free may sound more appealing because the wording emphasizes the positive feature.
Researchers call this kind of example attribute framing: the same characteristic is described in positive or negative terms.
So framing is not automatically lying
A message almost always has to be phrased in some way.
You can hardly speak without choosing words, organizing information, and mentioning some aspects before others.
That is why framing is not automatically:
manipulation
deception
propaganda
lying
Every message
has a form
≠
every form
is manipulationIt becomes more problematic when a frame, for example, hides important information, creates a distorted picture, or deliberately triggers strong emotions while relevant counterinformation is left out.
Why can our brain be sensitive to this?
People do not process information like a calculator.
We also respond to:
words,
context,
points of comparison,
emotional meaning,
what is presented as gain,
what is presented as loss,
and which part of the information gets our attention.
Tversky and Kahneman showed that when making decisions, people can react differently to outcomes framed as gain than to equivalent outcomes presented as loss.
The facts
+
the presentation
↓
how I experience
and judge the situationThat does not mean framing always has a big effect.
The size of framing effects varies considerably between situations. A large meta-analysis of research on risk choices found framing effects, but also major differences depending on, for example, the task, wording, and study design.
There are different forms of framing
Researchers Levin, Schneider, and Gaeth distinguished several types of framing.
A useful simplification is:
ATTRIBUTE FRAME
“95% fat-free”
versus
“5% fat”
RISKY-CHOICE FRAME
“200 people will be saved”
versus
“400 people will die”
GOAL FRAME
“If you do this,
you will get this benefit”
versus
“If you don’t do this,
you will incur this disadvantage”The underlying mechanism does not have to be exactly the same in all these forms.
That is why framing is broader than just:
“phrasing things positively versus negatively.”
Gain versus loss
An important part of framing research is the question of whether an outcome is presented as a gain or a loss.
Suppose a treatment is successful in 90 out of 100 people.
You can say:
“90 out of 100 people benefit from the treatment.”
or:
“Out of 100 people, the treatment doesn’t work for 10.”
Both figures may be needed to get a complete picture.
GAIN FRAME
What do I gain?
LOSS FRAME
What can I lose?In health communication, such effects do not work the same everywhere, incidentally. A systematic review found that positive or negative framing sometimes affects judgment, but that effects on actual behavior may be small or inconsistent.
That is a good warning against statements like:
“With one cleverly chosen frame, you can get people to do whatever you want.”
It doesn’t work that simply.
Example from everyday life
Suppose two salespeople are offering exactly the same product.
Salesperson A says:
“95% of our customers are satisfied.”
Salesperson B says:
“5% of our customers are not satisfied.”
95% satisfied
↓
“That sounds good”
5% dissatisfied
↓
“What went wrong there?”The information is mathematically equivalent.
But your attention is directed to a different part of reality.
A good next step is therefore:
“What do the words change, and what stays factually the same?”
Framing can also come from a single word
Not every frame contains numbers.
Words carry meanings, associations, and judgments with them.
Compare, for example:
“frugal”
with
“stingy”
or:
“cautious”
with
“afraid”
or:
“persistent”
with
“stubborn”
The behavior may be partly the same, but the chosen word steers the interpretation.
Same behavior:
someone does not
change their mind quickly
FRAME A
“steadfast”
FRAME B
“stubborn”The words already contain part of the judgment.
Framing and stereotyping: your example about racism
Your example fits well here, but with an important distinction.
Suppose a child hears from parents for years:
“People from that ethnic group are stupid.”
“Those people are dangerous.”
“They are inferior.”
That is more than just the classic framing effect.
It also involves stereotyping, prejudice, and the social transmission of beliefs.
But framing does play a role, because the language used to describe a group repeatedly helps determine through which interpretive lens the child learns to view members of that group.
Research on language and stereotyping shows that the labels and descriptions people use can contribute to sharing and maintaining stereotypes within social groups.
For example:
Child sees a person
from group X
↓
has heard for years:
“those people are
dangerous”
↓
neutral behavior
can be viewed more
quickly through that frameThat does not mean a child automatically becomes racist because their parents hold racist views.
Children get information from many sources and can later examine and reject learned ideas.
But repeated language from family, friends, media, and culture can contribute to the way social groups are categorized and judged. Research on stereotype communication describes exactly how language can reinforce and pass on such shared images.
A frame can determine what you pay attention to
Suppose someone has learned:
“Group X is lazy.”
They then see a hundred people from that group.
One person is sitting at home unemployed.
Another person works sixty hours a week.
When the existing frame is strong, the first example can immediately take on meaning:
“See? I told you so.”
while the second is seen as an exception.
FRAME
“That group is lazy”
↓
attention to
fitting examples
↓
“See? I told you so”Here framing begins to overlap with another mechanism:
confirmation bias.
The frame partly determines how information is interpreted; confirmation bias can then contribute to which information is mainly remembered or found convincing.
Psychological processes often run together in everyday life.
That is why language about groups matters
Compare:
“A criminal.”
with:
“A person who has committed a crime.”
Or:
“An addict.”
with:
“Someone with an addiction problem.”
The factual situation may be similar, but the first label can reduce the whole person much more strongly to a single trait.
In social categories, language can contribute to the impression that characteristics are fixed, essential, or typical of the entire group. That is one of the processes described in research on stereotypes and language.
Person
↓
gets a label
↓
label becomes
the most important
trait
↓
other information
moves into
the backgroundThat is why framing is not only interesting in advertising or with numbers. It can also influence how we perceive people and groups.
But words can also simply have meaning
This is where we should not overdo it.
If someone has committed a crime, you may name it.
If an organization has a certain rule, you may describe that rule.
And different words are not always fully interchangeable.
So not every strong word is a framing trick.
The question is:
“What meaning is already built into the chosen word?”
and:
“Would someone who judges the same facts differently use different words?”
How can framing arise within tight-knit belief communities?
Every group develops language with which reality is described.
This applies to:
families,
companies,
religions,
political movements,
activist organizations,
online communities,
and groups of former members.
Language can help make a complex reality quickly understandable.
But the same language can also already contain an interpretation.
Event
↓
word or label
↓
meaning
↓
emotional responseThat is why it is useful to ask from time to time:
“Does this word mainly describe what happened, or does it at the same time already indicate how I am supposed to think about it?”
How can this be recognizable around Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Within Jehovah’s Witnesses, there are words that have a clear meaning within the group’s own religious framework.
One example is apostate.
In Insight on the Scriptures, religious apostasy is described, among other things, as disloyalty, rebellion, and turning away from what the publication says is the true worship of God.
Another official publication says that an apostate turns against the truth and rebels against Jehovah and Jesus.
For someone who shares that faith-based definition, apostate is therefore not a neutral label for:
“someone who has changed their mind.”
Within that religious framework, the word already carries a religious meaning.
FACTUAL DESCRIPTION
“Someone no longer
believes a certain
teaching”
RELIGIOUS FRAME
“apostasy”That does not mean the religious word is therefore wrong.
Within the faith, it does in fact have a clear meaning.
It does show, though, how a label can communicate more than just the bare behavior.
The same applies to words around “the world” and “worldly”. Official JW publications use those terms within a religious framework in which a way of thinking that does not match God’s standards is linked to “the spirit of the world.”
Criticism of Jehovah’s Witnesses can also frame
This does not work only one way.
A critic may, for example, use words like:
“cult”
“brainwashed”
“captivity”
“mind control”
Before the concrete facts have even been discussed, such words can evoke a strong interpretation.
JW frame:
“apostate”
can already give
meaning
Critical frame:
“brainwashed”
can also already give
meaningThat does not mean such terms should never be used.
Some have scientific, legal, or sociological definitions.
But precisely for that reason, you should ask:
“Which definition are we using?”
“Which concrete facts support this label?”
“What would I say if I temporarily left the label out?”
For EXJW.world, that is an important way to examine both the organization’s language and the language of critics without determining the conclusion for the reader in advance.
The same behavior can receive two completely different stories
Suppose someone leaves a religious community.
One person says:
“He left the truth.”
Another says:
“He freed himself.”
Both statements already contain an interpretation.
A more neutral first description is:
“He belonged to
the community
and decided
to leave it.”After that, different people can discuss why they assess that as positive, negative, or something else.
That does not mean we always have to use only sterile, neutral language.
It does help to make a distinction between:
WHAT HAPPENED?
and
HOW DO WE MEAN
WHAT HAPPENED?Framing is not the same as propaganda
Propaganda can use framing.
But not every frame is propaganda.
Propaganda usually involves a broader attempt to influence attitudes or behavior through selective information, messages, symbols, or emotional means.
Framing can arise much more simply because someone describes the same event from their own perspective.
Framing
can be intentional
but can also arise
because every person
speaks from a perspectiveA journalist, believer, former believer, doctor, and patient can describe the same event differently without anyone consciously trying to manipulate.
Even neutral language is never completely perspective-free
Even when we try to write neutrally, we have to make choices:
What do we mention first?
What background information do we include?
What comparison do we use?
What words do we avoid?
Which facts do we find relevant?
The goal is therefore probably not:
“I’m going to turn off all framing.”
That is hardly achievable.
A more realistic goal is:
Which frame
am I using?
What does it emphasize?
What does it leave
in the background?
And does my judgment change
if I phrase it differently?How do you recognize framing?
A simple method is to rephrase the message.
Suppose someone says:
“Only 10% of these patients die.”
Write alongside that:
“90% of these patients survive.”
Or:
“He left the truth.”
next to:
“He changed his religious beliefs and left the community.”
Or:
“That person is stubborn.”
next to:
“That person doesn’t change their mind easily.”
Then ask:
Which facts
stay the same?
Which judgment
disappears when I use
different words?That is often where the frame becomes visible.
Pay attention to what is left out
Framing is not only about words.
Selection can also create a frame.
Suppose an organization has one hundred positive and ten negative experiences.
You can show only the one hundred positive stories.
Or only the ten negative ones.
Both sets can consist of completely true stories.
True information
≠
automatically a
complete pictureThe relevant question then becomes:
“What information am I not being shown?”
This touches on framing, the availability heuristic, and confirmation bias.
Framing can also help
Framing is not only something we need to defend ourselves against.
It can also be useful.
A therapist, for example, can help someone look at the same event through a different frame:
Not:
“I failed.”
but:
“This attempt didn’t work out.”
Not:
“I have to start all over again.”
but:
“I now know one approach that doesn’t work.”
“Mistake = proof
that I can’t do it”
↓
“Mistake = information
I can use to move forward”The facts are not denied.
The meaning is organized differently.
This kind of reframing can help people see alternative interpretations, as long as it is not used to gloss over real problems.
When does framing become misleading?
Framing becomes more concerning when, for example:
essential information is deliberately left out;
a comparison is chosen in such a way that it creates a false impression;
strong emotional labels replace evidence;
relative risks are mentioned without absolute numbers;
or an interpretation is presented as if it were an indisputable fact.
For example:
“This doubles your risk.”
sounds dramatic.
But there is a difference between:
1 in 1,000
↓
2 in 1,000
and
30 in 100
↓
60 in 100In both cases, the risk doubles.
The absolute meaning is very different.
That is why, with numbers, it helps to look at both relative and absolute information.
What can you do with this?
When a message stirs up a lot of emotion, you can first ask:
Which words steer my feelings?
Which words are descriptive, and which already carry a judgment?
How would someone with a different perspective phrase this?
Could I write the same message more neutrally?
Which facts remain the same when the words change?
What information is missing?
Is the emphasis mainly on gain or mainly on loss?
Is an individual being described, or an entire group right away?
Is the label clearly defined?
You could, for example, use a simple three-step check:
1. FRAME
How is it
presented?
2. FACT
What do I
actually know?
3. ALTERNATIVE
How can the same
fact be phrased
differently?If you still reach the same conclusion afterward, that’s fine.
The goal is not to stop having opinions about anything at all.
The goal is to know which part comes from the facts and which part comes from the frame.
Questions to reflect on
Which words immediately trigger a positive or negative reaction in me?
What meaning is already built into those words?
How would the same situation sound when described by someone with an opposite viewpoint?
Can I describe the event without evaluative labels?
Which facts remain standing then?
Which information is brought to the foreground, and what stays out of view?
Do I use friendlier words for the same behavior when talking about my own group than when talking about another group?
Have I adopted labels about people or groups from my upbringing without ever consciously examining them?
How would I view a person if I temporarily set aside the group label?
Do I use words like ‘apostate,’ ‘worldly,’ ‘cult,’ or ‘brainwashed’ as a description — or is my conclusion already built into the word?
And perhaps the most important:
If I change the
words...
do my
arguments remain
just as strong?Summary
The framing effect shows that the way information is phrased can influence how people judge it. Classic research shows that logically equivalent choices can trigger different preferences when they are presented, for example, as gains or losses.
Framing does not automatically mean manipulation. Every form of communication involves selection and wording, and the effects vary greatly depending on the situation.
Framing becomes especially interesting when the chosen words already contain an interpretation, emotional evaluation, or comparison.
Not only ask:
“Is this true?”
but also:
“How is this
being presented
to me?”Language about groups can also create a frame. When children repeatedly hear negative labels about an ethnic, religious, or other group, that language can contribute to the development and spread of stereotypes. However, that process involves more than framing alone; social influence, stereotyping, and learned beliefs also play a role.
That principle also applies when people speak about Jehovah’s Witnesses, and when Jehovah’s Witnesses speak about people outside or opposed to the community.
That is why a useful habit is:
temporarily remove the label, first describe what is actually happening, and then decide what interpretation you want to give it.
Sources and further reading
Amos Tversky & Daniel Kahneman (1981), The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice, Science, 211(4481), 453–458. The classic study on how different ways of phrasing the same decision situation can change preferences.
Anton Kühberger (1998), The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75(1), 23–55. A meta-analysis of 136 framing studies with nearly 30,000 participants; it shows both the existence of framing effects and important differences between research conditions.
Irwin P. Levin, Sandra L. Schneider & Gary J. Gaeth (1998), All Frames Are Not Created Equal. An important overview that distinguishes between different forms of valence framing, including risky-choice, attribute, and goal framing.
Barbara J. McNeil, Stephen G. Pauker, Harold C. Sox & Amos Tversky (1982), On the Elicitation of Preferences for Alternative Therapies, New England Journal of Medicine. Research among patients, students, and doctors in which treatment choices changed depending on, among other things, whether information was framed in terms of survival or mortality.
Alexander J. Rothman & Peter Salovey (1997), Shaping Perceptions to Motivate Healthy Behavior: The Role of Message Framing. About gain- and loss-framing in health communication and the conditions under which different frames can have an effect.
Cochrane-review – Framing of Health Information Messages. Review of 35 studies with over 16,000 participants. Important nuance: positive and negative frames sometimes affect perceptions, but effects on actual behavior have not been shown consistently.
Camiel J. Beukeboom & Christian Burgers (2019), How Stereotypes Are Shared Through Language. An extensive overview of how labels and word choice can contribute to communicating and maintaining social stereotypes.
Jehovah’s Witnesses – Apostasy, apostate, Insight on the Scriptures. Official JW source that makes clear the religious meaning of the terms apostasy and apostate within their own belief framework.
Jehovah’s Witnesses – explanation of ‘spirit of the world’ and apostasy. Official sources in which terms such as world and apostasy are described within the organization’s religious interpretive framework.
