Those of you who have studied NLP or persuasive communication are familiar with the concept of perceptual frames. The metaphor is fairly obvious: a window frame, for example, limits what we see on the other side of the window; a photographer can choose what is included in the frame of a photo by trimming the image so that it focuses on, say, one person instead of a group. The concept has been adopted by psychology for the purpose of understanding the context that determines how something is interpreted.
All communication (all? Yes, all…) occurs within a contextual frame. In general, communicators are successful to the degree they employ effective frames for their ideas. One of the best-known examples of framing and reframing is the exchange between Thomas A. Edison and a reporter who said that he had failed in his efforts to invent the light bulb. (Rumor puts the number of “failed” experiments at 10,000.) Edison said that he had not failed but had rather discovered one more way not to make a light bulb. The reporter’s frame was failure. Edison’s reframed failure as discovery. If you are going to succeed at anything, Edison’s perceptual frame is a better starting place than the reporter’s.
When companies put something on sale, they focus on how much you will save when you buy rather than on how much you will need to spend to purchase the product or service. You might save $100, but you still spend $900…. The frame is saving, and if you accept that frame, you are more likely to buy than you would be if you reframed the saving as spending. We currently have similar political example in which Democrats are framing some things as investments, while Republicans are framing them as unnecessary spending.
The frame is controlled by what is called chunking in NLP. The term includes both the size—specific detail or big picture—and the category. Changing the size requires chunking up or chunking down. An example would be the difference between a “wheel” (small chunk) and “automobile” (big chunk). Changing the category of the frame would include lateral shifts to “trucks” or “motorcycles.” These are all, of course, subsets of a larger frame, “ground transportation.” In framing or reframing, you set the frame (or the reframe) on where you want to focus your audience’s attention.
As you begin (or continue) your exploration of framing and reframing, start noticing frames being set in advertising and other persuasive information. Where does the “speaker,” whether an individual or a commercial spokesperson, want you to focus your attention. You may have already noticed that some restaurants focus on “bargain” meals, while others focus on beer or wine selection, family dining, or elegant dinners. The frame being set in each case is chosen for its appeal to a specific audience. The other thing to be aware of is that some frames imply that the choices are either/or, while others encourage an exploration of options. Do you have to choose an automobile or a motorcycle, or could you have both?
The perceptual “frame” in any situation is, of course, not the only factor in how people decide. Individual personal histories and cultural beliefs also influence which perceptual frames people are likely to find persuasive. A number of cartoons have addressed the issue of income taxes, government spending, and the national debt in the U.S., by pointing out that people tend to want all government spending reduced except the spending that benefits them. It doesn’t matter much how the discussion is framed, for most people the single most important factor shaping belief is a vested interest.
The only problem with this is that what appeals to people in the immediate present may not be good for them in the long run. Ask a child, do you want a cookie now or a dozen cookies tomorrow, and most children will take the cookie now. We forget that both setting frames and reframing are also influenced by time. We can chunk up, chunk down, chunk laterally, and chunk based on time—past, present, and future. When you think about time as an important function of the perceptual frame, you might wonder what factors would influence children to delay their cookie gratification. How mature does a child need to be before being able to recognize the benefits of choosing the dozen cookies tomorrow instead of taking the one today? If the ability to delay gratification is a hallmark of maturity, framing (or reframing) with focus on the future may not be especially effective. If it were otherwise, far fewer people would have accumulated so much credit-card debt.
The next time you see a TV commercial or hear a political speech, pay attention to how the product or issue is being framed. Note whether the frame being presented is a reframe of a previous message. Is it a chunk up, chunk down, a lateral chunk, or a time-frame chunk? You can have some fun while developing your awareness of the power of framing and reframing, can’t you.
