Decision Tips
Be aware of the frame you’re using.
First umpire: “Some’s balls and some’s strikes, and I calls ’em as they is.”
Second umpire: “Some’s balls and some’s strikes, and I calls ’em as I sees ’em.”
Third umpire: “Some’s balls and some’s strikes, but they ain’t nothin’ till I calls ’em.”
—H. Cantril
The following story demonstrates the link between framing and decision making:1 Two young priests were heavy smokers and somewhat troubled about this habit when they were praying. The first asked his bishop: “Would it be permissible for me to smoke while praying to the Lord?” The bishop responded with a resounding “No.” The second priest asked the same bishop permission, but worded his question a bit differently. He asked: “During those moments of weakness when I smoke, would it be permissible for me to say a prayer to the Lord?” The answer to the second priest was: “Yes, of course, my son.” Notice how the way that the two questions were worded changed the decision that the bishop made.
Frames are mental structures we create for interpreting meaning.2 Because we communicate with language, words shape frames. By changing words, we change the way we see and understand. It often helps to think of framing as analogous to what a photographer does. The visual world is huge and ambiguous. When photographers aim their cameras and focus on a specific shot, they frame their photos. They focus attention on what they believe is most relevant. As decision makers, we do the same thing when we define a problem, review our options, or estimate probabilities. The way we define a problem, for instance, goes a long way toward shaping how it’s likely to be solved. As a case in point, a friend of mine has been out of work for nearly a year. He keeps talking about his problem as being a “lack of job opportunities.” When I listen to him, I hear him saying that he doesn’t know what he wants to do, so I see his problem as a “lack of goals.” My friend spends his days searching for job listings and sending out hundreds of resumes for a wide variety of jobs. Because I’ve framed his problem as an absence of goals, I’d be spending time assessing my skills and abilities and then trying to refine what it is I’m looking for. Although it’s irrelevant which of us is right, the fact is that our actions differ depending on the frame we choose.
Frames determine which aspects in a situation will be attended to and which will be filtered out. And, like photos, their downside is that they create blind spots. Frames must, by definition, leave things out, so they can distort what we see and create incorrect reference points. By drawing our attention to specific aspects of a situation and highlighting them, while at the same time downplaying or omitting other aspects, frames can lead us astray.
Plastic surgeons look at the same faces you and I do, and they see more imperfect noses.
Why might people frame similar problems differently? The answer is that our frames are rooted in our experience, training, and culture.3 Plastic surgeons look at the same faces you and I do, and they see more imperfect noses. And the training of engineers and artists leads them to see the world differently from each other. Similarly, different cultures teach their young different value frames.4 The British teach the values of democracy while Cubans are taught the superiority of socialism. Americans value assertiveness; Swedes don’t. These values shape what we focus on and what we ignore.
One of the most well-documented findings related to framing is that people treat perceived losses considerably differently than perceived gains.5 When decision outcomes are framed as avoiding losses, we are more willing to take risks. When framed as a gain, we tend to be risk averse. Also, our response to loss is more extreme than our response to gain. The pain associated with losing money is generally considerably greater than the pleasure associated with winning a similar amount. Losing $1,000, for instance, is likely to make you twice as miserable as gaining $1,000 will make you happy. Loss aversion explains my wife’s reluctance to invest in stocks. She obsesses on the possibility that a stock she buys might go down in price.
This difference in risk propensity means the way a potential outcome is described can have a large effect on our behavior. For instance, the way that results from cancer treatment are presented have been shown to influence how people respond.6 More lung cancer patients select surgery when they’re told they have a 68 percent chance of living for more than one year compared to being told that surgery results in a 32 percent chance of dying within a year. When faced with a decision involving a potential loss, we are more willing to take risks to avoid the loss. This helps explain why so many of us don’t sell stocks when we have losses. We focus on how much we’d lose if we sold the stock rather than how much profit we might be giving up if we put that money into another stock. During the dot.com boom of the late 1990s, a lot of investors continued to believe that Internet stocks, many of which had dropped more than 90 percent, would rebound: “I paid $11 for Pets.com. Now it’s $2. It’ll come back.” However, Pets.com stock dropped to 19 cents the day of its liquidation in November 2000.
There is no shortage of instances where the way a problem is framed significantly influences the way people respond. In business, for instance, you’re more likely to sell an expensive item—a home, artwork, a classic car, and so on—if you can successfully frame the sale to a potential buyer as an investment rather than an expense. And, of course, the politics of gun control in the United States has been largely shaped by the National Rifle Association’s (NRA’s) argument that gun control is a second amendment “freedom” issue. The NRA has successfully shaped public opinion to think of gun control as taking away a citizen’s right to bear arms.
The recommendations to you are, first, be aware of the frame you’re using. What does it emphasize? What are its weaknesses? Second, make sure your frame appropriately fits the problem. A lot of us get emotionally attached to a certain frame and tend to apply it universally. For instance, although trusting others may be appropriate most of the time, there are times where this frame leads to a poor decision. Third, try to reframe problems in a different way and see whether this changes your decision. For instance, a high school teacher I know, who has taught for several decades, considers all his students lazy and irresponsible. When he began teaching an advanced placement class, this frame got him into trouble. He got a lot better results when he reframed his new class as made up of students who were curious and ambitious. Finally, continually challenge your frame by trying to falsify it. Why might it be wrong? A friend of mine—a social worker—was making herself miserable because she was convinced that work organizations are psychic prisons. She strongly believed that they constrained members by constructing job descriptions, departments, rules, and regulations that limited choice. Her opinion and attitude changed somewhat when I challenged her to consider the flaws in this frame. She then proceeded to build a strong case that organizations are cooperative systems, where individuals and groups work together to attain common goals.
Be aware of the frame you’re using.
Make sure your frame fits the problem.
Try to reframe your problem in different ways.
Challenge your frame by trying to falsify it.