Framing Bias In Action

Most humans like to think that they are rational, and that their decisions are made based off of facts. They also like to think that their memories are an accurate record of things that have happened to them, but actually, cognitive biases skew people's decision-making, and even their memories. 

For example, the way a question is "framed" can influence how people think about it. Companies like Nestle use the term "fun size" to describe one of their smallest candy sizes, in an effort to put a positive spin on the fact that you are getting less substance for your money, and so far the marketing technique has worked very well.

A popular example of the frame bias effect is shown in this study:

"Imagine you work for the Center for Disease Control and there is an outbreak of a deadly disease  in a town of 600 people. All 600 people in the town will die if you do nothing. You have come up with two different programs to fight the disease:

With Program 1: 200 people in the town will be saved
With Program 2: There is a 1/3rd probability that 600 people will be saved, and a 2/3rds probability that no people will be saved.

In the study, 72 percent of the subjects picked Program 1. Now consider the same scenario worded differently:

With Program 3: 400 people in the town will die
With Program 4: There is a 1/3rd probability that nobody will die, and a 2/3rds probability that 600 people will die.

In the study, 78 percent of the subjects picked Program 4, even though the net result of the second set of choices is exactly the same as the first set

 (Programs 1 and 3 mean the same thing, and Programs 2 and 4 mean the same thing)."

Another great example showing how framing can affect your memory is found in Aldert Vrij’s book Detecting Lies and Deceit. He  talked about a study that showed how framing can influence your memories :

"Participants saw a film of a traffic accident and then answered questions about the event, including the question ‘About how fast were the cars going when they contacted each other?’ Other participants received the same information, except that the verb ‘contacted’ was replaced by either hit, bumped, collided, or smashed. Even though all of the participants saw the same film, the wording of the questions affected their answers. The speed estimates (in miles per hour) were 31, 34, 38, 39, and 41, respectively.

One week later, the participants were asked whether they had seen broken glass at the accident site. Although the correct answer was ‘no,’ 32% of the participants who were given the ‘smashed’ condition said that they had. Hence the wording of the question can influence their memory of the incident."


But the place where framing bias is easiest to spot is in politics. Politicians have been using this strategy for hundreds of years, and political terms are constantly changing in an effort to stay on the positive side of public opinion.

Case in point, Lenin of communist fame used the technique when naming his political factions. His supporters were originally known by the russian word for "hard," and Martov's supporters were known as "soft," the word choice carrying the connotation that he and his people were strong and that the opposing party was weak. As soon as his supporters defeated Martov's in the question of party membership (by a very very narrow margin) he changed the terms to "Bolsheviks" based off the russian word for majority, and "Mensheviks" based off the russian word for minority, once again cleverly implying that his party is stronger, and his terminology became self-fulfilling, since his party did end up becoming the stronger party. If Martov had been a shrewder politician and changed the name of his political faction to something that the public had positive connotations with he could potentially have sustained his party and history might have turned out differently.

In more recent years, politicians are aware of the strategy and fight fire with fire. When the group who protests abortion chose to take on the name "pro-life," they not only made their name positive but made their opposition's implied name negative; no one wants to be associated with "anti-life!" group. Their opposition didn't fall into the trap, instead choosing the name "pro-choice," another term with a positive connotation.

Framing terms profoundly influences people, and the scariest part about them is that they can manipulate your feelings about an issue without you necessarily being aware. However, when you recognize that these biases exist, it's easier to keep their phrasing from influencing your decision too much. Next time you hear an advertisement or a politician trying to convince you of something, listen closely and try to look at the content instead of the presentation.

Classical Conditioning in Advertising

       The people who work in advertising and marketing are masters of classical conditioning. They use Pavlov's techniques to their advantage, coupling their products with catchy tunes and pleasing visuals and exposing the public to these advertisements over and over again until their brand and product are ingrained in the viewer's mind. In an attempt to sell their product, companies compete to catch the consumer's attention.  

Take, for example, Rick Perry's presidential campaign ad. It bears remarkable similarities to an action movie trailer. 

the intended effect can be observed in this equation: 

action movie stars = cool

"action movie" starring Rick Perry = cool

Rick Perry = cool

This is not your typical presidential campaign ad. Indeed, it gives you hardly any information about Rick Perry's political party, his history, his experience, or even the issues he is passionate about. Instead, the campaign attempts to tap into the emotions people associate with action movies.

Compare Perry's ad with the movie trailer for I am Legend.  

                 

Both are filmed in the same choppy, adrenaline-inducing style, and have similar background music intended to increase the viewer's anticipation. They even use the same font!

Rick Perry's advertising campaign's thought process probably went something like this:
How can we target the young voter's age demographic? By using something that appeals to them.  How can we make an over 60-year-old Republican appealing to that demographic? Create an image of him as a hero.

Therefore, the first 40 seconds of the ad focus on Obama, the "Zero President." It juxtaposes images of an abandoned country and increasingly urgent news casts that report high poverty rates with audio of Obama denying that anything is wrong with the economy. The tone is bleak, the lighting dark, and the buildings and billboards are crumbling.

Then, "In 2012" flashes on the screen. Suddenly everything is brighter: the world is repopulated with healthy kids. Paparazzi take photos of Perry. He is shown shaking hands with American workers. He wears his Air Force suit. "The United States of America really is the last great hope for mankind!" he says.


As far as conditioning goes, this ad might influence people. Americans want the leader of their country to be a heroic figure.  When we watch action movies, we willingly suspend our disbelief, and root for the protagonist when he faces overwhelming odds. By establishing himself as the protagonist, Rick Perry associates himself with all the childhood heros of Americans.

 Another influential point regarding the ad is that it is not boring. In my age demographic, the group of people who are just now receiving the right to vote,  many are politically apathetic. However, though only a small percentage of them will turn up to vote, hordes of young adults will show up for the premiere of the latest exciting action movie. The same applies to advertisements on TV. Many potential voters zone out when a political ad comes on. Perry's ad seems like a movie trailer when it begins, and therefore people will be less likely to tune it out; by the time they realize it's a political campaign, it will be almost over, and they will be much more likely to watch the ending.

I think that Rick Perry's campaign team is using conditioning by likening Perry to a hero in an action movie. Even though they don't provide any proof or documentation of heroic acts, they use filming principles so that people will remember his name, and vote him for President, even if they can't pinpoint what he has done. Time will tell if their advertising is effective or not.

The fallacy of positive instances in conspiracy theory

Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? 

To understand, we look no farther than the prophet Nostradamus. In the 16th century, he wrote: 

 "Beasts wild with hunger will cross the rivers, 
The greater part of the battle will be against Hister,

He will cause great men to be dragged in a cage of iron,

When the son of Germany obeys no law."

and another prophecy:

"Out of the deepest part of the west of Europe,

from poor people a young child shall be born,

Who with his tongue shall seduce many people,

His fame shall increase in the Eastern Kingdom."


"He shall come to tyrannize the land.

He shall raise up a hatred that had long been dormant.

The child of Germany observes no law.

Cries, and tears, fire, blood, and battle."

Hundreds of people have read these words and reached the conclusion that Nostradamus predicted the rise and fall of Hitler thousands of years before his birth. Even the name "Hister" is almost identical to Hitler. Hitler was born to impoverished parents, became a great orator, and tyrannized the land, increasing hatred of the Jewish people. What are the odds? 

If this seems too amazing to be a coincidence, you might be falling prey to the fallacy of positive instances. Let me explain.

Imagine you go on a blind date, and discover that the other person owns the same model of car that you own. You dismiss it as a neat coincidence. 

Later on you learn that they have a sister with the same name as your sister, and both sisters were born in April. You start to wonder if this is confirmation that it's meant to be. 

As the evening continues, you discover that you both own all six Star Wars movies, and the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy on dvd. You loved the same television shows as a child. You both love ice cream, you both hate spam. You are made for each other.

Before you run off to Vegas to get married, let's take a moment to put things into perspective.

How many people on Earth own that model of car? How common is your sister's name? Since you grew up in the same decade as this person, is it that unusual that you watched the same television shows as a child? Star Wars and Lord of the Rings are very culturally relevant and most people your age have at least seen the movies. Almost everyone loves ice cream. Many people hate spam. 

Now think about the things you don't share an interest in; the reason you spent most of the evening talking about the things mentioned above is because you have them in common. You weren't able to discuss music at all because they like country and you like hip-hop. Your mothers have different names, and are born in different months. Your fathers have different names and are born in different months. You don't even have a brother. 

We tend to remember or notice information that supports our desires, and forget discrepancies. This is known as the fallacy of positive instances. 

When you are amazed by the idea of Nostradamus predicting Hitler, you ignore the fact that he wrote almost a thousand vague predictions, most of which have not "come true." When you discover that Hister is the Latin name for the Danube River, not the name of a person, his prediction seems even less dazzling. 

The most compelling argument against Nostradamus' psychic abilities is that his "true" predictions are the result of random chance, and creative interpretation. Because of the sheer volume of his predictions, it's certainly possible that some events would seem to fit, simply by coincidence. Not to mention that most of his quatrains refer to deaths, wars, or natural disasters - events that are guaranteed to happen over and over again throughout history.

So next time you come across a coincidence that's too good to be true, take a moment to weigh the number of positive correlations against the number of facts that don't correlate at all. Many a conspiracy theory is easily debunked if you take into account all the facts that don't correlate.