Framing, Reframing and Preframing

Warning: none of this stuff has been field tested. In fact, I would not even recommend doing so, except for the heck of it. It is only an exercise to figure out how framing works. I also raise some questions at the end of this post.

Framing, Reframing and Preframing basically are changing the meaning of a situation, event or decision and changing the focal point of attention. The ideas here are based on
Influence at Work.

You can decide whether or not you want to read this post on framing. Perhaps you want to do it now because you are interested and motivated to learn this powerful persuasion technique of framing. Then again, if you do not read it, you might miss tremendous opportunities just because you were too lazy to read this post.

“Framing a decision in terms of possible loss should motivate a person more than framing the same decision in terms of possible gain.”

Framing a decision in negative terms makes people willing to take greater risks compared to framing the same decision in positive terms. Thus, you can say “it will be nice talking to you again,” or, “Wouldn't it be a case of really bad karma if we never ever get to talk to each other again ? So, what steps can we take to avoid such a dreadful experience and eternal regret ?”

Question. Is it useful to use both the negative and the positive frame in one go ? For example, “When we go dancing, it will be a lot of fun. And besides, if you don't go, you would hit yourself because you have missed such a wonderful time together. Now, with me, I think that's a pity.”

At the influenceatwork site, the author gives a 5 step Frame Defense to get out of a frame set by another person. Below, I try to Reverse Engineer his Frame Defense so that you can develop better frames on the spot.

1. Write the decision, with “vs.” between issues. Then ask: “Are these truly the issues, or have they shifted?” If so, reframe.

1.A: Leave out the “vs.” or the option of decision.

“Let's go and get a drink.” No other option. “Do you want to get a drink ?” No "vs." and focuses attention (frame) towards getting a drink “Let's go for a walk and we'll see where we'll end up” Shift attention to where you are going, not whether you are going

1.B: Propose two similar options, thus preframing by presupposing.

“Do you want to go to Bar A or Bar B ?” Presupposing you will have a drink together. “Do you want to meet Friday or Saturday ?” Presupposing you will meet. “Do you want to go for a walk or would you rather leave and go someplace else ?”

Objection: “No, I won't give you my number.” Reframe: “How about this ... I will give you my number and you give me yours, sounds fair ?”

1.C: Suggest two contrasting options, one of which is very appealing and the other one is not at all.

“Would you like to go for a drink and have a nice chat, or would you rather stay here and read those boring text books ?” Whereas the real issue might be “get drunk” vs. “pass exam.” “Do you want to go dancing, or would you rather stay a wall flower ?” “Do you want to learn to be a PUA, or do you prefer going home alone ?” By omission. You don't need to be a PUA to no go home alone. “Do you want to take steps to talk to each other again, or would you rather lose out on the opportunity to have a good time ?”

1.D: Shift the issues. Dealing with objections.

Objection. “I don't have the time.” Reframe: “It's not a matter of having time. Time is a strange thing. Sometimes you are out with friends and time will go by very fast. And sometimes you are standing in line waiting and time slows down. Time is basically an illusion. You have the time. Do you have the desire ?” Time issue turns into desire issue. Reframe: “It's 8.30 am. So now you have the time.” Reframe: “Neither do I. Let us schedule some time in a couple of weeks when we both have the time.”

Objection: “I cannot go out with you because you are shorter than me.” Reframe: “Looking from the moon, all of us are just as small.” Reframe: “That's okay. I cannot go out with you because you are lighter than me.” (Ridiculing the frame.) Reframe: “Yes, your friends would kill you for it.” (Insinuating that she thinks so because of her friends.)

Objection: “I don't kiss on the first date.”

I have created a number of frames to counter this objection.

“Well, today's date is the fifteenth of November, so I guess it's your lucky day.”

“Well, it's not our first date. It's our second, because the first date was when I met you.”

“Well, you won't be kissing. I will do all the kissing.”

“So just don't kiss me. I won't hold back though. But you have to promise me not to kiss me back because you don't kiss on the first date.”

“Well, that's okay. We won't be kissing. It's more like biting and licking.”

“Well, it's not kissing. We are only touching each other's lips. I mean when I touch my lips with my fingers, are my fingers kissing my mouth ? If I touch your lips with my fingers, am I kissing you ? So, when my lips touch your lips, we aren't actually kissing, we are just touching each other on the lips.”

“Well, kissing isn't really an issue, now is it ? I mean, what is important here is that we can freely get to know each other and open up to each other. And when that happens, kissing is only a natural consequence.”

“So, you always kiss on the second date regardless of the connection you feel with this person ? Now, with me, I think that the important reason for kissing someone is that you really feel close to this person and that you want to share an intimate moment together. Now with me, when that happens, it is honestly irrelevant what date it is.”

“What if you have a date with your ideal partner who has one belief that if his date doesn't kiss him on the first date, she is probably not attracted to him (or a prude) and thus never calls you again ? Pretty silly having such a rule, isn't it ?”

“Do you have rules for everything you do and do not do, or do you actually decide based on the situation ?”

“Who taught you that rule ? Your mommy when you were fourteen ?”

“When did you come up with that rule ? When you were thirteen ?”

2. If a decision seems to be a simple open-and-shut case, ask, “What other frames would be appropriate Is this decision really this simple or is an existing frame making it seem so ?”

2A: Make a decision seem like a simple open-and-shut case. Do not offer alternative frames.

“How often to you meet someone whom you can talk to and connect with just after meeting them ? To walk away from such an opportunity would be a shame. Now, why don't we go skating next Saturday ?”

“I am curious whether you have noticed how well we are getting along here ? Now, with me, having a good time with people is one of my favorite things and it is worth keeping in touch with those whom you have a good time with. Now, what can we do to make sure that we keep in touch ?”

2B: Offer so many frames that you seem to have covered all possibilities.

(This siteadvises against offering against overloading the customer with options. Kenrick Cleveland, however, uses overload to confuse the listener and then to shoot the question that they will confirm just to get out of the confusion.)

“We could go skating next Friday. Or you come with me to that party on Saturday. Or we could go to that jazz concert on Sunday. Or we can go to the beach on Saturday.” “Uhm ...” “Tell you what, let's have a cup of coffee right down there and we can talk about it.”

3. Remember that you are in charge of your frames. Ask yourself, “What's important here ?” and then act accordingly.

3A: Do not give them the opportunity to stop and think about “What's important, here ?” For example, by using time constraints (you're leaving now) when you keep on talking after the suggestion, or when you immediately change the topic afterwards.

“We're leaving now. Do you want to come with us now, or would you rather stay alone by yourself and read while we're off having a drink ?”

“We're leaving now. Do you want to come now or will you join us later ?”

“Hey, you know what ? Can you imagine how nice it would be to get together on Halloween ? (That was the frame, now you keep talking.) I just love Halloween. You know, as a kid, wearing those costumes and masks, you can feel so free ...”

3B: Stress the importance of your arguments, either verbally or non-verbally. You can underline the importance of your arguments by appealing to authority, or any other of Cialdini's principles (authority, liking, scarcity, consistency / commitment, reciprocity and social proof).

“I think it is important that we get to know each other soon because we will be working together often.”

“Everybody thinks it is a good idea that we all go now.”

“This is a once in a lifetime opportunity, so if you miss it together, we will never be able to get it right.”

3C: Add a reason to your argument, it will make it stronger. People are programmed to react to verbal indicators because it indicates a justified reason so that people will more likely comply. (See Mindlessness page)

“Come with us. It will be fun.” “Fun” has little to do with coming with you. “Come with us, because it will be fun.” Obviously, you completely ignore what the consequences of coming with you, or not staying, are. Or, one could also consider a third option, i.e. to go and see a film with a friend. Or to read a book by yourself. “It will be fun. Come with us.” “It will be fun, so you have to come with us.” “It will be no fun unless you're there.” “It will be even more fun when you are there.”

4. If you encounter a situation in which a communicator stands to benefit from your compliance, ask: “What's the agenda for the person presenting this information ? Why is this particular aspect of the topic being made salient ?” Be suspicious. Attempt to counter with alternate frames.

4A: Make it seem as though you have nothing to benefit from her compliance.

“Oh, ahhh. Jane asked if you're going to come to the party too.” “It would be nice for you to come tomorrow so you can get to meet some new people.” “Everybody will be happy to see you.” (Social proof and focus away from you.)

4B: Allow for no time / possibility to think about it. Humor would be good too.

“We're leaving now. Are you going to come with us and have a good time or would you rather stay ? What ? A smart girl like you shouldn't have to think that long about such a question. Or aren't you (that smart) ?”

Alternately, “Wow. That's a really difficult question, isn't it ? Tell you what. We'll go to the bar and you can call me in half an hour, okay ?”

5. Beware of anything that physically frames. Like a TV ! Notice its wider-than-tall proportion, and the way the TV case surrounds the picture tube ? It's a frame ! Anything you see on TV has already been framed for you. The same goes for the web, radio, newspapers, and magazines, as well as pictures in museums ! A frame isn't necessarily bad, but keep in mind that it does require you to view the situation from a certain perspective.

I find it difficult to apply step 5 to this situation.

5A: Pictures of you are framed.

5B: A mirror is a frame.

5C: Talk to her through your car window.

5D: Picture of you in the local newspaper (authority).

5E: Email messages and Web pages.

Framing by Position: First, you propose something outrageous, and then when you propose something less outrageous, it will seem very ordinary and common. This is the reasoning behind top of the line, high-priced car models.

“Okay, either we could fly to Paris next weekend, walk around the streets together, along the canals and through the parks, visit the Louvre and perhaps the Musee D'Orsay, or we could just go for a cup of coffee tomorrow afternoon.”

“Hey, why don't you come with me, as we are going to go rock climbing next week. Be sure to upgrade your insurance policy, you never know what will happen. Or we could go for a drink this coming Thursday. What do you think ?”

My Questions:

How can you predict what the most effective frame is ?

How can you set up a frame so that everything during an encounter will be interpreted as “romantic ?”

How can you set up a frame so that you will be interpreted as “the catch” or “attractive ?”

Where could we use the fact that things framed as a loss are more persuasive than things framed as a possible gain ?