rkipp
New Member
Posts: 34 
|
Post by rkipp on Apr 25, 2016 18:20:05 GMT
Framing, the concept of manipulating how things are presented to people, alters people's decision making and judgement. I attached a link to a video that gives a lot of good examples of how framing surrounds us all the time through business marketing, politics, the media, and even NASA. One of the most shocking uses of framing I learned about from the video was how when NASA was trying to decide whether or not to launch the space shuttle Challenger, engineers originally said no due to safety concerns, but when their general managers told them to view the launch from a management perspective regarding the money involved, the engineers changed their mind and unfortunately allowed the ill-fated launch to occur. This launch resulted in 7 deaths due to the Challenger breaking apart. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv3dPd2iwB4Thus, framing not only influences us to buy Starbucks over The Coffee Bean, but has much larger ethical concerns regarding people's lives. Even some of the most intelligent people in the world (i.e. the engineers at NASA) fall victim to framing. So why do you think people so easily fall victim to framing? Is it an innate trait for humans to only focus on one particular aspect of an argument, or is it possible for us to eventually learn how to re-evaluate information given to us? Or perhaps are we as humans subconsciously too lazy to really look at an issue from all ends? |
|
|
|
Post by cliffordzhang on Apr 25, 2016 20:34:21 GMT
I think it has to do with the diversion of consequence and responsibility which results into the concept of framing. Much like the electric shock experiment we saw in discussion, when the "teachers" felt like an authority figure was responsible for their actions, they were more likely to administer the shock. So when those engineers were influenced by their managers, it probably made them think that they could divert any blame to someone else, and thus chose to go through with the launch.
|
|
|
|
Post by connorthompson on Apr 25, 2016 20:55:24 GMT
I definitely agree with what cliffordzhang had to say. I think people often doubt themselves, and want to believe in the best case scenario. Perhaps even the NASA scientists knew the launch would be a failure, but the influence of the managers gave them the best case scenario, appealing to a misplaced optimism. Thus, I think it's critically important for humans to develop critical thinking skills and self-confidence. We have a tendency to doubt ourselves, to believe the stranger in a suit on television or the fake doctor on the prozac commercial. Only by thinking critically and questioning authorities can we hope to overcome manipulation. |
|
|
|
Post by rebeccah on Apr 26, 2016 20:47:21 GMT
I think humans are very prone to making fast decisions, so naturally, they will take whatever information they are given and will only use that to make decisions. For me, the example about the disease outbreak was very helpful in understanding this. When people were given the option of 1/3 chance that everyone will survive, they were a lot more likely to make a riskier decision because the other option was 400 people definitely dying, which seems more directly related to harming the individual. When it was stated that 200 people would survive or 2/3 chance everyone will die, the less risky option was chosen. In reality, these are the exact same scenarios, but the way the choices were presented (or framed), determined people's choices.
This also relates to police investigations. Leading questions can cause a witness or suspect to answer differently than if the question was framed differently. Framing can be used to trick people into giving the answer they want. We so frequently fall victi to this because we use the little information we have to come to an answer and the way the question is asked has a great effect on what our answer will be.
|
|
rkipp
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by rkipp on Apr 26, 2016 21:39:01 GMT
cliffordzhang I think that is an excellent point. It reminds me of the bystander effect we discussed earlier and how when there are multiple people involved in a situation, those people feel that responsibility is more diffused and thus they do not need to worry about their response. If something goes wrong, they have others to blame. @rebeccah your examples also remind me of the memory lab we did in this cluster (when we were asked how fast a car was going when they smashed into a car, versus when it collided, hit, or bumped). These different words caused different responses, as seen with your examples too. This is why our critical thinking and questioning is so important, as connorthompson said. Or else perhaps we need new techniques in which we convey information for the sake of people's lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by lilyzhuo on Apr 27, 2016 1:07:28 GMT
I think we do like to focus on only one aspect of an argument, because researching both sides and coming to a decision rationally and logically takes too much time, and we often have to make quick decisions, and a lot of them. We re-evaluate information given to us when there's time, the consequences/implications of the decision are great or self-involving, or someone/something gives us a reason to question the information. I definitely agree with the point rebeccah made about the police investigations and framing questions. This is especially prevalent during the trial, when witnesses are being cross-examined - the questions are purposely phrased sometimes to incriminate someone (through what the question assumes), or they omit certain information.
|
|
|
|
Post by dchang on Apr 27, 2016 2:18:05 GMT
I think people easily become victims of framing because like what Clifford said, we choose to believe in things we want to believe in. Thus, because there always exists some sort of bias within us, it is often better to have a third party evaluate the decision, as mentioned in the video. Because the decision of the third party is not influenced in any way by circumstantial factors, these people may often times produce a more logical decision of the crisis at hand. I think that it is possible for people to re-evaluate information given to them, yet most of the time we are innately prone to focus on one particular aspect that we have a bias towards. While laziness may be a factor of us failing to look at both sides of the argument, often times I think that the reason of framing is mostly the result of a preset bias that we want ourselves to believe in or a bias that may be more beneficial to us.
|
|
rkipp
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by rkipp on Apr 27, 2016 8:14:54 GMT
I agree @dchang and personally think it is nearly impossible for us to not have a preset bias in situations. However, as you said, through the use of a third party, or by people taking a second to recognize their biases, then we can hopefully lessen the negative effects of framing.
|
|
|
|
Post by elipshutz on Apr 28, 2016 3:42:46 GMT
When I read this I think about the memory experiment we did in class. How when we saw the two cars get into an accident people produced different responses saying how fast they thought the two cars were going based on whether the question asked whether the cars "hit" or "crashed." Before this experiment I never would have guessed that the two words word create such a drastically different response. However it was the slight difference in how the question was framed that made the overall difference. When I was a kid I would use this to my benefit and if I was asking my parents for something I would try to frame the question in a way where I would get the answer I was hoping for. I don't think that as humans people are lazy if they fall victim to framing, I just think the are humans. That we are not always aware that we are doing it, just like people are not always aware of everything going on in their mind. An example of this is when I am dreaming and a issue comes up that I wasn't even aware was bothering me. We are beings who do not fully understand ourselves or people around us, even though sometimes we would like to think that we do.
|
|
|
|
Post by krish97 on Apr 28, 2016 20:18:36 GMT
I think there's something innately neurological about framing in the sense that the way something is framed it triggers something within the brain. What I mean by this is that framing things differently will cause different neuron pathways to fire that eventually lead to a different outcome. However, just like the video said, if you have more viewpoints coming in, that's a tonne more neurons been activated that will ultimately lead to a different decision. I'm super curious to see what parts of the brain are being activated when doing the different problems presented in the Prospect Theory readings!
|
|
rkipp
New Member
Posts: 34
|
Post by rkipp on Apr 30, 2016 1:29:39 GMT
Interesting point elipshutz The idea of how we are not always aware of what we are doing reminds me of the discussion we had the 1st week of class about advertising. We claim that we do not listen to ads in regards to what we buy, but in reality the ads really do impact us - without us consciously being aware. I agree with you krish97 and think it would be interesting to see scans of the brain during different situations. I also wonder if other factors, like how quickly the decision needs to be made, or if the seriousness of the situation (firing a spaceship vs. buying food) impacts different parts of the brain? |
|
