How psychology can help us see through propaganda

Hello, I'm Alex Hughes and this is the Instant Genius Podcast, a bite-sized masterclass from the BBC Science Focus magazine, where we interview some of the biggest names in science and tech. The way we frame information is important. Working out what we do and don't believe and how information is being presented to us can impact what we take from conversations, advertisements and even everyday life. MacKale Climpman, or the new book Framing, The Social Art of Influence, talks us through how information is being presented to us and how to know what is true in a world of disinformation. So in your book you address this idea of the social art of influence. Can you explain a little bit more about what you mean by that? Yeah, so first of all, Framing is something we all do constantly. It's how we shape and interpret reality because without it the world would be overwhelming to us. Maybe it already is, but even more so. But I call Framing an Art because like any art it requires skill and creativity and we can think about an art museum as sometimes a frame around a painting as seems just as striking as the artwork itself. And the same goes for Framing in communication. It shapes how we perceive and react to things and almost like magic, Framing can completely change our perception. So ugly shoes can suddenly become fashionable and admired, if you admire shoes, I don't know, if it's framed as ugly fashion. And injustices can be reframed as, well, this is just the way things are. And even facts can be reinterpreted based on who presents the same facts, I would speak. As an example of appalling ways of practicing the art of Framing, we can take segregation for example. So imagine a black family at a bus stop in a segregated society. So the bus arrives and while the back section reserved for black passengers is full, the front meant for a white passenger has empty seats. So the bus driver, it could be a black or white person, opens the door and in a friendly voice says sorry folks, the bus is full. And the family sees the empty seats, the driver sees that they see the empty seats, but that's beside the point. So the bus has been framed as full and everyone acts accordingly until some people started to protest and we have Rosa Parks and all those civil rights movements. But an interesting thing is that the framing to place without any deception, no deception was needed. It was just a cultural framing or racial framing of what could be done in that situation and what couldn't. So that's how framing is an art I would say, for better or worse. And then I claim that framing is social because our reactions depend on who delivers it. And if a statement comes from our own group, we respond very differently than if it comes from an outsider. And framing is also very competitive, political debates for example, or battles over which frame will dominate. So we have terms like tax burden or tax relief that gained cultural resonance first among those more to the right, but then also more to the left. And that shapes how we all think about taxation. And in Sweden, my country, which is traditionally more social democratic, we are actually use the word tax relief as well. There have been politicians, especially one thirty years ago, a minister who tried to frame taxes as something sexy. It's sexy to pay taxes, but that didn't really gain that huge resonances on. And finally, I use the word influence because that framing is a social influence because it isn't just about persuasion. It ranges from unconscious inspiration that we can have without saying anything to deliberate manipulation and propaganda and so on. And framing shapes everything from politics to personal choice, often without us even realizing it. So it's often taking place at the subconscious level and that's how the influence can be especially sneaky and so on. And this is why understanding framing is so important, I would argue. And in your book and you mentioned it a little bit there as well, you talk about these ways that people can influence or how they can frame things. Could you touch on that a little bit more, some of these methods of doing that? Yeah, so in the book I break down four key ways that people have influenced through framing. I call them texturing and tempering, positioning and sizing. And actually these four techniques, so to speak, they come from a combination of my forty-five years of research and studying social dimensions of sustainability and what can make us care about environmental harm and change it and so on. But it also comes from, I actually went into a framer, a guy who frames actually paintings and I tried to say, "Okay, so what can you do with a frame in order to change it?" He leaned towards something that looked similar to these texturing, tempering, positioning and sizing. First texturing, that's the most primitive way of framing, I would argue. It's about making something feel smooth and appealing or rough and unpalatable. And this probably makes some listeners think about Daniel Kahneman's thinking fast, that we need to make quick decisions, very categorical decisions and so on. But marketing and politics can play a lot, making use of that. So one, I think, intriguing example is Swedish caviar. We have a sandwich spread, which we call caviar. It's not at all as exclusive as the Russian or Iranian caviar. But in one commercial, they had a Swedish guy run around in California and in Japan and so on and have people try Swedish caviar, as a test in order to sell it wider. All people who tried the caviar, they cringed and thought it was horrible and "Oh, you cannot eat this. This is just awful." And then the commercials in Sweden ended by saying that, "Well, you only in Sweden, you like Swedish caviar." And it increased the sales of the caviar a lot. Because it reframed something from, you know, if others find it disgusting, we like it and so on. So it's funny this way with a texturing. Secondly, we have the tempering, which is about adjusting the temperature of an issue. It could be to turn up the heat or grab attention or cooling it down to keep things reasonable. And one example that I use in the book is the Amsterdam cycling culture. You know, Amsterdam is, they're often bragging about being the cycling capital of the world. And maybe they still are, but they were quite progressive. But the transformation of the city into a bike-friendly place didn't happen overnight. It was fueled by an emotional campaign where they used the strongest frame tempering you could think about. They talked, said that the car traffic was murdering children. And there were a lot of accidents where children were injured or killed. So that was a basis for it. But child murder was the frame. And that really worked there in combination with other frames and policies and so on. But it's not always that the most heated framing is the most powerful. So we have seen examples around the world where urban pollution is really bad. They have tried to frame the issue as a crime against humanity. That you know, this pollution is a crime against humanity. And it makes sense if you think about how many people get sick and die from urban pollution. But at the same time, it raises the question of who then is the criminal, if it's a crime against humanity. Is it all of us who drive cars or is it a few people who have factories and so on. So there isn't a complete story there and that makes it unlikely that this framing would work. Then the third technique is positioning, which is about shifting how we see something in relation to other things. So we can think about fast food or if we're normative, we can call it junk food. So people all know that it's unhealthy, but that framing alone often doesn't change behavior. But they have shown in experiments that when junk food was reframed as part of a manipulative system designed to exploit consumers, especially teenagers. Finally, we have the Sising, Framing Sising, which is about expanding or contracting a frame. So, who do we think is worth our care? Is it our family? Is it our country? Is it all living beings? And so on. So, expanding our moral circle, we have seen in the recent two centuries, that can lead to more compassion. But there is also a catch that whenever we can expand a frame, we can also contract another. So, if we stretch our concern to include every living being, we might ironically sometimes start caring less about those who are closest to us, or we develop several moral circles based on priorities. So, every frame has limits, and what we decide should be inside and outside the frame matters enormously for how we act. And how's the idea of framing information changed drastically in this sort of era of social media, the internet, a very online culture? Yeah, good question. There, one of our most fascinating changes is how framing now operates at an unprecedented speed and scale. So, while framing has been with us before we became humans, even, we can see it among apes. Apes can be susceptible to frames as well. How food is framed as on. But the speed and scale has increased. So, in traditional media, journalists and editors played a gatekeeping role, shaping how events were framed before they reached the public and so on. But on social media, framing is, of course, much more decentralized. Anyone can, in principle, set a frame and the most effective frames spread rapidly. In the early days of the internet, this was a very romantic view. And so that we're really increasing our democracy. We also know the power aspects of what frames get the most visibility and so on. But still, research shows that frames can evoke moral and emotional reactions like disgust, an outrage or admiration. And those frames are far more likely to go viral. So this builds on classical studies in framing and persuasion. But the effect is amplified online. So in the book, I discuss how studies have found that moralized language increases engagement on social platforms. And when an issue is framed in strongly moral terms, whether about climate change, or public health, or social justice, it triggers a response that makes people more likely to share and reinforce. And perhaps also polarize. Another shift is how framing now exceeds beyond just what is being discussed to who is seen as the source. So the social aspect, whether it's a popular person or person you identify with, is really powerful for whether people believe in the knowledge claim and so on. And research in political psychology shows that people who are presented with the same factual information, they interpret it very differently, depending on who they believe it comes from. So it means that social media where credibility is often tied to identity, rather than expertise. Their framing is no longer just about shaping narratives. It's also about shaping trust as well. [MUSIC PLAYING] So what kind of psychological tricks are people playing on when they try to influence someone or to change someone's understanding? Is it using someone's fear to do that? Yeah, there are quite a few psychological tricks. So one of the most effective tricks is the illusion of consensus. If we believe that everyone holds a certain view, we're far more likely to accept it ourselves. And this is why political campaigns and advertisers and even authoritarian regimes flood the public sphere with repeated messages. And that creates a sense of that a political frame is just common sense. Or as it's not necessarily so. So social media algorithms, they amplify this effect by feeding us content that aligns with what we already believe and making opposing views seem fringe, even if they are wildly held as one. Another powerful trick that I should mention is strategic ambiguity. And this is when people deliberately use vague, emotionally charged language. That different audiences can interpret in ways that suit them. Think, for instance, about the phrase, make America great again. It's not-- there's nothing deceptive about it. But it's a powerful frame that means very different things to different people, which is why it worked so well. And the same goes for corporate greenwashing, brands, use terms like eco-friendly and sustainable without actually committing to anything concrete. So the vagueness make the frame more persuasive because people project their own desires into it. And then there is moral framings, which is especially effective when trying to change someone's stance on an issue. So instead of confronting someone with arguments that appeal to our moral value, you frame the issue using theirs. And research shows that conservatives, for instance, are more likely to support environmental policies when they are framed as protecting national heritage rather than saving the planet. And that ties a bit to the discussions of moral foundations that Jonathan Heights have talked about that I know if you have discussed earlier in this instant genius. So similarly, liberals are more open to military spending when it's framed as protecting humans' rights abroad. And this issue hasn't changed. It's just the way it's framed. And one of my favorites of psychological tricks is strategic distraction. This is when someone shifts the focus away from the real issue by creating a more emotionally gripping alternative. And you can see this in politics all the time, where if a government is facing criticism for economic failures, for instance, suddenly a moral panic about a crime of some kind takes over the headlines. And that's a classic misdirection. Don't look there. Look here. So if someone is presented with one of these kind of situations where someone's been framed to them, or even just like us going around their day-to-day was so much of this happening, what tips would you give someone to better understand how to navigate that kind of world and people's spins on different situations? One of the trickiest things about framing is that it's not just about words. And that's a point I'm making in the book, because framing is often translated as just rhetoric or magic formulations of things, verbal formulations. But it's not just about words. It's embedded in routines, in social structures, and in who gets to speak and when. So imagine you're an intelligent Martian out in outer space looking down on planet Earth, watching a business meeting unfold. So without knowing the language, you still know this patterns. Who talks the most, who gets interrupted, whose opinions are met with nods versus silence, and so on. So there are all implicit frames that shape power and influence and to become aware of this. And we should all try to become a little bit of that Martian looking at the social setting or political setting or whatever from above. And framing is everywhere in daily life, often without us realizing it. So think about how different jobs are valued. Why do we call some people entrepreneurs and others hustlers? And why is a company restructuring-- that is restructuring-- framed as efficiency, rather than job cuts? And why is it just how things are, as I mentioned earlier, that some people work over time without extra pay while others wouldn't even consider it? So some inequalities are so baked into our organization and societies that they don't even feel like framing, but they are and they should perhaps be brought up to light and be discussed. So how do we become better at spotting these frames, I ask in this book? And I suggest four steps. So first, we should check out the texturing. You remember? Is something being framed as mood and appealing or rough and undesirable? For example, why is one lifestyle seen as ambitious, while another is dismissed as irresponsible? These textures shape our gut reactions before we even think critically. And we should become aware of those. And secondly, we should try to consider the emotional temperature when issues are discussed in our daily life and in society. What feeling is the frame trying to evoke? Is it deliberately inflaming outrage or is it cooling down a crisis to make it seem less urgent? when people frame inflation as temporary and manageable, for instance, versus a catastrophe for working families. They are tuning the temperature up or down to guide public perception. And it could also be that if issues are really heated up in media, for instance, it could be very important and salient issues that are heated up immensely, but issues that heat up very much. We should always check so that the expiration date isn't too short. So when media loses interest, they move to something else. And perhaps the problem the catastrophe hasn't been solved. And third, we should identify the positioning. What is something being compared to? A salary might seem high or low depending on whether it's framed in relation to an average worker's wage or CEO's bonus. So positioning changes how we judge fairness, for instance. And then fourth, we have the frame sizing, the challenge of right sizing the problem. We should ask ourselves, is the frame exaggerating or shrinking an issue? If a university protest is framed as a major national crisis, we should ask, does it deserve this level of attention? On the other hand, if a widespread problem like corruption or environmental degradation is downplayed as a minor regulatory issue, we should question whether that framing is making the issue seem smaller than it really is. So to navigate the world of influence, we really need to move beyond what is being said and start asking how it's being framed also implicitly. Once you train yourself to notice texturing and tempering and positioning and sizing, you'll start seeing frameings everywhere, which I find exciting. Even in things that once seemed like, this is just the way things are. So we've spoken a lot about outside influence, people, companies influencing your view of different things. But is there, I guess, a possibility of influencing yourself, for example, of writing some kind of framing around different situations to reduce your stress or to improve some mental health? Yeah, I really think there is. Even though it's kind of double because framing is also something that we don't have full control over and we have all these biases and so on, but still there are ways to influence ourselves and become aware of how we frame things. But not in the way we often assume, perhaps. So people tend to think of self-framing as some kind of positive thinking exercise. You tell yourself that this is great and you feel better. But framing is much more complicated and sometimes the most effective self-framing isn't about making things seem better, but about reframing what actually matters. So for instance, if we often assume that high stakes moments, big presentations or career changes and so on are what define success. But that's just a frame we have internalized. What if we framed or focused differently? So studies suggest that people who see small setbacks as key learning moments tend to develop resilience while those who fixate on big defining moments experience more stress and burnout. So in other words, the real trick isn't hyping yourself up for big events. It's framing the smaller moments as the ones that actually shaped you. And then we have, how we could influence or tell by reframing this in order to deal with stress. So if fascinating shift appears when people reframe stress from something to avoid into something functional. So research also shows that people who view their stress response, raising heart and adrenaline and so on, as useful tools rather than dangerous signals, they actually perform significantly better under pressure. So rather than telling ourselves that, no, I need to calm down. It's sometimes better to tell ourselves this stress is energy that I can use. If it's temporary, you cannot be stressed that way in a long time. It's like the Robert Sapolsky, at Stanford, you have the example of if you go in a roller coaster, there is a reason that that only goes on for two or three minutes. If it went on for two hours, you would probably be dead out of stress. But framing isn't just about motivation. It also helps us spot where we have been framed without realizing it. So take personal goals. Many people set extreme targets, telling themselves that anything less is failure. But this is a frame that others have handled us. For instance, perhaps the schools or workplaces or even advertising. In reality, overhyping personal goals can be counterproductive. So if everything is framed as life or death for my career, we stay in constant stage of high alert. So sometimes the best self-framing isn't bigger, it's smaller. Asking what's the most realistic sustainable way to see this challenge. Thank you for listening to this episode of Insingenious. That was Mikhail Klintman talking about the social art of influence. The Insingenious podcast is brought to you by the team behind BBC Science Focus magazine, which you can find on sale now in supermarkets and news agents, as well as on your preferred app store. Alternatively, you can come and find us online at sciencefocus.com.