Framing Through Language: How Word Choice Shapes Perception, Belief, and Action
In 1995, the Republican strategist Frank Luntz advised his clients to stop saying "estate tax" and start saying "death tax." The policy was identical. The legal mechanism was identical. The people affected were identical. But the response changed dramatically. Americans who supported the "estate tax" (a tax on wealthy inheritances) strongly opposed the "death tax" (a tax on dying). Support for repealing the tax jumped by double digits simply by changing two words.
This was not deception. Nobody lied about what the tax did. The facts remained the same. What changed was the frame--the mental structure through which people interpreted the facts. "Estate tax" frames the issue around wealth and property. "Death tax" frames the issue around mortality and loss. Same reality, different frame, different perception, different political outcome.
Framing through language is the use of word choice to emphasize certain aspects of reality while downplaying others, shaping how people understand and respond to issues without changing the underlying facts. It is one of the most powerful and least understood mechanisms of human communication--operating in every political debate, every news headline, every advertisement, every interpersonal conversation, and every internal monologue. Understanding framing is not optional for anyone who wants to think clearly about the world, because framing is not something that can be avoided. All language frames. The only choice is between conscious, transparent framing and unconscious framing that shapes perception without the speaker's or listener's awareness.
What Is Framing?
Framing, in the linguistic and cognitive sense, refers to the way that the selection and arrangement of words shapes the mental model through which people interpret information. The concept was developed most influentially by cognitive linguist George Lakoff, sociologist Erving Goffman, and communication researchers Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman.
Framing vs. Facts
The key insight of framing theory is that facts do not speak for themselves. The same fact, presented through different frames, produces different interpretations, emotional responses, and behavioral decisions.
The classic demonstration is Tversky and Kahneman's "Asian disease problem" (1981):
Imagine a disease is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs are proposed:
Positive frame:
- Program A: 200 people will be saved
- Program B: 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, 2/3 probability that nobody will be saved
Negative frame:
- Program C: 400 people will die
- Program D: 1/3 probability that nobody will die, 2/3 probability that 600 people will die
Programs A and C are mathematically identical (200 saved = 400 die out of 600). Programs B and D are mathematically identical. But when the choice is framed in terms of lives saved, most people choose the certain option (A). When framed in terms of lives lost, most people choose the gamble (D). The frame changes the decision even though the outcomes are identical.
This is not a trick of statistics. It is a fundamental feature of human cognition. The brain does not process information in a vacuum; it processes information through mental structures that give meaning to raw data. Framing activates these structures, and different frames activate different structures, producing different interpretations of the same information.
How Framing Differs from Lying
A crucial distinction: framing is not the same as lying. Lying involves stating things that are false. Framing involves selecting which true things to emphasize and how to present them.
- Lying: "The unemployment rate has not changed" (when it has increased). This is factually false.
- Framing: "The economy added 200,000 jobs last month" vs. "The unemployment rate remains at 6%." Both statements may be simultaneously true, but they create different impressions of the same economic reality. The first frames the economy as improving; the second frames it as stagnant.
This distinction matters because framing cannot be eliminated. Every description of reality involves choices about emphasis, language, and perspective. There is no frame-free way to describe anything. A news report that says "police shot a man" and a report that says "a man was shot by police" describe the same event, but the first centers police agency and the second obscures it. Neither is lying. Both are framing. The choice between them has consequences for how the event is understood.
The Ethics of Framing
If all language frames, then framing itself is not unethical. The ethical questions concern:
- Transparency: Is the speaker aware of their framing choices and honest about them?
- Balance: Does the frame fairly represent the situation, or does it systematically distort it?
- Intent: Is the framing designed to inform or to manipulate?
- Harm: Does the frame cause harm by systematically misleading audiences?
Ethical framing is conscious, transparent, and aims to illuminate rather than obscure. Manipulative framing is deliberate, hidden, and aims to control perception for the framer's benefit. The line between them is not always clear, but the distinction is real and important.
The Mechanics of Framing: How It Works
Framing operates through several identifiable linguistic mechanisms.
1. Word Choice (Lexical Framing)
The simplest and most direct form of framing is the choice of words to describe the same thing:
| Neutral/Clinical | Positive Frame | Negative Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Undocumented immigrants | Newcomers, migrants | Illegal aliens |
| Military intervention | Liberation, peacekeeping | Invasion, occupation |
| Tax reduction | Tax relief | Revenue loss |
| Estate tax | Estate tax | Death tax |
| Pro-choice / Pro-life | Reproductive rights | Abortion on demand |
| Regulation | Consumer protection | Government overreach |
| Surveillance | National security | Big Brother |
Each column describes the same reality. The choice of column determines how the reader perceives and evaluates that reality.
2. Metaphorical Framing
Metaphors do not just decorate language; they structure thought. Cognitive linguist George Lakoff demonstrated that metaphors create frameworks that shape how entire domains of experience are understood.
"Argument is war":
- We "attack" positions, "defend" claims, "shoot down" arguments, "win" debates
- This metaphor makes argument inherently adversarial--a zero-sum contest with winners and losers
- An alternative metaphor--"argument is collaborative exploration"--would produce very different behavior
"Time is money":
- We "spend" time, "waste" time, "save" time, "invest" time
- This metaphor makes time a quantifiable resource that must be used efficiently
- Cultures that do not share this metaphor have fundamentally different relationships with time
"The nation is a family":
- Lakoff argued that American political ideology is structured by competing family metaphors
- Conservative politics: the "strict father" family--authority, discipline, self-reliance, clear rules
- Progressive politics: the "nurturant parent" family--empathy, cooperation, mutual support, flexibility
These metaphors do not just describe political positions; they generate political positions by providing the conceptual framework within which specific policy positions make sense.
3. Narrative Framing
Stories frame events by selecting which aspects of a complex reality to include, which to exclude, and how to arrange them:
- Who is the protagonist? A story about immigration that centers the immigrant's experience frames the issue differently than one that centers a native-born worker's experience.
- Where does the story begin? A narrative about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that begins in 1948 frames the issue differently than one that begins in 1917 or 1000 BCE.
- What is the causal chain? A story about poverty that traces it to individual decisions frames it differently than one that traces it to structural economic forces.
- What is omitted? What a narrative excludes is often more important than what it includes, because omissions are invisible to the audience.
4. Statistical Framing
Numbers seem objective, but how they are presented creates powerful frames:
- "90% survival rate" vs. "10% mortality rate" (same number, different emotional impact)
- "Crime has doubled" vs. "Crime rate increased from 0.5% to 1%" (same change, different magnitude impression)
- "The average American earns $60,000" vs. "The median American earns $40,000" (different statistical measures create different impressions of the same data)
- Using absolute numbers vs. percentages, choosing start dates for trend lines, selecting which comparisons to make--all are framing choices that shape interpretation of "objective" data
Why Is Framing So Powerful?
Framing is extraordinarily effective because it operates at the level of cognitive infrastructure--the mental structures through which all subsequent thinking occurs.
The First-Frame Advantage
The first frame applied to an issue creates the default mental model through which all subsequent information is processed. This anchoring effect means that the initial frame:
- Determines which aspects of the issue feel relevant and which feel peripheral
- Establishes the emotional tone through which the issue is experienced
- Creates the categories and distinctions that organize subsequent thinking
- Requires cognitive effort to override--reframing demands more mental work than accepting the initial frame
This is why political strategists invest enormous resources in being the first to frame emerging issues. The first frame is not permanent, but dislodging it requires significantly more effort than establishing it.
Frames Are Invisible
Effective frames are transparent in the optical sense--you look through them without seeing them. When someone says "tax relief," you do not consciously process the metaphor (taxation as affliction, removal as relief). You simply think about taxation through the relief frame, which makes tax reduction feel inherently desirable and tax imposition feel inherently harmful. The frame shapes your response without your awareness that a frame has been applied.
This invisibility is what makes framing so much more powerful than explicit argument. An explicit argument can be analyzed, challenged, and rejected. A frame that operates below conscious awareness shapes thinking without ever being subjected to critical scrutiny.
Frames Activate Emotions
Frames do not just shape intellectual understanding; they activate emotional responses. "Death tax" does not just intellectually reframe the estate tax; it activates emotional associations with death, loss, and the government taking from the bereaved. "Climate crisis" does not just intellectually reframe climate change; it activates emotional associations with emergency, urgency, and danger.
Because emotional responses influence judgment faster and more powerfully than analytical reasoning, frames that successfully activate emotions are particularly effective at shaping perception and decision-making.
Can You Avoid Framing?
No. This is one of the most important and least intuitive aspects of framing theory.
Every description of reality involves choices about:
- Which words to use
- Which aspects to emphasize
- Which context to provide
- Which perspective to center
- Which metaphors to employ
These choices are unavoidable. Even "objective" or "neutral" language involves framing choices. The Associated Press Stylebook's guidelines for "neutral" language are themselves a framing system that embeds particular assumptions about objectivity, balance, and newsworthiness.
The choice is not between framing and not framing. It is between:
- Unconscious framing: Using whatever frame first comes to mind, which is typically the dominant cultural frame or the frame most recently encountered
- Conscious framing: Deliberately choosing frames that accurately and fairly represent the situation, while being transparent about the framing choices being made
The "Both Sides" Trap
The most common attempt at neutrality--presenting "both sides" of an issue--is itself a frame. It presupposes that there are exactly two sides, that they are roughly equivalent in merit, and that truth lies somewhere between them. This frame:
- Misrepresents issues that have more than two perspectives
- Creates false equivalence between positions with vastly different evidentiary support
- Excludes perspectives that do not fit neatly into the binary
- Can normalize extreme positions by treating them as one of two equally legitimate "sides"
How Can You Identify Framing?
Developing the ability to recognize framing is one of the most valuable critical thinking skills. Several strategies help:
1. Notice Word Choice
When encountering any communication, ask: what words were chosen, and what alternatives were available? If a news report says "police-involved shooting" instead of "police shot someone," notice the frame. If a politician says "job creators" instead of "wealthy investors," notice the frame. If an advertisement says "pre-owned" instead of "used," notice the frame.
2. Identify What Is Emphasized and What Is Omitted
Every frame highlights certain aspects of reality and obscures others. Ask: what is this frame drawing my attention to, and what is it drawing my attention away from? A story about a company's record profits that does not mention worker wages is framing through omission. A discussion of crime rates that does not mention poverty rates is framing through omission.
3. Look for Underlying Metaphors
Ask: what metaphor structures this description? Is immigration being described through a "flood" metaphor (overwhelming, natural disaster, requiring containment) or a "flow" metaphor (natural, manageable, beneficial)? Is the economy being described through a "body" metaphor (healthy, sick, needing treatment) or a "machine" metaphor (efficient, broken, needing repair)?
4. Ask Whose Perspective Is Centered
Ask: who is the implicit subject of this frame? A story about a factory closure that centers the CEO's strategic decision frames it differently than one that centers the workers who lost their jobs. A policy discussion that centers taxpayers frames it differently than one that centers service recipients.
5. Consider Alternative Frames
The most powerful tool for identifying framing is deliberately constructing alternative frames for the same information. If a news report says "protesters clashed with police," reframe it as "police used force against protesters" and notice how the perception shifts. If a politician says "entitlement reform," reframe it as "cutting Social Security benefits" and notice how the feeling changes.
Can Alternative Framing Change Minds?
Yes, but with important limitations.
When Reframing Works
Reframing is most effective when:
- The audience has not yet formed a strong opinion (the issue is new or unfamiliar)
- The alternative frame resonates with the audience's existing values and experiences
- The reframe comes from a credible, trusted source
- The reframe is repeated frequently enough to compete with the dominant frame
- The reframe is emotionally resonant, not just intellectually compelling
When Reframing Fails
Reframing is least effective when:
- The audience has strong existing beliefs reinforced by their social identity
- The reframe contradicts deeply held values or threatens group identity
- The reframe is perceived as manipulative or ideologically motivated
- The dominant frame is so entrenched that the reframe feels forced or artificial
- The audience is actively resistant to persuasion (psychological reactance)
The Limits of Framing
Framing is powerful, but it is not omnipotent. People are not passive recipients of frames. They actively interpret information through their own existing frameworks, and frames that conflict too strongly with lived experience or deeply held values will be rejected rather than accepted.
The most effective framing does not try to override people's existing understanding. It activates values and perspectives that people already hold but that are not currently salient. The "death tax" frame worked not because it brainwashed people but because it activated a genuine value (opposition to the government taxing death) that the "estate tax" frame did not activate.
Framing in Everyday Life
Framing is not confined to politics and media. It operates in every domain of human communication:
In Relationships
- "You're always late" vs. "I notice you've been arriving after the scheduled time recently"
- "You don't care about me" vs. "I feel like my needs aren't being considered"
- The frame determines whether the conversation is an accusation or an expression of feeling
In the Workplace
- "We're downsizing" vs. "We're right-sizing" vs. "We're laying people off"
- "This is an opportunity" vs. "This is a challenge" vs. "This is a problem"
- The frame determines whether change feels threatening or exciting
In Self-Talk
- "I failed" vs. "I learned something" vs. "That didn't work"
- "I'm bad at this" vs. "I haven't mastered this yet"
- The frame determines whether setbacks feel permanent or temporary
In Education
- "This student is struggling" vs. "This student hasn't found the right approach yet"
- "Low-achieving students" vs. "Students who need additional support"
- The frame determines whether difficulty is seen as a characteristic of the student or a feature of the situation
Understanding framing is not about becoming cynical about language. It is about developing the awareness to notice when language is doing invisible work--shaping perception, directing attention, and constraining thought in ways that serve someone's interests. That awareness does not make you immune to framing (nobody is), but it makes you a more conscious participant in the conversations and debates that shape your understanding of the world.
References and Further Reading
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Chelsea Green Publishing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Think_of_an_Elephant!
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). "The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice." Science, 211(4481), 453-458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphors_We_Live_By
Entman, R.M. (1993). "Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm." Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Harvard University Press. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_analysis
Luntz, F. (2007). Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear. Hyperion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
Chong, D. & Druckman, J.N. (2007). "Framing Theory." Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. Edward Arnold. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Fairclough
Kuypers, J.A. (2009). Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action. Lexington Books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_criticism
Scheufele, D.A. & Tewksbury, D. (2007). "Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models." Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x