Perhaps your problem with the testing you did on names for gas is that you were not using moral frames with basic language - no toxic gas or dirty fuel.

But it is also important to understand that framing is meant to be an empirical approach. Just because someone had an idea for a frame that they tested, and it didn't work out, that doesn't mean that framing theory is wrong. It means your idea of the frame that might work is wrong.

If you are doing framing properly, you will have tested it to be sure of cognitive traction before you use it.

Did you do any depth interviews first to help develop frames to test, or did you just jump right in? And did you do any talk-back testing?

You back to basic points are all well covered by framing approaches. Anat Shenker-Osario is very clear about having an entry point in your message that connects with the audience and she always dial tests with different messengers.

And doing it over and over for a sustained period of time is at the heart of Lakoff's message. It's all about the Hebbian learning - synaptogenesis and myelination doesn't happen in a magic instant, it takes months of repetitive stimulus.

Expand full comment

That's really interesting, cheers. One thought though - the "poll tax" was in itself a reframing. The government wanted to call it the "community charge" (boring, suggests a membership fee). It was dubbed the "poll tax" in reference to the capitation payment that led to, er, the Peasants' Revolt.

Expand full comment