Appendix E. Framing techniques

• Pages: 591-622
• Author: Jonathan Dichter

APPENDIX E:

FRAMING TECHNIQUES

E-1

APPENDIX E

FRAMING TECHNIQUES

USING SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED BY HIGHLY PAID

POLITICAL CONSULTANTS TO WIN OVI CASES

CLEVE M. JOHNSON

ATTORNEY AT LAW

495 South High Street, Suite 400; Columbus, Ohio 43215-5058

(614) 299-8235 Fax (614) 358-6633

APPENDIX E:

FRAMING TECHNIQUES

(This page intentionally left blank.)

APPENDIX E:

FRAMING TECHNIQUES

E-3 Framing Techniques

Trials are framing-battles.

—Dr. Sunwolf. Practical Jury Dynamics p.113 §6-3(c) Matthew Bender

USING TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED BY KARL ROVE AND FRANK LUNTZ AGAINST THE PROSECUTION.

Suppose you represent a rich man’s son who led a rather wild and irresponsible youth. He avoided combat

during the Vietnam war because he had a rich and well-connected father who got him into the Alabama National

Guard even though he was not from Alabama. Unlike today, the guard then was often a haven from the draft for

the sons of the rich and privileged. Because many were trying to do the same thing, it was harder to get into the

National Guard then than it is now. By the way, after he enlisted in the guard the son went AWOL.

Your job is to convince people that your client would make a stronger and more responsible wartime leader

than a Vietnam combat veteran who was awarded a Bronze Star, a Silver Star, and three Purple Hearts. Can doing

this be any harder than winning a drunk driving case, even one with a test?

We all know the aforementioned political feat can be accomplished. People like Rove and Luntz have by and

large been beating the Democrats for years using these techniques and the Democrats have been mostly clueless

as to how this was being done. The prosecution has unwittingly been using similar techniques against the defense

in drunk driving cases to the same effect.

These techniques are so powerful that they cause large numbers of people to regularly vote against their

economic interests. What scientists have found is that people vote their identity, not their interests. For example,

union members were predominantly strong supporters of Ronald Reagan even though he shut down the air trafc

controller’s union. We think we cannot get judges to vote against their perceived political interests. This may not

be true.

Even if you think you know how Rove did this, you are probably wrong unless you are familiar with recent

principles of cognitive science. A supercial analysis like, “they win by scaring people to death”, misses the more

subtle and rened techniques that are being employed. This outline will attempt to show how to use the techniques

developed by the most adept and well paid persuaders in the world in a drunk driving case.

If we do this right, it will work and the other side will not understand what is happening, just like the Demo-

crats have been largely oblivious to why they have been losing.

UNNOTICED PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF STANDARD PROSECUTION ARGUMENTS.

Juries are being instructed to decide cases using a preponderance or even lower standard.

By trial and error, prosecutors have stumbled upon arguments that employ a technique psychologists call

framing. The net effect is that prosecutors have reduced the burden of proof to a preponderance and made requiring

proof beyond a reasonable doubt seem contrary to common sense. In some cases, the burden has been reduced

further to less than a preponderance. The precise nature of how this is done is described below.

Unfortunately, the defense by and large has not stumbled upon a response that utilizes equally effective tac-

tics. Instead, it has unwittingly attempted to ght the battle on the prosecution’s terms. This, in turn, requires the

defense to have an exceptional case in order to win.

THE SUBTLETIES OF FRAMING.

It is not choosing from a list of magic words.

Suppose a husband, wife and a mother-in-law are in a room. The couple’s son comes in, points over to a corner

and yells “snake.” The mother-in-law is alarmed and jumps up on her chair. The husband enjoys this because the

mother-in-law has been on his nerves all day. There is no snake. The child was playing a prank. The child and the

husband start laughing until they gure out that the women are mad at them.

The wife scolds her son for lying. The husband argues that no harm was done. He says this was just a harmless

prank and that the women should lighten up a bit and enjoy the fun. He says they are just upset because they were

scared and they should not be scolding the boy for lying.

The wife replies: “This is like the boy who cried wolf. Someday there could be a real snake around.” The

husband reconsiders and agrees with the wife. He also tells the son that it was wrong to lie.