Social Engineering - Christopher Hadnagy [129]
The status quo version of the paragraph was identical, except that the second sentence in the paragraph was replaced with “This kind of stress interview is not new; according to some reports, it has been used for more than 40 years by the U.S. military.”
What were the results in just changing one frame—a frame that these are brand-new methods or that these are tried-and-tested methods that have been used for decades?
The paper describes the researchers’ measures. Seven items formed the basic set of dependent variables. These items corresponded to a seven-point “button” scale, with the point labels of very much disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree, uncertain, slightly agree, moderately agree, and very much agree. All items were reverse scored so that higher scores reflected greater agreement with each item.
The conclusion? “The status quo manipulation had an effect on overall evaluation of torture—when described as a long-standing rather than new practice, torture was evaluated more positively; [m]aking torture appear to be the status quo for interrogations increased individual support and justifications for using it as a tactic.”
By changing just one little part of the frame the researchers were able to bring a sizeable group of people into alignment and make them agree (for the most part) that torture can be an acceptable policy.
That paper’s remarks continued, “They can apply across many, many domains, and can affect judgment, decision making, aesthetics, and policy preferences,” concluding with, “relatively modest changes in the way ethical choices and value dilemmas are presented, framed, or put in context can have profound effect on political choice and policy.”
This experiment proves how powerful framing is because it can change even core beliefs, judgments, and decisions that people may have had for years. As a social engineer that is not even the goal most of the time. You are not trying to convert people; you’re just trying to get them to take an action that with a little thought they would reason is not that good to take.
Applying the four framing rules and doing a lot of planning can make framing a devastating force to be reckoned with, which is why, unfortunately, malicious social engineers use this technique every day. In the U.S. and “westernized cultures,” especially, people are trained to accept being framed, to accept being told what to think and how to think it.
If I told you 15 years ago that almost every program on television would be about watching real people do real things, you might have laughed at me. Why? Because watching shows like that sounded boring and silly. Yet in 2006, the Los Angeles Times stated that the number of reality TV programs jumped up 128% (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/31/business/la-fi-ct-onlocation31-2010mar31), and it hasn’t slowed down much since then, and it’s because watching them is what’s new and hip, and we are told that watching them is good and fun, and everyone does it. These shows are an example of how one thing can be made to look good that most people would have considered silly just a few years earlier.
Framing is definitely an art form that when mixed with the science of communication and influence can become a formidable force on a personal level in the hands of a skilled social engineer, through presenting information in a way that can make aligning with the social engineer “easy” for the target, can make him take action that will not leave him feeling guilty, and alter his perception of reality.
Framing and influence are key parts of social engineering, although another skill is often associated with the “dark corners” of social engineering. The book’s introduction mentioned peering into these corners; the following section presents the information that will alter the way you look at influence.
Manipulation: Controlling Your Target