Tell a room a plan has a ten percent failure rate and tell the same room it has a ninety percent success rate, and you are describing the exact same plan to two different audiences, even though it is one room.
What the research found
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman's 1981 study on the framing of decisions gave people identical statistical outcomes, described once in terms of lives saved and once in terms of lives lost, and found that the framing alone reliably reversed which option people chose, despite the underlying numbers never changing. The finding held across many versions of the experiment. People do not evaluate raw information. They evaluate information as it has been framed for them, often without realizing a frame was involved at all.
Why this is not the same as manipulation
Every piece of information has to be framed somehow, there is no neutral, frame-free way to present a fact. The choice is not between framing and not framing. It is between framing carelessly and framing with attention to how it will land once it reaches the room. This is closer to translation than to deception.
Where to start
Before presenting something important, notice the frame you have defaulted to and ask whether it is the one that will actually let the substance be heard fairly.
The same proposal presented as a risk to avoid and presented as an opportunity to capture can receive opposite receptions in the same room, and the underlying facts will not have changed at all.
Reading which frame will actually land with a specific audience, versus which one just feels natural to you, is a judgment worth checking against how that audience has reacted to similar framing before. What this gives you is the habit of choosing the frame deliberately, rather than defaulting to whichever one occurred to you first.
There is a specific way to test two framings of the same proposal before committing to one in the actual room, and it is worth doing before the stakes are real.