This is the next post in the series on “framing”. Our source text, which is authored by Kelton Rhoads, Ph.D. is found here.. http://www.workingpsychology.com/index.html . In the previous post, we covered the definition of “framing” written by the author: “A frame is a psychological device that offers a perspective and manipulates salience in order to influence subsequent judgment.” We covered several aspects of how this influence tool is used at Word of Faith Fellowship (WOFF). My opinion is that this framing tool is compounded with fear to actual form a “fear-frame” that explodes on its hearers with such power to freeze the listener and hinder rational decisions. Jane Whaley has constructed a total control environment for the WOFF faithful. This control is exercised many times with the use of such “fear-frames” as we have explained in the previous post.

    This post will review the hideous evil behind that use of such “fear-frames”. Rhoads continues to explain the use of frames in the source text. He begins be citing work from another study. “Kahneman & Tversky (1979) were interested in understanding the conditions under which people made conservative or risky judgments. They observed evidence supporting what they called “prospect theory:” that the prospect of a loss has a greater impact on decision making than does the prospect of an equivalent gain.” (Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometirca 4, 362-377; Econometrica 47, 263-291. emphasis added)  He covers the findings of this study as they measure a person’s gains against their losses. The study found that “The pleasure of winning money is less intense than the pain of losing the same sum!” It is not practical to repeat word for word the information Rhoads gives to support this study. I recommend you use the link provided and read it for yourself.

    Here is a synopsis of what I took away from the reading. “Again, we humans hate to lose. We’d rather not win, than lose!” (Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The psychology of preferences. Scientific American, 246, 160-173. Emphasis added) And Rhoads writes in summary.. “We know that a human’s first priority is not to lose–gains are secondary to the “no loss” rule. Thus, framing a decision in terms of possible loss should motivate a person more than framing the same decision in terms of possible gain. And, given various obligatory caveats and constraints which we explore later, subsequent research largely supports the contention that humans are acutely loss-averse and thus extraordinarily sensitive to loss frames.” (emphasis added)

   Continue reading What is “Framing”? How Is It Used at WOFF? (3) →