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)

     How does this apply to WOFF and the “fear-frames” used by Jane Whaley? As I first read this it became very clear that a “fear-frame” was never used to fear a GAIN. Jane always used a fear-frame to FEAR A LOSS! Thus the WOFF member is “acutely loss-averse and thus extraordinarily sensitive to loss frames.” as anyone else would be according to the evidence found in these studies! Jane never used to “fear” in the context of gaining heaven! She never warned member to fear making God happy or fear making her happy! Why? From what I read, there would be no motivation to “fear a gain, only a loss!” She crafted her influence to be based in fear because she found she got/gets better results! Is this so simple to yet be so accurate?

   WOFF rules whether spoken or unspoken were mainly “don’ts” and not “dos”. If you didn’t obey, there was fear of a LOSS! The results were to be feared. Examples: If you leave you will – lose your job, lose your house, lose your car, (if you ever had one..) lose your family, lose your friends, lose your salvation, lose your call, lose your dog, lose your cat, lose your direction, lose your sanity, lose your health… do you see the pattern? It was never if you leave you will gain your freedom, gain your family back, have a better job, have a better mental outlook, have less stress ( a good “loss”!) have freedoms offered others in America that you checked at the WOF sanctuary door when you joined… possibly gain your true relationship with Jesus because you move from a fear-life to faith-life!

    The biggest fear-frame used by Jane is “If you leave you move from the known to the UNKNOWN.”  You lose what you know and have become familiar with even as bad as you may think it is. You move off into a place that Jane paints as much worse – no matter how potentially better it really could/would be! Jane uses the FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN to keep her faithful shaking their heads with doubt. They doubt that life in the “world” could be any better than life in WOFF. After all, many have been in for so long and have heard the fear-frame for so long, they have NO confidence they could exist in what to them is “the great unknown”! Couple that fear of the unknown with the solid distrust they have allowed to be planted in them towards non-WOFF members and you get some idea how difficult it is for WOFF members to leave and stay out. When WOFF members leave they must immediately get help and support to overcome the fear-frames that have been used on them and been planted in them.

    Look at it this way… when you look at the WOFF “church” grounds, you don’t see a fence. (yet) But, when you look at WOFF members you should have the idea that each one of them has been surrounded with fear-frames and has around them an invisible chain link fence of fear that keeps them locked away unto Jane’s will and desires. What is the key to break the chains of fear? It is different for each person, there is no set formula. As Rhoads mentions on a page of the source text titled “Cult Influence Tactics”, “… I can find nothing magic, supernatural, fantastic, or even extraordinary in the way that members are attracted to and kept in cults. I’m as fascinated with “magic bullet” theories as anyone, and yet I can find almost nothing in the cultist’s repertoire that isn’t already in the social influence literature.” There is no “magic” to getting folks in or keeping folks in a cult. In my opinion, there is a process for someone to come out. There has to be a break in the fence and a destroying doubt that begins to tear at the strength of the fear of a loss! The fear of losing the “comfort of the cult” has to be overcome and a ray of hope that life outside the framing fence of fear is worth exploring. There just could be freedoms and joy outside the fence of fear!

    So, we add this to Jane’s working job description- fence builder. She builds fences of fear around her members to keep them locked away unto her desires, her wishes and her “needs”. Does this make sense? Is this a plausible explanation for what outsiders see when they are around WOFF members? Does this explain their reaction to questions about Jane and how they go to her to get “the will of God”? What are they really asking for when they seek Jane’s “counsel”? As I see it, when a WOFF member goes to Jane for answers or permission, they are asking for relief from the fears of doing something wrong and incurring some kind of loss. Loss of what really depends on the situation. It could be something as basic as the loss of Jane’s perceived approval. It could be something as major as preventing the loss of their access to WOFF and the fear-relief that comes with membership in the group.  

    Jane builds the fears in her members and makes sure they know that leaving the group will only bring upon them that which they have been trained to fear- the “loss” of everything good. Does anyone else see this pattern? When a new member comes in, their indoctrination moves into high gear as Jane and her leaders seek to build fears in the member. Fears that are meant to keep them inside WOFF and actually apart from God. “Don’t do that, Don’t  say that, Don’t think that, Don’t spend time around that person, Don’t wear that… if you do this will happen…” These fears are fears of losing something near and dear to them. That member is trained then to see staying inside WOFF as the only way to relieve the fear of that loss.  

    In the next post on this subject, we will review the “Frame Defense” that Rhoads puts forth and see how this could relate to life at WOFF. How could a prospective member put up a defense against the fear-frame used by Jane Whaley? Could these techniques prove useful for present members of WOFF? Would knowing how to defend against frames be useful skill in other areas of life? Check back soon for the next post on this subject. Comments are welcome.

   Thank you, for taking time to visit and read this blog. Please, consume the information on this site responsibly. The author is not a licensed mental health professional and encourages those that need professional help to seek it. The intent of the material is to inform and be a resource. Be sure to tell every member that you know at WOFF about this blog. There are readers at WOFF. Comments are invited from all readers, including present or former members. Polls are not scientific and no private information is gathered.

   Look on the right side of any post for the option to subscribe by email for notifications or RSS feeds notifying of new postings. It is a great feature. Also, find more posts by selecting “Categories”.

    (Please, take time to read the Terms of Use for this personal blog. As mentioned, the information about WOFF is from my memories and recollections as perfect as that may be or not be. ) Scripture references are Amplified Version unless otherwise noted. (Copyright © 1954, 1958, 1962, 1964, 1965, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation ) This is post number 270.