The Necessity of Frames

In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman talks about the impact of "framing effects" on how we perceive and evaluate our experiences. He describes framing effects as "different ways of presenting the same information that evoke different emotions." 

The examples he gives are simple. Would you prefer a surgery with 90% survival odds or a 10% mortality rate? If we take a moment to think, we know that these numbers describe the same scenario. We would all admit, however, that we prefer the first frame rather than the second.

Would you prefer ground beef that is 90% percent lean or 10% fat? Again, we know that we're talking about the same pound of hamburger either way. However, we also know that we prefer the first frame instead of the second.

So, rather than inviting people to give ten percent of their income, would we be better served to encourage them to keep ninety percent? This would take advantage of the frame bias that Kahneman describes from his research.

Of course, this framing creates other bias problems. Since the focus will be on the money we give or keep, our tendency will be to minimize our sense of connection with others. We will tend to expand our sense of independence. We will also tend to focus more on market norms than on social norms. This again will lead us in the direction of self-sufficiency and even selfishness. So the simple framing effort may produce undesirable stewardship results.

The slogan that many stewardship programs use is something along the lines of "it all belongs to God anyway." The frame here is that we own nothing and have everything as a gift. Of course, that is quite right. I don't find, however, that this slogan is all that motivating to most people. For those who are focused on ownership, this statement turns the relationship into a sort of tug of war. No, it doesn't all belong to God! I worked hard for this. It really is all mine after all.

Perhaps this is a clue to a different framing issue. If we frame stewardship in terms of ownership, we will generate a sort of custody dispute between competing interests. If, instead, we frame stewardship in terms of what we receive, the outcome may be different. 

I think this is how Martin Luther, for example, understands the doctrine of Divine Creation. We are the recipients of all that we need for this life. That includes all our physical necessities. As a result we can respond with gratitude and praise. That gratitude and praise will likely involve sharing those gifts with others.

For this reason, gratitude lists are a critical, but underutilized resource in congregational stewardship. I find it helpful as often as possible to help people compose lists of the good things they received in this life. Researchers have demonstrated the health benefits of composing such lists on a regular basis. I am certain that people who create such lists regularly will be more generous in giving for the life and mission of the church--especially when they create those lists during a worship service or class or discussion time at church.

Stewardship is like a window. It's not much without the frame.