Study Resources	cult general information
psychological manipulation, cult groups, sects, and new religious movements

Cultic Studies Cult general Cults Questions & Answers Michael D. Langone, Ph.D. Full Text File 85K

What is Mind Control?

Mind control (also referred to as "brainwashing," "coercive persuasion," "thought reform," and the "systematic manipulation of psychological and social influence") refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s), often to the detriment of the person being manipulated.

Such methods include:

• extensive control of information in order to limit alternatives from which members may make "choices";
• deception;
• group pressure;
• intense indoctrination into a belief system that denigrates independent critical thinking and considers the world outside the group to be threatening, evil, or gravely in error;
• an insistence that members’ distress—much of which may consist of anxiety and guilt subtly induced by the group—can be relieved only by conforming to the group;
• physical and/or psychological debilitation through inadequate diet or fatigue;
• the induction of dissociative (trance-like) states (via the misuse of meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, and other exercises) in which attention is narrowed, suggestibility heightened, and independent critical thinking weakened;
• alternation of harshness/threats and leniency/love in order to effect compliance with the leadership’s wishes;
• isolation from social supports; and
• pressured public confessions;

Although the process by which cults come to exercise mind control over members is complex and varies a great deal, there appear to be three overlapping stages:

1. Deception. Recruits are duped into believing that the group is benevolent and will enrich their lives by, for example, advancing their spirituality or increasing their self-esteem and security. As a result of this deception and the systematic use of highly manipulative techniques of influence, recruits come to commit themselves to the group’s prescribed ways of thinking, feeling, and acting; in other words, they become members or converts.
   
2. Dependency. By gradually isolating members from outside influences, establishing unrealistically high and guilt-inducing expectations, punishing any expressions of "negativity," and denigrating independent, critical thinking, the group causes members to become extremely dependent on the group’s compliance-oriented expressions of love and support.
   
3. Dread. Once a state of dependency is firmly established, the group’s control over members’ thoughts, feelings, and behavior is strengthened by the members’ growing dread of losing the group’s psychological support (physical threat also occurs in some groups), however much it may aim at ensuring their compliance with leadership’s often debilitating demands.

Is Mind Control Different from the Ordinary Social Conditioning Employed by Parents and Social Institutions?

Yes. Ordinary social conditioning differs from mind control in two important ways. First, parents, schools, churches, and other organizations do not as a rule utilize unethically manipulative techniques in socializing children, adolescents, and young adults. Second, social conditioning is a slow process which promotes and encourages an initially "unformed" child to become an autonomous adult with a unique identity. Mind control, on the other hand, uses unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control to induce dependency in a person with an established identity, which the manipulator seeks to alter radically without the informed consent of his targets.

The techniques with which a group or person seeks to influence another can be broken down into two categories:

1. choice-respecting, which includes techniques that honor the autonomy of the person being influenced; and
2. compliance-gaining, which includes techniques (examples given in the previous answer) focused on obtaining a desired response, regardless of the needs, wishes, goals, etc., of the person being influenced. Choice-respecting techniques can be further broken down into educative and advisory techniques, while compliance-gaining techniques can be broken down into techniques of persuasion and control. A cult environment differs from a non-cult environment in that the former exhibits a much greater proportion of compliance-gaining techniques of persuasion and control.

In rearing children, it is often necessary -- and proper -- to use control and persuasion to protect them from danger and to help them grow up. As children grow into adults, however, they develop an identity and a sense of personal autonomy that demand respect.

Parents learn to surrender control as their children learn to assume responsibility. When this process of normal development breaks down, as when an adult becomes suicidally depressed, relatives and/or helping authorities will tend to become compliance-oriented and step into a "caretaker" role (possibly, in this case, commitment to a psychiatric hospital). When the crisis has passed, however, unwritten ethical rules require that the influencer return to a choice-respecting mode of relating to the adult.

In certain special situations, such as joining the army or joining religious orders, individuals choose to relinquish some of their autonomy. Unlike cult situations, these situations entail informed consent, do not seek to "transform" the person’s identity, and are contractual, rather than dependency-oriented. Furthermore, most of these situations involve groups that are accountable to society.

Cults, on the other hand, answer to no one as they flout the unwritten ethical laws by deceptively establishing a compliance-gaining relationship with individuals whose autonomy and identity they disregard. Hence, any similarities between a cult environment and boot camp, for example, are psychologically superficial.

Some cult apologists maintain that mind control doesn't exist because most cult recruits don’t become members. These apologists often cite a study which reported that 10% of those completing a two-day workshop offered by a controversial group became members, while 5% remained members after two years. Those who did join, however, made major and rapid changes in their lives, for the group in question demands the total commitment of members’ time. In contrast, in the typical Billy Graham crusade, only 1%-3% of attending unbelievers (who have been personally evangelized to for months) come forward during the altar call, let alone modify their lives radically. And Billy Graham is considered to be one of the most effective evangelists in history! Persuading 10% of a group of people, who are largely recruited from the street, to become full-time missionaries within a matter of weeks reflects an astounding level of psychological influence!