APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control

You don't need to be Editor-In-Chief to add or edit content to WikiDoc. You can begin to add to or edit text on this WikiDoc page by clicking on the edit button at the top of this page. Next enter or edit the information that you would like to appear here. Once you are done editing, scroll down and click the Save page button at the bottom of the page.

Jump to: navigation, search

The APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC) was formed at the request of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1983. The APA asked Margaret Singer, who was one of the leading proponents of coercive persuasion theories, to chair a task force to investigate whether brainwashing or "coercive persuasion" plays a role in recruitment in new religious movements and other groups.

Before the taskforce had submitted its final report, the APA submitted an amicus curiae in a case pending before the California Supreme Court, which involved issues of brainwashing and coercive persuasion. The brief stated that Singer's hypotheses "were uninformed speculations based on skewed data." The APA subsequently withdrew from the brief, stating that its participation was premature in that DIMPAC had not yet submitted its report. Scholars who were co-signatories to the brief did not withdraw.

The final report of the task force was completed in November 1986. The APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC report; stating that "it (the report) lacked scientific rigor and an evenhanded critical approach to carry the imprimatur of the APA", also stating that "it did not have sufficient information to take a position on the issues that DIMPAC was charged with investigating". The BSERP board requested that the task force members not distribute or publicize the report without indicating that the report was unacceptable to the board and cautioned the taskforce members against using their past appointment to it to imply support or approval by BSERP or APA.

Singer and her professional associate sociologist Richard Ofshe subsequently sued the APA in 1992 for "defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy" and lost in 1994. Singer was subsequently not accepted by judges as an expert witness in cases alleging brainwashing and mind control.

Task force members

The task force members consisted of:[1]

Summary of report

1 Historical Background

2 Cults

3 Definitional Issues

4 Religious Cults

5 Types of religious cults

6 Harms associated with religious cults

7 Methodological considerations

8 The brainwashing/deprogramming controversy

9 Psychotherapy Cults

10 Literature review

11 Legal cases

12 Non-professional cults

13 Large Group Awareness Training

14 LGAT Historical Background

15 LGAT Review of the Literature

16 LGAT Conclusions

17 Analysis

18 The Continuum of Influence: A Proposal

19 Influence Continuum

20 Ethical Issues for Psychologists

21 Ethical Issues for Nonpsychologists

22 Recommendations

Amicus curiæ

Before the taskforce had submitted its final report, the APA, together with a group of scholars, submitted on February 10, 1987 an amicus curiæ brief in a pending case before the California Supreme Court, involving issues of brainwashing and coercive persuasion related to the Unification Church. The brief stated that Singer's hypotheses were uninformed speculations based on skewed data.[1]. The brief characterized the theory of brainwashing as not scientifically proven and advanced the position that "this commitment to advancing the appropriate use of psychological testimony in the courts carries with it the concomitant duty to be vigilant against those who would use purportedly expert testimony lacking scientific and methodological rigor."

On March 24, 1987, the APA filed a motion to withdraw its signature from this brief, as it considered the conclusion premature, in view of the ongoing work of the DIMPAC taskforce. The amicus as such was kept because the co-signed scholars did not withdraw their signatures. Among them were: Jeffrey Hadden, Eileen Barker, David Bromley and J. Gordon Melton, Joseph Bettis, Durwood Foster, William R. Garret, Richard D. Kahone, Timothy Miller, John Young, James Richardson, Ray L. Hart, Benton Johnson, Franklin Littell, Newton Malony, Donald E. Miller, Mel Prosen, Thomas Robin, and Huston Smith.

APA memorandum - dismissal of DIMPAC report

On May 11, 1987, the APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC report because "the brainwashing theory espoused lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur."[1]

The rejection memo was accompanied by two letters from external advisers to the APA that reviewed the report (the internal review of the APA was not made public). One of the letters, from Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi of the University of Haifa, stated amongst other comments that "lacking psychological theory, the report resorts to sensationalism in the style of certain tabloids" and that "the term 'brainwashing' is not a recognized theoretical concept, and is just a sensationalist 'explanation' more suitable to 'cultists' and revival preachers. It should not be used by psychologists, since it does not explain anything", and asked that the report should not be made public. The second letter, from Jeffrey D. Fisher, said that the report "[...] seems to be unscientific in tone, and biased in nature. It draws conclusions, which in many cases do not mesh well with the evidence presented. At times, the reasoning seems flawed to the point of being almost ridiculous. In fact, the report sometimes seems to be characterized by the use of deceptive, indirect techniques of persuasion and control - the very thing it is investigating".[1]

The BSERP board also cautioned the taskforce members "against using their past appointment to imply BSERP or APA support or approval of the positions advocated in the report", and that they shound "not distribute or publicize the report without indicating that the report was unacceptable to the Board."[1]

The memorandum concludes with "Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue."[1]

Impact of the DIMPAC report dimissal on court cases

On August of 1988, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals overturned the Kropinski v. World Plan Executive Council case, based on the lack of scientific support for the theories presented by Margaret Singer, Ph.D. during her testimony as an expert witness[1]

In 1989, the Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal of California, in the Robin George v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness case, rejected Singer's expert testimony on the basis that the brainwashing theory of false imprisonment was an attempt to premise tort liability on religious practices that the plaintiff believed to be objectionable, and that such premise was inconsistent with the First Amendment.[1]

In 1990, District Court Judge Lowell Jensen excluded her testimony in United States v. Fishman, because the Court was not convinced that the application of coercive persuasion theory to religious cults was widely accepted in the medical community and did not accept the coercive persuasion theory in the context of cults.[1]

In 1991, in the Patrick Ryan v. Maharishi Yogi case filed in the US District Court in Washington, DC, Judge Oliver Gasch refused to allow Singer to testify, based on the premises that Singer and Ofshe's theory did not enjoy substantial scientific approval and was therefore not admissible as the basis of expert opinion.[1]

Margaret Singer, et al. v. APA, et. al (RICO lawsuit)

When her findings were rejected by the APA's BSERP, Singer sued the APA and other scholars in 1992 for "defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy", under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and lost in 1994.[1]

The lawsuit alleged that several top executives at the APA and ASA attempted to destroy their careers, charging that from 1986 to 1992 they resorted to improper influence of witnesses in state court litigations, filed untrue affidavits, attempted to obstruct justice in federal litigations, deceived federal judges, and committed wire and mail fraud. Ofshe and Singer said that these actions damaged their reputations as forensic experts in the fields of psychology and sociology in the area of coercive persuasion, preventing their testimony against cults, and specified acts of collusion between several of the defendants and cult groups.[1]

In an interview with the The Cult Observer, Michael Flomenhaft, a lawyer in the firm representing Singer and Ofshe, said that "All the facts are there. It's a very insidious thing, and it' s hard to believe that such institutions could have engaged in this behavior. This case had to be brought very deliberately because the nature of the complaints causes skepticism". He referred to the relationships of some the defendants as "incestuous".[1]

An article in the same The Cult Observer, describes a press release by Flomenhaft in which it is stated that besides the APA, other defendants named where Raymond Fowler (then APA chief executive officer); Leonard Goodstein (former APA executive director); Donald N. Bersoff (lawyer), Bruce J. Ennis (lawyer), Newton Malony (professor at the Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California), James Richardson (professor at the University of Nevada, Rodney Stark (professor at the University of Washington), Joan Huber (former president of the ASA and professor at Ohio State University), William D'Antonio (former ASA president and professor at the University of Massachusetts), and Dick Anthony, (resident of Albany, California, and writer on new religious movements.[1].

The court summons filed by Singer and Ofshe's lawyer described the APA's BSERP rejection of the DIMPAC report as a "rejection of the scientific validity of the theory of coercive persuasion".[1]

The case was dismissed by the court on the basis that the claims of defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy constituted a dispute over the application of the First Amendment to a public debate over academic and professional matters; that the parties may be described as the opposing camps in a longstanding debate over certain theories in the field of psychology, and that the plaintiffs could not establish deceit with reference to representations made to other parties in the lawsuit.[1]

In a further ruling, James R. Lamden ordered Ofshe and Singer to pay $80,000 in attorneys' fees under California's SLAPP suit law, which penalizes those who harass others for exercising their First Amendment rights. At that time, Singer and Ofshe declared their intention to sue Michael Flomenhaft, the lawyer that represented them in the case, for malpractice.[1]

Comments on the lawsuit

In a press release by the "Deprogramming Survivors Network" of September 1993, Dr. Isaac N. Brooks Jr., its then national president, commented on the court decision stating that it "is another stunning victory for religious freedom and freedom of speech in America," and that "for years, Singer and others like her have engaged in a racket to profit from asserting false theories in courtrooms. Once again, they have been exposed."[1]

APA Division 36 resolution

APA Division 36 (then Psychologists Interested in Religious Issues, today Psychology of Religion) in its 1990 annual convention approved a resolution in which it was stated that there was no research that scientifically supports the assertion that non-physical persuasion such as "coercive persuasion", "mind control", or "brainwashing" is practiced by religious groups. The Executive Committee invited researchers to submit proposals on the topic.[1]

Use of the report

The report has been cited in a July 2006 conference in Melbourne, Australia, in which Professor Eugene Subbotsky stated: "controversial religious cults, manipulative psychotherapies and outbursts of religious fanaticism are on the increase".[1] The report is also used as a reference text in psychology for Doctoral and post-doctoral students, at Brigham Young University's David O. McKay School of Education.[1]

Comments on the report

The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements

The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements describes the DIMPAC report as a the result of the "professionalization of the Anti-cult movement" based on a broad-based effort to reconceptualize mind control theory so that it would pass muster with the judiciary and professional associations, as part of a campaign to gain professional legitimacy. It also asserts that the effort to was never completely successful, and that it was more successful in popular than scientific culture.[1]

Andrew P. Bacus' statement delivered to the Illinois Senate Committee on Education

In a statement titled "Challenging 'Mind Control" in Illinois", Bacus refereed to Singer's theories as being "reviled by her peers" and that Singer's theories "continue to be viewed as sophomoric by her peers", and referred to the APA rejection as "research [that] has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of mental health professionals as not reliable."[1]

Dick Anthony's Pseudoscience and Minority Religions

Dick Anthony, in an article published in the Social Justice Research journal in 1999, writes that testimony based on brainwashing theory has been opposed as unscientific by relevant professional academic organizations and repeatedly excluded from American legal trials.[1]

2001 Amitrani, Di Marzio article

In 2001, Alberto Amitrani and Raffaella Di Marzio, from the Roman seat of the GRIS (Group for Research and Information about Sects), published an article in which they assert that the rejection of the report should not be construed as a rejection of the theories of thought reform and mind control as applied to New Religious Movements, and that the rejection by one division of the APA does not represet the whole association. They quote Benjamin Zablocki, professor of sociology and one of the reviewers of the rejected DIMPAC report, as writing in 1997 that people were "misled about the true position of the APA and the ASA with regard to brainwashing", and that the APA urged scholars to do more research on the matter. They also write that they have reason to believe that the APA still considers "psychological coercion" to be a phenomenon worth investigating, and not a notion rejected by the scientific community.

They quoted Benjamin Zablocki from a personal email: "In my opinion, the DIMPAC committee went too far in the other direction by asking the APA to affirm that brainwashing in religious cults was a proven psychological fact. It was for this that they were censured. It is not true that the APA affirmed the contrary, that brainwashing was disproved. Instead, the APA argued that it could not go along with EITHER SIDE in this matter. I would say that neither side got what it wanted from the APA. As an organization representing ALL psychologists in the USA, it took a proper agnostic position that no final decision could be given at this time".[1]

APA's 2002 Annual Convention

In 2002, at the APA's 2002 Annual Convention in Chicago during the panel session "Cults of hatred", Alan W. Scheflin, professor of law at Santa Clara University, stated that "Extreme influence [such as mind control and cults] has remained dormant in the field of psychology". He went on to state that it is a legitimate field of study and that psychology needs an organized response to it, saying: "We need to stop this germ from spreading."

The panelists also called for the APA to form a new task force to "investigate mind control among destructive cults." Panelists included Deborah Layton, survivor of the People's Temple mass suicide/murder at Jonestown, Steven Hassan, Cynthia F. Hartley, Stephen J. Morgan, a faculty member with the American Management Association/Management Centre Europe in Brussels, Belgium, and then APA President Philip Zimbardo[1]

See also

Template:Wikisource

References and footnotes

External links

Template:Cults

WikiDoc Help Menu

Quick Start..

Editing basics

Advanced editing

Communicating your edits

Help Videos You Can Watch


Acknowledgement and Attribution Regarding Sources of Content

Some of the initial content on this page may be incorporated in part from copyleft sources in the public domain including wikis such as Wikipedia and AskDrWiki. Drug information for patients came from the The National Library of Medicine. Infectious disease information may have come from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Differential Diagnoses are drawn from clinicians as well as an amalgamation of 3 sources: 1.The Disease Database; 2. Kahan, Scott, Smith, Ellen G. In A Page: Signs and Symptoms. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2004:3; 3. Sailer, Christian, Wasner, Susanne. Differential Diagnosis Pocket. Hermosa Beach, CA: Borm Bruckmeir Publishing LLC, 2002:7 .

Retrieved from "http://en.wikidoc.org/index.php/APA_Task_Force_on_Deceptive_and_Indirect_Techniques_of_Persuasion_and_Control"
Personal tools