View source for APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control

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 movement]]s 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:<ref name="DIMPAC">[http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist23.html Report of the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control], November 1986., [[Margaret Singer]], chair; Harold Goldstein, [[National Institute of Mental Health]]; [[Michael Langone]], [[American Family Foundation]]; Jesse S. Miller, [[San Francisco, California]]; Maurice K. Temerlin, Clinical Psychology Consultants, Inc.; [[Louis Jolyon West]], [[University of California Los Angeles]].</ref>
*[[Margaret Singer]], Ph.D., Chair
*[[Harold Goldstein (psychologist, mental health)|Harold Goldstein]], Ph.D., [[National Institute of Mental Health]]
*[[Michael Langone]], Ph.D., [[American Family Foundation]]
*[[Jesse S. Miller]], Ph.D.
*[[Maurice K. Temerlin]], Ph.D., Clinical Psychology Consultants, Inc.
*[[Louis Jolyon West]], M.D., [[University of California Los Angeles]]

==Summary of report==

{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
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

{{col-2}}
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 
{{col-end}}

==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.<ref>[http://www.cesnur.org/testi/molko_brief.htm APA Brief in the Molko Case], from CESNUR website, [APA later withdrew the organization from the brief], 1987<br> ''[t]he methodology of Drs. Singer and Benson has been repudiated by the scientific community'', that the hypotheses advanced by Singer were ''little more than uninformed speculation, based on skewed data'' and that "''[t]he coercive persuasion theory ... is not a meaningful scientific concept.''</ref>.  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 (sociologist)|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."<ref name=APA_memo>May 11, 1987, APA MEMORANDUM [http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/cultsect/mdtaskforce/bserp_loomis.htm available online]</ref>

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".<ref>[http://www.cesnur.org/testi/APA.htm APA memo and two enclosures] </ref>

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."<ref name=APA_memo />

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."<ref name=APA_memo />

==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<ref>District of Columbia Court of Appeal, case 853 F.2d 948, Kropinski v. World Plan Executive Council.<br />"Kropinski failed to provide any evidence that Dr. Singer’s particular theory, namely that techniques of thought reform may be effective in the absence of physical threats or coercion, has a significant following in the scientific community, let alone general acceptance.</ref>

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]].<ref>''Robin George v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California'', District Court of California Appeals, August 1989, case cited in Lewis, James R. ''The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements'', pp.194, ISBN 0-19-514986-6</ref>

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.<ref>Boyle, Robin A., ''Women, the Law, and Cults:  Three Avenues of Legal Recourse--New Rape Laws, Violence Against Women Act, and Antistalking Laws'',  Cultic Studies Journal, 15, 1-32.  (1999) in reference to ''United States v. Fishman'', United States District Court of California, CR–88-0616; DLG CR 90 0357 DLG</ref> 

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.<ref>''Jane Green and Patrick Ryan v. Maharishi Yogi'', US District Court, Washington, DC, 13 March 1991, Case #87-0015 OG</ref>

==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.<ref>[http://www.cesnur.org/testi/singer.htm Case No. 730012-8] Margaret Singer v. American Psychological Association, Court order</ref>

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.<ref>''Cultologists sue social science associations; Margaret Singer, Richard Ofshe, American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association'', Ncahf Newsletter, Vol. 15 ; No. 6 ; Pg. 2; ISSN: 0890-3417, November, 1 1992</ref>

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".<ref>''Dr. Margaret Singer and Dr. Richard Ofshe Sue Associations'', The Cult Observer, Vol. 9 No. 8, 1992</ref>

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, Reno|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.<ref>''Experts on Cultism Sue Academic Associations''. The Cult Observer, Vol. 9 No. 8,1992</ref>. 

The [[court summons]] filed by Singer and [[Richard Ofshe|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".<ref>Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe v. American Psychological Association and others before the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda, January 31, 1994,  Summons, 110, p. 31).</ref>

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.<ref>Case No. 730012-8, Margaret Singer, et al., Plaintiff v. American Psychological Association, et. Al., Defendants <br />"This case, which involves claims of defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy, clearly constitutes a dispute over the application of the First Amendment to a public debate over matters both academic and professional. The disputant may fairly be described as the opposing camps in a longstanding debate over certain theories in the field of psychology.
The speech of which the plaintiff's complain, which occurred in the context of prior litigation and allegedly involved the "fraudulent" addition of the names of certain defendants to documents filed in said prior litigation, would clearly have been protected as comment on a public issue whether or not the statements were made in the contest of legal briefs. The court need not consider whether the privilege of Civil Code 47 (b) extends to an alleged interloper in a legal proceeding. Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence to establish any reasonable probability of success on any cause of action. In particular Plaintiffs cannot establish deceit with reference to representations made to other parties in the underlying lawsuit. Thus Defendants' Special Motions to Strike each of the causes at action asserted against them, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 is granted."</ref>

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.<ref>Allen. Charlotte, ''Brainwashed! Scholars of Cults Accuse Each Other of Bad Faith'', December 1998. [http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9812/allen.html Available online]</ref>

=== Comments on the lawsuit ===
{{sectstub}}
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."<ref>''Controversial psychologist's complaint thrown out of New York U.S. District court'', PR Newswire, Washington Dateline, September, 03 1993<br />"The Deprogramming Survivors Network issued the following: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently dismissed psychologist Margaret Singer's suit alleging a conspiracy by the American Psychological Association (APA) to destroy her reputation. Singer and her colleague, sociologist Richard Ofshe, had sued the APA, the American Sociological Association (ASA) and 12 individual scholars and lawyers under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Their suit charged that the two organizations and 12 individuals conspired to ruin their credibility as "expert witnesses" in lawsuits concerning new religious movements, thus preventing them from earning personal income. In dismissing Singer and Ofshe's complaint, Judge Lawrence M.McKenna found that "the amended complaint in the present case simply cannot sustain a RICO claim ... no 'pattern' of racketeering activity can be discerned from the acts alleged." "The decision is another stunning victory for religious freedom and freedom of speech in America," said Dr. Isaac N. Brooks Jr., nationalp resident of the Deprogramming Survivors Network, an organization formed to eradicate religious kidnapping and deprogrammings by pushing for criminal prosecutions of deprogrammers. "For years, Singer and otherslike her have engaged in a racket to profit from asserting falset heories in courtrooms. Once again, they have been exposed."</ref>

==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.<ref>PIRI Executive Committee Adopts Position on Non-Physical Persuasion Winter, 1991, in Amitrano and Di Marzio, 2001)
The Executive Committee of the Division of Psychologists Interested in Religious Issues supports the conclusion that, at this time, there is no consensus that sufficient psychological research exists to scientifically equate undue non-physical persuasion (otherwise known as "coercive persuasion", "mind control", or "brainwashing") with techniques of influence as typically practiced by one or more religious groups.  Further, the Executive Committee invites those with research on this topic to submit proposals to present their work at Divisional programs."</ref>

== 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".<ref>Magical thinking in contemporary societies: effects, mechanisms and implications. Eugene Subbotsky, A symposium proposal for the XIXth Biennial Meeting of ISSBD, July 2006, [[Melbourne, Australia]]</ref>  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.<ref>"Advanced Seminar in Agent Psychology: Learning and Teaching in the Latter-days", [[Brigham Young University]], [[David O. McKay]] School of Education, January 2006, Doctoral and post-doctoral students.</ref>

== 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 culture|popular]] than [[scientific]] culture.<ref>Anson Shupe, David G. Bromley, and Susan E. Darnell, ''The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements'', Chapter 8 ''Vicissitudes of Success and Failure'', pp.195, James R. Lewis (ed.) (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004)<br />"The professionalization of the ACM was accompanied by a broad-based effort to reconceptualize mind control theory so that it would pass muster with the judiciary and professional associations that adjudicated the standards for knowledge as well as account for “walkaways” and address the growing opposition to mind control theories from NRM scholars. [...] In a campaign to gain professional legitimacy, ACM-connected psychologists sought the support of the American Psychological Association for mind control ideology. In 1983 a task force, the Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC), was established to report to the APA's Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility (BSERP). ACM members dominated the task force. When a report was submitted three years later, BSERP concluded that it lacked scientific rigor and rejected it. [...] Overall, the effort to revamp ACM ideology was never completely successful, although it was more successful in popular than scientific culture.</ref>

;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."<ref>Bacus, Andrew P., ''Challenging 'Mind Control" in Illinois. Illinois Senate Committee on Education, December 7, 1993. </ref>

;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.<ref>[[Dick Anthony|Anthony, Dick]], ''Pseudoscience and Minority Religions: An Evaluation of the Brainwashing Theories of Jean-Marie Abgrall'', 	Social Justice Research, Springer Netherlands (1999), Volume 12, Number 4</ref>

;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".<ref>[http://www.csj.org/infoserv_articles/amitrani_alberto_apaandmindcontrol.htm "Mind Control" in New Religious Movements and the American Psychological Association], Amitrani Marzio and Raffaella Di Marzio, ''Cults and Society'', Vol. 1, No. 1, 2001</ref>

;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]]/[[mass murder|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]]<ref>Dittmann, Melisa, ''Cults of Hatred: Panelists at a convention session on hatred asked APA to form a task force to investigate mind control among destructive cults.'', Volume 33, No. 10, November 2002, Melissa Dittmann, pg. 30, [[American Psychological Association]], ''Monitor'', [http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/cults.html "Avaliable online"]</ref>

==See also==
{{wikisource|Category:DIMPAC|DIMPAC}}
* [[Anti-cult movement]]
* [[Brainwashing#Brainwashing controversy in new religious movements and cults|Brainwashing controversy in new religious movements and cults]]
* [[List of cult and new religious movement researchers]]
* [[Opposition to cults and new religious movements]]

== References and footnotes ==
<div class="references-small">
{{reflist|2}}
</div>

==External links==
*[http://www.rickross.com/reference/apologist/apologist23.html Text of the report] with table of contents, at [[Rick Ross (consultant)|Rick Ross Institute]] website
*[http://www.cesnur.org/testi/DIMPAC.htm Text of report], with editorial note, at [[CESNUR]] website
*[http://www.cesnur.org/testi/APA_Documents.htm Documents on Brainwashing Controversies and the APA], hosted at [[CESNUR]] site

{{cults}}
[[Category:Researchers of cults and new religious movements]]
[[Category:New religious movements]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Mind control]]
{{WikiDoc Help Menu}}
{{WikiDoc Sources}}