You are on page 1of 37

Sofial Justice Research, Vol. 12, No.

4, 1999

Pseudoscience and Minority Religions: An


Evaluation of the Brainwashing Theories
of Jean-Marie Abgrall
Dick Anthony1

An analysis of Jean-Marie Abgrall's cultic brainwashing theory shows that the


theory is essentially identical to the pseudoscientific theory that was developed first
by the American CIA as a propaganda device to combat communism, and second
as an ideological device for use by the American anti-cult movement to rationalize
efforts at persecution and control of minority religious groups. The CIA theory
has been evaluated scientifically in research in several contexts (i.e., communist
coercive indoctrination of Western prisoners, the CIA's attempted development of
brainwashing techniques, and with American new religions or "cults "). In each
context, it has been shown to be ineffective in coercively changing worldviews.
Because of this pattern ofdisconfirmation, testimony based on brainwashing theory
has been opposed as unscientific by relevant professional academic organizations
and repeatedly excluded from American legal trials. Consequently, neither legal
decisions nor public policy with respect to minority religions should be based on
Abgrall's appropriation of this pseudoscientific theory.
KEY WORDS: brainwashing; Abgrall; cult and sect; evidence admissibility; hypnosis; conditioning;
pseudoscience.

INTRODUCTION

This article evaluates the scientific status of the cultic brainwashing perspec-
tive of the French psychiatrist Jean-Marie Abgrall, widely considered to be the
leading anti-cult mental health professional in Europe, and as such is playing a
similar formative role in anti-cult activities in Europe that was earlier played in
the United States by American psychologist Margaret Singer (Singer, with Lalich,

1 DickAnthony is a research and forensic psychologist who has often served as a consultant and expert
witness in cases involving allegations of coercive organizational influence.

421
0885-7466/99/1200-0421$I6.00/0 O 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation
422 Anthony

1995). Abgrall emerged as a key "cult expert" because he was the first psychiatrist
in France willing to embrace brainwashing theories. He has testified or submit-
ted reports in almost all "cult cases" in France and a number in other European
countries. Indeed, Abgrall has been involved in dozens of cases in recent years,
and he has assumed the mantle of the foremost expert on sects and cults in all of
France and even Europe. Abgrall has also had an impact in some former communist
countries as well, particularly through the dissemination of official governmental
reports from France and Belgium that he helped produce.
Abgrall was appointed in 1996 as a member of the official Observatory of
Sects (or Cults) in France, and had testified earlier before the governmental com-
mission that developed a very critical report on "sects and cults" (Commission d'
enquete sur les sectes, 1996), which has been referred to in France and a number
of different countries as a guide to official policy development. (See Introvigne
and Melton, 1996, for a discussion of this report.) Abgrall also assisted in prepa-
ration of another major and quite critical report on new religions in Belgium in
1997 (Chambre des Representants de Belgique, 1997). In both reports he is quoted
prominently both for his mind-control theories and for his criticism of so-called
cult apologists.
Abgrall later rejected the French Observatory of Sects and Cults as not being
critical enough of them and urged the establishment of an official governmental
"Mission to Fight Cults," a recommendation that was accepted by the French gov-
ernment, making it a powerful institution directed at control of minority religions
in France. Abgrall has become perhaps its chief spokesperson in France, together
with the Mission's president, Alain Vivien, working regularly with the media to
promote the task of the Mission. More recently, his ideas about brainwashing were
used as major justification for quite punitive recommendations in the lengthy report
on finances of minority religions in France (Assemblee Nationale, 1999; see also
Richardson and Introvigne, 1999, for discussion of these and other governmental
reports in Europe, and the significant use they make of brainwashing theories,
including that of Abgrall).
Abgrall also wrote another book focusing on the possibility of violence from
cult reactions to the coming millennium (Abgrall, 1999a). This book, which dealt
with alleged "apocalyptic cults" that were ready for violence to help usher in
the new millennium, garnered considerable media attention. The book builds on
Abgrall's very high profile during the time of the Solar Temple murder/suicides
that took place in Switzerland in 1994, and also in France (with a smaller number)
in 1995. Abgrall was appointed as an expert in a legal case arising from the
Solar Temple episodes, and he became a frequent television commentator on the
Solar Temple, although he had never done any field research on the group. (This
episode did lead to Abgrall encountering some difficulty, because it was revealed
in the course of this investigation that Abgrall himself was a former member of
a Freemasonry splinter group within France that has also involved Solar Temple
leader Luc Jouret as a member; see Broussard, 1999.)
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscience 423

In this article, I evaluate Abgrall's cultic brainwashing theory as it was ex-


pressed in his 1996 book La Mecanique des Sectes (English translation published
as Soul Snatchers: The Mechanics of Cults, Abgrall, 1999b) and in his Rapport
sur "L'Egise de Scientologie," Les Techniques de la Scientologie, La Doctrine
Dianetique: Leurs Consequences Medico-Legales (Abgrall, 1990). The latter is a
149-page report on the alleged brainwashing practices of the Church of Scientol-
ogy that was submitted in two well-known criminal prosecutions, primarily for
fraud, of members of the local branches of the Church in Nice and Marseilles.
Abgrall also testified as an expert witness in the trials. The prosecution was pri-
marily based on AbgralFs theory that the defendants had convinced prospective
members of the truth of Scientology doctrines by means of brainwashing, which
thus constituted fraud. The argument presented in this article was also expressed
in a somewhat different form in a report that I submitted to the court on behalf of
the defendants in the Marseilles case in 1999, a case in which I also testified as an
expert witness. My report and testimony apparently was convincing to the court.
Its decision, unlike that in a related earlier case in Lyons in which Abgrall had also
testified against Scientology, did not endorse Abgrall's testimony that the Church
brainwashes its members.
In an earlier publication (Anthony, 1990), I evaluated the scientific status
of the American anti-cult brainwashing theory that had been developed first by
Margaret Singer and also by other American anti-cult social and behavioral scien-
tists, including most prominently psychiatrist John Clark, counseling psychologist
Michael Langone, sociologist Richard Ofshe, and psychiatrist L. J. West. Abgrall's
anti-cult brainwashing perspective appears to have much in common with the views
of these American anti-cultists.
As detailed below, my 1990 article evaluates whether the cultic brainwashing
theory that had been widely used in the United States as the putatively scientific
foundation for legal actions against new religious movements (NRMs), or "cults,"
was based on generally accepted scientific research. I focused particularly on
the research of Robert Lifton and Edgar Schein into Chinese and North Korean
Communist indoctrination practices during the time of the Korean War and the
communist takeover in China, which has been cited as a basis for such ideas by
Singer and others (Lifton, 1961; Schein et al., 1961). This perspective has been
further developed in a series of publications (Anthony, 1989, 1996, 2000; Anthony
and Robbins, 1992, 1994, 1995a,b, 1998) that argue that brainwashing theory was
originally developed as a propaganda device by the American CIA, and that it
was proved convincingly to be false by generally accepted scientific research on
communist indoctrination practices in North Korea and China (see also Richardson
and Kilbourne, 1983; James, 1986). The viewpoint expressed in these publications
has been widely accepted by scientists who study new religions (see Barker, 1984;
Richardson, 1993; Bromley, 1998), as well as by professional associations that
represent their interests (American Psychological Association, 1987; Society for
the Scientific Study of Religion et al., 1988; Society for the Scientific Study of
424 Anthony

Religion and American Sociological Association et al., 1989), and also by courts
that have ruled on the question of whether testimony based on the brainwashing
theory is admissible as scientific expertise. (For discussions of these amicus briefs
and of court rulings that took them and the perspective expressed in this article into
account, see Anthony, 1996, pp. 224-235; Anthony and Robbins, 1992, 1995a;
Richardson, 1991, 1996b.)
In addition, the perspective originally expressed in my 1990 article has been
widely used in the United States as the basis for legal briefs contending that cul-
tic brainwashing testimony is pseudoscientific propaganda expressing prejudice
against minority religions rather than being based on a genuine scientific theory.
Generally, briefs based on this argument have been successful in excluding testi-
mony based on the cultic brainwashing theory because of its pseudoscientific and
prejudicial character (Anthony 1996, pp. 224-235; Anthony and Robbins, 1995a;
Richardson, 1996a,b; Ginsburg and Richardson, 1998). (I have served as a con-
sultant and expert witness in most of these cases, aiding in preparing motions in
limine and submitting declarations in support of those motions.)

THE BRAINWASHING PARADIGM

As indicated, the brainwashing paradigm was developed originally by the


American CIA as a propaganda device to explain why a few Korean POWs ap-
peared to convert to communism while imprisoned (see Anthony, 1990, pp. 229-
302, and especially pp. 307-316). The basic argument is that communists used four
interrelated indoctrination processes—that is, "conditioning," "debilitation," "de-
ception/defective thinking," and "dissociation-hypnosis-suggestibility" to over-
whelm the free will of their victims and cause them to become communists. Al-
legedly, the communists placed their prisoners in an altered state of consciousness
through hypnosis/dissociation and physiological debilitation so that their mental
and judgmental capacities were radically reduced. In the resulting primitive state
of consciousness, the prisoners allegedly were highly "suggestible"—that is, un-
able to resist suggestions that they change their beliefs and/or conduct from that
which was normal for them. Their captors then allegedly subjected them to a pro-
cess of "conditioning" that convinced them that transparently illogical and false
communist propaganda expressed the only correct worldview. The conditioning
supposedly pervaded the person's whole personality, resulting in the imposition
of a false self that governed all of their actions and decisions. This new personal-
ity was, moreover, assumed to be enduring and lasted indefinitely, even without
subsequent trance induction or further conditioning.
This allegedly scientific analysis of communist brainwashing was popularized
in books by Edward Hunter (1951,1960), who was a covert propaganda specialist
employed by the CIA, and in a novel entitled The Manchurian Candidate written by
Richard Condon (1958), who also apparently received the idea for this novel from
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscience 425

the American CIA (Anthony 1996, p. 62, ftnt. 33). Indeed, the term brainwashing
was coined by Hunter in his books, although apparently the brainwashing theory
expressed by Hunter and Condon was not original with them but was developed
by many covert operatives within the CIA.
My thesis, which is shared by other scientists (i.e., Richardson and Kilbourne,
1983; James, 1986; Spanos, 1996), is that cultic brainwashing testimony as devel-
oped by its leading proponents, simply adopted the CIA brainwashing theory and
applied it to new religions. Cultic brainwashing theory was not based on system-
atic research on new religions, but rather simply transferred this pseudoscientific
brainwashing theory to an ideological attack on new religions. Consequently, the
scientific standing of cultic brainwashing theory depends on the scientific credibil-
ity of the CIA theory. Research and analysis that demonstrate the pseudoscientific
character of that brainwashing theory, therefore, also demonstrates the pseudo-
scientific character of cultic brainwashing theory. Before I turn to my discussion
of such research, in the next section of this article I document that Abgrall bases
his theoretical approach on the same CIA brainwashing theory that later became
the basis of the cultic brainwashing theory in the United States, as expressed by
Margaret Singer and others.

ABGRALL'S APPROPRIATION OF CIA BRAINWASHING THEORY

In his book La Mecanique des Sectes (Abgrall, 1996, pp. 19-20), Abgrall says
quite explicitly that his theory of cultic mental manipulation is based on Hunter's
brainwashing theory, which he regards as having described communist indoctrina-
tion practices around the time of the Korean War. He indicates that in his use, the
terms brainwashing, mental manipulation, and psychic conditioning are synony-
mous or interchangeable terms for the indoctrinational process used by the North
Korean and Chinese communists against Western prisoners so as to overwhelm
their free will and turn them into obedient communists. At a later point in his book,
he states that: "Coercive [communist and cultic conditioning] methods are called
brainwashing, mind control, mental handling, coercive persuasion, indoctrination,
thought reform, forced conversion, replacing of the thinking process and so on"
(Abgrall, 1999, pp. 125-126).
AbgralPs use of the term brainwashing for his theory of mental manipulation
is itself significant in indicating that his theory and the CIA theory are essentially
the same (see Anthony, 1990, pp. 299-302). Reputable researchers on communist
indoctrination have repeatedly rejected the CIA brainwashing analysis because it is
pseudoscientific, ideological, and misleads the public because it has a propaganda
rather than a scientific function (Schein, 1961; Lifton, 1961; Biderman, 1962;
Scheflin and Opton, 1978).
Abgrall (1999, pp. 19-20) quotes Hunter as claiming that the goal of brain-
washing is to "radically change a mind, so that the individual becomes a living
426 Anthony

puppet, a human robot, without the atrocity being visible on the exterior, the ob-
jective being to create a tool in flesh and blood, furnished with new beliefs and
new thought processes inserted into a captive body."
Abgrall claims that the communist brainwashing techniques described orig-
inally by Hunter are now used by cults, and even though they are not completely
effective in creating robots, they are powerful enough in achieving their aims to
deserve being studied and condemned, a task, according to him, with which the
remainder of his book is concerned. He states (1999, p. 20) "Today's [cultic] brain-
washing techniques do not always succeed in creating the perfect robot, even if
they prove to be sufficiently effective and dangerous to warrant study and censure.
These 'imperfect' techniques I shall now attempt to describe."
In a section entitled "Education by Brainwashing," Abgrall explicitly claims
that his theory of mental manipulation by cults is an application of the CIA re-
search on brainwashing, particularly that conducted by a Dr. Cameron at McGill
University (Abgrall, 1999, pp. 125-128). Abundant research has demonstrated
that the CIA program never produced techniques that are useful in indoctrinating
people against their will (Marks, 1980; Scheflin and Opton, 1978). Consequently
the CIA's popularization of the brainwashing theory (through Edward Hunter's
books) as an interpretation of communist indoctrination of Western prisoners was
purely a propaganda device, as is AbgralFs use of the same paradigm to attack
new religious movements (see Anthony, 1996, pp. 58-85, and below; Anthony and
Robbins, 1998).
As we would expect, then, from his claim that his book transfers the CIA
brainwashing paradigm to cults, both his book (Abgrall, 1996) and his written
testimony (Abgrall, 1990) follow the outlines of Hunter's paradigm and the anti-
cult brainwashing adaptation of it, described in Anthony (1990). That is, Abgrall's
theory of cultic mental manipulation consists of a description of a program of
coercive social influence consisting of the same interrelated themes as that of
Hunter's original brainwashing theory, and of the adaptation of it to so-called
cults by leaders of the American anti-cult movement. These interrelated themes
are: (1) dissociation/hypnosis/suggestibility; (2) psychological stress/debilitation;
(3) conditioning; and (4) defective thinking/deception (Anthony, 1990).

INFLUENCE OF AMERICAN ANTI-CULTISTS ON ABGRALL

The real theoretical foundation of American anti-cultists such as John Clark,


Margaret Singer, or Michael Langone is the CIA brainwashing theory. Abgrall
(1996, p. 127) explicitly cites a major publication of the most prominent American
anti-cult movement organization as part of the theoretical foundation for his expres-
sion of the brainwashing theory. He cites and summarizes a publication produced
by the Center on Destructive Cultism, an arm of the American Family Foundation,
which was self-published and widely circulated by that center. Destructive Cult
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscience 427

Conversion: Theory, Research, and Treatment (Clark et al., 1981) is one of the
seminal American statements of the anti-cult brainwashing theory that became
the central ideology of the anti-cult movement. The booklet expresses the inter-
related dimensions of the CIA theory (hypnosis/debilitation/false belief-defective
thought/conditioning) and applies them to an analysis of cultic influence.
John Clark, a psychiatrist and first author of this manifesto, was at the time
of its publication executive director of the Center on Destructive Cultism. He tes-
tified in several of the important early cultic brainwashing cases as well as in some
legislative hearings on cults. However, his career as an expert witness in anti-cult
cases was eventually curtailed when he was formally reprimanded by the Disci-
plinary Board of Medicine in Massachusetts for improper use of thought reform
and mind control as diagnostic categories, and for basing his analysis on "mere
membership" in a religious organization in a cultic brainwashing case (Richardson,
1992a). Clark had filed an affidavit in a conservatorship hearing that led to the in-
carceration in a mental hospital of a convert to the Hare Krishna. Clark claimed
that the person was mentally incompetent with little basis for his conclusion other
than the fact that this person had converted to the movement. Clark had only a
15-minute conversation with the person 9 months prior to filing his affidavit.
Michael Langone, Clark's major coauthor, who has also testified several times
in anti-cult brainwashing cases (Langone, 1998), is at the present time the execu-
tive director of the American Family Foundation. Margaret Singer, the most impor-
tant proponent of brainwashing theories in America, and several other prominent
American anti-cultists have long been on the Board of Advisors of the American
Family Foundation. Abgrall also cites the definition of cultic mind control that was
produced at a conference sponsored by the American Family Foundation as part
of the theoretical foundation for his viewpoint (Abgrall, 1999, p. 69).

ABGRALL'S USE OF AMERICAN BRAINWASHING THEORY


IN TESTIMONY

Abgrall has testified in a number of different cases involving various minority


religions. For purposes of illustration, his written testimony (1990) from one major
case involving Scientology is examined, testimony that is based on the interrelated
dimensions of the CIA brainwashing perspective (i.e., hypnosis, debilitation, de-
ception/defective thought, and conditioning). As with Singer's testimony against
Scientology in Wollersheim v. Scientology (Anthony, 1990, p. 314) and Singer's
and Richard Ofshe's reports in U.S. v. Fishman (Anthony and Robbins, 1995,
pp. 528-529), a case also involving Scientology, AbgralFs argument attacks the
central religious ritual of the Scientology religion (i.e., "auditing") via each of
these alleged dimensions of brainwashing (see also Singer's use of the same ideas
to discuss the activities of the Hare Krishna, such as chanting, in the famous George
v. /SKCCWcase: Richardson, 1991.)
428 Anthony

Hypnosis

Within the Scientology worldview, auditing is the fundamental means by


which Scientologists transform their consciousness so as to achieve salvation.
(Scientific studies of Scientology auditing describe it as a form of pastoral coun-
seling aided by biofeedback by the means of the "E-meter," which measures the
galvanic skin response; see Wallis, 1977; Dericquebourg, 1998; Wilson, 1994.)
Abgrall contends that auditing, the heart of Scientology theology and religious
practice, is a means of placing its converts into a hypnotic trance and thus mak-
ing them vulnerable to the other dimensions of brainwashing (see Abgrall, 1990,
pp. 42-59, 1996, pp. 179-190). Abgrall (1990, p. 60) states:
We have seen that auditing, or co-auditing, or auditing with an E-meter, or even soloauditing,
comes from a hypnotic or self-hypnotic technique. In fact, there will be "failures" and it
cannot be applied to subjects resistant to manipulation. But for sensitive subjects it will
result in effects stretching from simple obsession to irreversible hallucinatory delirium.

Deception/Defective Thought/False Belief

In the preceding quote, we see that Abgrall views the religious experiences and
beliefs that result from auditing, the central Scientology ritual, as hallucinations
and delusions. He regards the state of consciousness in which such false beliefs
seem true as defective or delusional. (Compare the similar allegations of Singer as
described in Anthony, 1990, pp. 311-316, and in Richardson, 1991, in a major case
involving the Hare Krishna, as well as other groups.) Abgrall contends that belief
in such false doctrines is induced in subjects against their free will only because
the auditing/hypnosis has placed them in a primitive state of consciousness in
which they are highly "suggestible" and thus unable to resist indoctrination into
the Scientology worldview. He states:
Considering the relative fragility of some patients, they appear extremely malleable by
the auditor who can implant behaviors or ideas in them. The phenomenon of suggestibility
creates in the patient the illusion of former lives or paranormal experiences without enabling
him to review the reality of these experiences and without warning him against the wild
and hallucinatory side of these behaviors. Whatever the credit given to the psychic and
extrasensory phenomena, nobody would have the idea of voluntarily continuing to live in
a waking state, a dream started in a state of sleep, and even more so if this dream creates
anguishes, it is however part of the technique applied by Scientology. (Abgrall, 1990, p. 56,
emphasis mine)

Because, according to Abgrall in this passage, no one would voluntarily


convert to the Scientology worldview, the implication is that such conversions
are involuntary. Repeatedly, as in this passage from his written testimony (1990),
Abgrall treats Scientology doctrines as false beliefs involuntarily induced through
hypnosis and its alleged resulting suggestibility and primitive thought (see Abgrall,
1990, pp. 31-33, 51, 114-115, 120-121). See also Abgrall's book for a more
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscience 429

extended discussion of the relation between primitive thought and belief in false
doctrines that he believes is characteristic of alleged cults (1996, pp. 133-153),
as well as for additional discussion of this alleged interaction between primitive
thought and false doctrines in cults (1996, pp. 91-95), and for an argument that
the whole worldviews of cults are false and based on primitive thought (1996,
pp. 155-162).
By contending that the Scientology theology is a false belief involuntarily
induced only because the Scientology convert is in a primitive cognitive state of
heightened suggestibility, Abgrall attempts to disguise the fact that he is asking
the government to rule that some religious beliefs are false and therefore illegal.
On the surface, Abgrall claims to be demonstrating that brainwashing exerts in-
voluntary influence over converts through its distinctively coercive techniques of
persuasion. As we shall see, however, he fails to demonstrate that there is anything
distinctively coercive about Scientology's (and other new religions') techniques
of social influence. Shorn of such pseudoscientific rhetoric of coercive techniques,
it is rather easy to see that the heart of Abgrall's argument is that Scientology's
doctrines deviate from the conventional beliefs that he thinks should be normative
for everyone in French society.
Abgrall claims that his testimony demonstrates scientifically that Scientol-
ogy's techniques of influence are distinctively coercive. What he actually claims
is that Scientology's doctrines are false. Abgrall is accusing Scientology of heresy
relative to mainstream beliefs, and he is speaking not as a scientist, but as a moral
entrepreneur and inquisitor for his status quo view of the world. (For similar
demonstrations with respect to American anti-cult testimony involving Scientol-
ogy as well as other groups such as the Unification Church and the Hare Krishna,
see Anthony, 1990, pp. 311-322; Anthony and Robbins, 1995, pp. 524-536;
Richardson, 1991, 1992a.)

Psychophysiological Stress/Debilitation

American anti-cultists claim that psychophysiological depletion caused by


cultic health practices contribute to the altered states of consciousness and prim-
itive thought that supposedly results in conversions based on overwhelmed will
(see Anthony, 1990, pp. 309-311). In Abgrall's testimony and book, he focuses
on the Scientology "Purification Rundown" as the alleged basis for such debili-
tation. The "Purification Rundown" is a program intended to cleanse the partici-
pant of the psychophysiological effects of past drug use. It consists primarily in
aerobic exercise, sauna baths, and the ingestion of dietary supplements such as
minerals and vitamins. (See Hubbard, 1990 for a book-length description of the
program.) See Abgrall (1996, pp. 241-248) and his testimony (1990, pp. 81-105,
especially pp. 49-50), in which Abgrall summarizes the alleged contribution of
430 Anthony

debilitation from the purification rundown in contributing to "mental manipula-


tion." He states:
The purification has a double interest in conditioning and manipulation practices which are
those of Scientology. It creates in the subject effects which are interpreted outside their
reality and are used to feed the Scientology fable, it subdues the subject by wearing him
out and by modifying his usual physiology, making him more fragile and dependent on the
verbal techniques which are applied to him. (1990, p. 102)
And it is an established fact that an hyperutemy has the consequences of lowering vigilance
and inducing confusional phenomena. Both effects are useful in the context of mental ma-
nipulation, the first one by facilitating the subjects dependence, the second one by favoring
the appearance of hallucinations, of delirium, or more simply of synesthetic experiences
which will be re-interpreted in a "paranormal" context One can say that the purification
procedure is an amalgam of free assertions and of fantasy hypothesis to mention the words
of an INSERM's practitioner. It is highly efficient in the specific framework of facilitating
mental manipulation, while showing a character of unquestionable dangerousness, which
can lead to some patients' death. (1990, p. 104)2

Basically, what Abgrall is arguing here is that psychophysiological debilita-


tion lowers a person's mental powers to a primitive state, and in addition results
in psychophysiological symptoms that can be interpreted incorrectly as religious
phenomena. As with the American anti-cultists use of the CIA brainwashing the-
ory, the allegations of psychophysiological debilitation is treated as an analog of
hypnosis, which supposedly creates a defective cognitive state in which the per-
son is highly suggestible and thus vulnerable to indoctrination into false religious
beliefs.
I will not definitively address the medical allegations contained in Abgrall's
writings on the purification rundown. However, the psychological implications of
his argument relative to the claim of mental manipulation seem extremely unlikely.3
Similar allegations in the CIA brainwashing theory relative to the much more
severe debilitation characteristic of the Chinese and Korean communist forceful
indoctrination of Western prisoners were found to be completely unfounded (see
Anthony, 1990, pp. 309-312).

Conditioning

In the CIA brainwashing theory, defective cognitive states and hypersug-


gestibility were allegedly produced through hypnosis and debilitation, which then
rendered victims vulnerable to involuntary indoctrination into new worldviews

2 INSERM is the French national institute for health and medical research, which is under the admin-
strative control of the Minister of Education. Its members are primarily researchers and academics.
3 Although I am not a medical doctor, Abgrall's purely medical allegations relative to the purification
rundown also seem farfetched. I was a research associate at the University of North Carolina Medical
School for 6 years and later served as a Consulting Research Psychologist to the Metabolic Research
Unit of the University of California Medical School at San Francisco, where I supervised a research
program in psychosomatic medicine and was senior author of two articles reporting our research on the
psychiatric effects of metabolic disorders published in distinguished medical journals (see Anthony
et al., 1973, 1974).
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscience 431

as a result of specialized conditioning procedures. According to the CIA's covert


propaganda operative Edward Hunter, such specialized conditioning procedures
were based on the research of the eminent Russian physiologist, Ivan Pavlov, the
discoverer of the conditioned reflex. American anti-cultists such as Singer then
adopted from the CIA paradigm the contention that cultic brainwashing or mental
manipulation depends on conditioning in order to indoctrinate converts against
their wills into alien worldviews (West and Singer, 1980).
Conditioning theory is another name for behaviorism, a psychological theory
that all learning, whether animal or human, is dependent on conditioning through
external influence rather than through mental processing by higher mental facul-
ties. (See Anthony, 1990, 1996, and below, for discussion of the flaws in use of
this theory as a component of brainwashing theories.) For now, I simply wish to
establish that Abgrall's theory of mental manipulation, like the CIA theory and
American anti-cult brainwashing theory, asserts that conditioning is an inseparable
component of the mental manipulation of its members by new religious groups.
In his 1996 book, Abgrall discusses what he refers to as "conditioning"
(Abgrall, 1996, pp. 139-226). In these chapters, Abgrall essentially treats con-
ditioning as a synonym for brainwashing, which he also defines as "coercive con-
ditioning." In his introduction to the topic he defines conditioning as any form of
education that aims to "substitute disciplined automatic behavior for the imagina-
tion and spontaneity of the individual" (1996, p. 139). We can see then, that as
he defines it, conditioning intrinsically is opposed to human freedom and spon-
taneity, and involves control by others rather than by one's own imagination and
intellect. He says, 'The object [of conditioning] is towards attitudes that have been
defined by other people" (1996, p. 139). So defined, conditioning seems a very
general topic indeed, and the allegation that Scientology's techniques of mental
manipulation are based on "conditioning" seems so vague as to involve the circular
reasoning that is the hallmark of pseudoscience rather than science. How could
such a sweeping and general allegation possibly be disproved? His claims are not
falsifiable, as is required for any truly scientific theory, especially if it is to be pre-
sented as evidence in court (Ginsburg and Richardson, 1998). Is the allegation that
Scientology engages in brainwashing anything more than a pejorative semantic ar-
gument, a use of buzz words and name calling, with no concrete scientific criteria
of how Scientology's social influence differs from other techniques of persuasion?
As if to respond to this problem of vagueness and the resulting circular reason-
ing of allegations that Scientology mental manipulation is based on conditioning,
Abgrall acknowledges that conditioning may be mild or coercive. This seems to
promise that Abgrall will provide us with scientific criteria for drawing the line
between those instances of social influence that are acceptable and those that over-
whelm free will. As an approach to specifying such empirical criteria for drawing
the line, he provides examples of both mild and coercive conditioning. "Educa-
tion is a model of mild conditioning, at least in our Western democracies," says
Abgrall (1996, p. 139). However, "Coercive methods [of conditioning] are called
432 Anthony

brainwashing, mind control, mental handling, coercive persuasion, indoctrination,


thought reform, forced conversion, replacing of the thinking process and so on"
(1996, pp. 139-140).
This may be what coercive conditioning is called—that is, brainwashing and
its various synonyms—by advocates of the CIA mind control model. But what are
the actual empirical criteria that differentiate so-called coercive conditioning or
brainwashing from noncoercive forms of conditioning on a scientific basis? Instead
of answering this crucial question, Abgrall launches into a rather ambiguous de-
scription of the CIA brainwashing research program, as if such research provided
the scientific criteria for differentiating coercive from noncoercive influence.
As shown in my various accounts of research on communist indoctrination
and so-called brainwashing, such research never succeeded in scientifically draw-
ing the line between allegedly coercive conditioning (brainwashing) and other
forms of supposedly noncoercive social influence on any basis other than the crite-
rion of naked physical force (Anthony, 1990, 1996). In other words, if you credibly
threaten to shoot someone if they do not pretend to believe what you are telling
them, usually they will indeed mouth whatever platitudes you attempt to indoctri-
nate into them. The problem with this "forced compliance" method of influence, of
course, is that people who submit to such forceful indoctrination are not only truly
not convinced by such techniques, but they also only pretend to be so as long as the
physical threat is present. Yet what Abgrall is attempting to account for with the
Scientology converts is the fact that they actually came to believe the Scientology
doctrines even when no form of credible physical threat was used to convince them
of the truth of such doctrines. Nothing from the research on communist brainwash-
ing is relevant to explaining such nonphysically coercive persuasion. Such research
provides no criteria for differentiating so-called mild conditioning from so-called
coercive conditioning other than the use of naked physical force. Abgrall's labeling
of Scientology's influence on its converts as coercive conditioning, therefore, is
nothing more than a form of name calling with no credible scientific foundation.
Abgrall's reasoning reminds one of similar ideas from Singer, who talks of "second
generation" brainwashing theories that do not require physical coercion, but are
supposedly just as effective, if not more so, at overwhelming free will (Ofshe and
Singer, 1986, p. 9; but see Anthony, 1990, pp. 331-333).
Nevertheless, in his testimony (1990), Abgrall attempts to provide another
scientific foundation for his allegation that Scientology influence involves dis-
tinctively coercive conditioning. Therein, he identifies the "experimental basis
for these techniques" as "behaviorism" (Abgrall, 1990, pp. 77-79). Moreover, he
specifically identifies the research on the conditioning of animals by the American
behaviorist psychologist B.F. Skinner as the scientific basis for his contention that
Scientology influence is based on coercive conditioning. Abgrall states: "Since
Skinner, it has been experimentally demonstrated that animal or human behavior
is governed by contingencies of 'reinforcement'" (1990, p. 77). (Actually, Skinner
conducted his research primarily on animals, and his behaviorist approach is no
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscicnce 433

longer taken seriously as a theory of human cognitive functioning, as will be


discussed; see Gardner, 1985, pp. 191-196, and Machan, 1974).
Again, as with his contentions with respect to the other dimensions of alleged
Scientology brainwashing (i.e., hypnosis, debilitation, and defective thought),
Abgrall focuses his contentions regarding conditioning on the practice of auditing
with the E-meter. He states:
If this system does not use electric shocks to negatively reinforce the wrong answers or bad
behavior as is done in the aversion therapies, and as has been used in the "reformatory"
camps, or as was described in Anthony Burgess's novel, "Clockwork Orange," nevertheless
the response by the auditor contains a potentially repressive message. The [Scientology]
preclear must progress on the "bridge" and his answers must conform with those requested
by Scientology in its worldly project. Any answer that results in a tone-arm fall represents
trouble for the Scientology system. The preclear must therefore attune his answers as rapidly
as possible to what the cult desires. He therefore finds himself avoiding conduct which
violates Scientology policy, and this constrains him to a functioning where his freedom and
his free will are relegated to second place.
To sum up: the electrometer therefore acts as a repressive conditioning therapy and is
far from the quest for freedom which was used to attract the subject to participating in these
techniques. (1990, pp. 78-79; emphasis added)

In this passage, as in the sections of his argument focused on the other di-
mensions of the alleged brainwashing process, Abgrall contends that belief in the
value of auditing, and in the value of the use of the E-meter, is false, and that
its use overwhelms free will. However, as with allegations that belief in auditing
and other Scientology practices is based on hypnosis, debilitation, and defective
thought, his contention with respect to behaviorism and conditioning theory as
the scientific foundation for his mental manipulation theory is a purely semantic
allegation with no generally accepted scientific basis.
Behaviorism is the name for an outmoded general theory of human learning
that maintained that all learning resulted from external influence rather than au-
tonomous reasoning. From the behaviorist perspective, all influence is based on
conditioning by external influence. Therefore, behaviorism provided no criteria
for distinguishing between allegedly mild and allegedly coercive conditioning.
How could it while maintaining that all human behavior resulted from external
influence rather than internal imagination and spontaneity? From the behaviorist
perspective, all behavior is determined by external influence and free will is an
illusion. See Skinner's book Beyond Freedom and Dignity (1972) for an extended
argument along these lines. See also Watson (1924) for the initial statement of the
behaviorist deterministic viewpoint.
What scientific value is there then in claiming, as Abgrall does, that behav-
iorism supplies a scientific basis for his claim that only Scientology's influence is
based on external conditioning and overwhelms free will? From the behaviorist's
perspective, if this were true of Scientology it would be completely unremarkable
because behaviorists believe that all behavior is determined by external social influ-
ence and that all free will is an illusion. Again, as with the other alleged dimensions
of the CIA brainwashing theory, Abgrall has failed to provide a scientific basis
434 Anthony

for his theory that Scientology's social influence on its converts is distinctively
coercive.

SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF CIA BRAINWASHING PARADIGM

Earlier in this article I demonstrated that Abgrall's testimony that Scientology


overwhelms the free will of its converts through "mental manipulation" is actually
based on: (1) the CIA brainwashing theory that was first popularized by Hunter,
and (2) the cultic brainwashing theory of American anti-cultists such as Margaret
Singer, John Clark, and Michael Langone. I now address in more detail whether the
CIA brainwashing paradigm, as transferred to NRMs or "cults" by Abgrall and the
American anti-cultists, is generally accepted in the relevant scientific communities
(i.e., psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and the scientific study of religion) as a
basis for testimony that free will has been overwhelmed by social or religious
influence.
Hunter's brainwashing paradigm was scientifically evaluated in several con-
texts: (1) in research on Korean POWs; (2) in research on people who underwent
coercive persuasion in Chinese communist thought reform prisons and reeducation
camps after the communist takeover in 1950; (3) in a research program conducted
by the American CIA in which they tried to develop techniques to brainwash for-
eign agents; and (4) in research on whether conversion to and participation in new
religions or cults is involuntary. In these several contexts brainwashing was found
to be ineffective in changing people's beliefs against their wills.
Contrary to Hunter's allegations, attempted communist brainwashing of
Korean POWs or Western civilians in thought reform prisons did not involve plac-
ing them in an altered state of consciousness, dissociative state, or hypnotic trance
(Schein, 1959, p. 437). To the contrary, communist thought reform amounted to
no more than subjecting prisoner's to severe physical coercion and/or threat of
death for noncompliance, and then subjecting them to intense propaganda with
respect to communist ideology. This resulted in behavioral conformity to com-
munist demands and in paying lip service to communist ideology as long as the
subjects were under communist control. However, interviews after they left com-
munist China indicated that these victims of communist thought reform had never
converted to communism at any point. Those very few who were even partially
influenced were predisposed to be so by virtue of their psychologically deprived
backgrounds. Note also that 15 of Lifton's 40 subjects were Chinese citizens
who had undergone thought reform in nonprison settings, and none of them had
converted to communism either. After their exposure to thought reform they all
escaped from communist China, and were accepted as refugees in Hong Kong,
where they were interviewed by Lifton. (See Lifton, 1961; Schein, 1961; Anthony,
1990, 1996, chap. 4 and 5, which summarize research on the assertions in this
paragraph.)
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscience 435

Moreover, research by the CIA that attempted to develop effective techniques


for converting foreign agents against their wills to American ideology by means
of hypnosis and other techniques for creating suggestible states of consciousness
was completely unsuccessful (Anthony, 1996, chap. 2). Consequently, scientific
research evaluating the brainwashing paradigm in these several contexts during
the 1950s showed that the concept was a pseudoscientific propaganda device with
no practical relevance to changing people's beliefs or conduct against their wills.
Nevertheless, the brainwashing paradigm began to be applied to allegedly
involuntary conversion to novel religious movements during the 1970s and became
the central ideology of a popular antireligious movement, usually referred to in
scholarly sociological research on the phenomenon as the anti-cult movement
(ACM; Shupe and Bromley, 1980). The brainwashing ideology has been used
as the core rationalization for kidnappings and involuntary deprogramming of
converts to new religions and for civil suits such as ones in which Abgrall has
testified (Bromley, 1983; Melton, 1999).
The cultic brainwashing theory has been evaluated in numerous research stud-
ies since the late 1970s. In general, conversion to and involvement in alternative
religions has been found to be voluntary (i.e., to involve no distinctive loss of free
will). Among the research findings that demonstrate this general negative evalu-
ation of cultic brainwashing theory are the following: (1) proselytization by new
religious movements (NRMs) influences only a very small percentage of those
who encounter it; (2) those who are influenced fit a "seeker" profile involving
disillusionment with conventional religious and social beliefs and active searching
for an alternative meaning system; (3) converts do not suffer a loss of cognitive or
intellectual competence and are not in a defective state of consciousness relative
to their condition prior to joining; (4) the turnover rate in alternative religions is
very high, with most leaving voluntarily after a short time; (5) the psychologi-
cal and emotional condition of most converts improves rather than declines after
joining; (6) those who leave voluntarily and have no subsequent contact with the
anti-cult movement tend to view their former involvement as having been ben-
eficial; (7) those who leave through involuntary deprogramming, or who leave
voluntarily but have subsequent involvement in the anti-cult movement through
anti-cult exit counseling or anti-cult psychotherapy, tend to retrospectively view
their NRM involvement negatively, and deny personal responsibility for their for-
mer involvement; that is, they come to believe that they had been brainwashed.
(For documentation of assertions in this paragraph, see, for example, Bromley and
Shupe, 1981, pp. 92-127; Barker, 1984, 1989; Bromley and Richardson, 1983;
Robbins, 1985, pp. 63-99; Wright, 1987; Richardson, 1993, 1996a; Bromley,
1998; Bainbridge, 1997, pp. 235-236; Dawson, 1999, pp. 11-124; Melton, 1999,
pp. 226-228, as well as a series ofamicus briefs filed in some major cases involving
cultic-brainwashing claims: American Psychological Association, 1987; Society
for the Scientific Study of Religion et al, 1988; Society for the Scientific Study
of Religion and American Sociological Association etal, 1989.)
436 Anthony

Dissociation and the DSM III

In another variation of the attempt to use hypnosis as part of the theoretical


foundation for brainwashing arguments, Singer (1995, pp. 299-301) and other
anti-cult experts have argued that brainwashing is accomplished through putting
an individual into a "dissociated state." Dissociation is generally defined as "a dis-
ruption in the usually integrated functions of consciousness, memory, identity, or
perception of the environment" (American Psychiatric Association, 1994, p. 477).
Dissociation is considered to be a general category of altered states of conscious-
ness, which contains hypnosis as one of its constituent members. Other examples
include amnesia, fugue, and depersonalization.
The claim that brainwashing is accomplished through dissociation originated
in the work of Joost Meerloo (1956) and Aldous Huxley (1958), who, with Edward
Hunter, were the primary popularizers of the CIA brainwashing theory. Singer,
however, frequently made the claim in her testimony in anti-cult cases that brain-
washing of the plaintiff had been accomplished through dissociation, and also
testified that this viewpoint was based on the theoretical foundation of commu-
nist coercive persuasion research conducted by Edgar Schein (for example Singer,
1983, p. 325). Singer was even able to get this viewpoint that brainwashing is
accomplished by dissociation included as a one-sentence example of "Atypical
Dissociative Disorder" in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American
Psychiatric Association (APA, 1980). The sentence reads:

Examples [of atypical dissociative disorder] include trance-like states, derealization unac-
companied by depersonalization, and those more prolonged dissociative states that may
occur in persons who have been subjected to periods of prolonged and intense coercive
persuasion (brainwashing, thought reform, and indoctrination while the captive of terrorists
or cultists). (American Psychiatric Association, 1980, p. 260)

Singer testified in one of her brainwashing cases that she herself had written
this sentence and gotten it included in this edition of the manual (Singer, 1986,
pp. 585-586). The sentence seems to imply not only that cultic brainwashing
causes dissociation and perhaps is accomplished by means of dissociation, but
also that a victim of cultic brainwashing can be held captive against their will by
means of brainwashing and without physical coercion, a key contention of anti-cult
brainwashing theory that conflicts with generally accepted research on coercive
persuasion. Singer's authorship of this sentence and its inclusion in the DSM III
through her efforts was a significant coup for anti-cult experts, who have used this
fact to argue that their testimony was based on a theoretical foundation that was
generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.
Contrary to Singer claims on this point, however, Edgar Schein had previously
noted (1959) that dissociation and/or hypnosis was claimed to be a constituent fea-
ture of so-called brainwashing by the robot brainwashing theorists Meerloo (1956)
and Huxley (1958) and that this claim was contradicted by generally accepted
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscience 437

research. According to Schein, his own research on communist coercive persua-


sion definitively disconfirmed Meerloo's and Huxley's viewpoint. He stated:
[IJt is difficult to see how Meerloo and Huxley can be so sure of the effectiveness of brain-
washing and of their interpretation of it as based upon hypnosis... all hypnotic situations
that I know of involve the deliberate creation of a state resembling sleep or dissociation. The
essence of coercive persuasion, on the other hand, is to produce ideological and behavioral
changes in a fully conscious, mentally intact individual. (Schein, 19S9, p. 437)

I discuss this conflict between Singer's anti-cult brainwashing theory and


Schein's research on the issue of dissociation as a feature of coercive persuasion
in my 1990 article (pp. 313-316), which has became a basis for motions in limine
designed to exclude brainwashing testimony as unscientific. Consequently, courts
have repeatedly found that the weight of the scientific evidence has established
that the anti-cult brainwashing theory, notwithstanding Singer's having managed
to get her cultic dissociation claim included in the DSM III, is not accepted by
the relevant scientific community, and Margaret Singer herself repeatedly has had
her testimony excluded as being in conflict with its claimed theoretical foundation
of Edgar Schein's and Robert Lifton's research. (See further discussion of legal
decisions on this issue below.)
Perhaps because of these events, the current edition of the APA manual, DSM
IV (1994, pp. 490-491), has eliminated the reference to cultists from its descrip-
tion of atypical dissociation. It now says that such dissociation can be caused by
being captive without any reference to cultists or minority religions. The claim that
captivity causes a dissociative disorder is unsubstantiated by research, but at least it
no longer endorses the anti-cult brainwashing claim that minority religions engage
in brainwashing, coercive persuasion, or thought reform, nor that they overwhelm
the free will of their members by means of dissociation and without physical coer-
cion. This would seem to indicate that the American Psychiatric Association, like
the American Psychological Association, the American Sociological Association
and the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, has repudiated Singer's cultic
brainwashing theory because of its unscientific character.

Impact of this Argument on Legal Trials

As indicated previously and in Anthony (1990), cultic brainwashing theory


is based on the generally discredited CIA brainwashing model rather than the
contrasting totalitarian influence theories of Schein and Lifton that are usually
claimed as its scientific foundation. I have used this argument to assist lawyers to
prepare motions in limine requesting the court to refuse to admit the brainwashing
testimony of Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe, and other anti-cult witnesses,
in approximately 30 cases (see Anthony and Robbins, 1992, 1995, as well as
Richardson, 1991,1996b, for discussions of these cases). Typically in these cases
I also submit a declaration in support of these motions to which I attach my 1990
438 Anthony

publication as an appendix. In these declarations I elaborate on this argument in


relation to the facts and legal issues specific to a particular case. In a number
of these cases, the attempts to exclude Singer's testimony have been successful,
and in two cases Ofshe's testimony was also excluded by the court in advance of
the trial. In many of the other cases, the brainwashing experts were voluntarily
withdrawn as witnesses by plaintiff's counsel prior to the point at which the court
would have ruled on the motion in limine and my supporting declaration regarding
their proposed testimony.
In one precedential case (U.S. v. Fishman), a federal judge ruled that the
Singer-Ofshe cultic brainwashing testimony was not accurately based on its clai-
med theoretical foundation—that is, Schein's and Lifton's research on communist
coercive persuasion. He also ruled that the Singer-Ofshe cultic brainwashing the-
ory is not generally accepted in the relevant scholarly communities, which in his
opinion clearly includes the communities represented by the American Psycho-
logical Association and the American Sociological Association.
These associations had submitted amicus curiae briefs at successive levels
of appeal of the Molko and Leal decisions in which they argued that cultic brain-
washing theory is not generally accepted as having scientific merit (see Anthony,
1996, footnotes 15 and 19 for additional discussion of these briefs). These briefs
argue that cultic brainwashing theory does not provide a scientifically acceptable
method for determining when social influence overwhelms free will and when it
does not. The court accepted the point of view which had been elaborated in the
motion in limine and in my supporting declaration and 1990 publication, as well
as that of the amicus briefs of the professional associations.4 Thus, the Fishman
as well as other decisions (see especially the Green and Ryan decision involving

4
As I have discussed elsewhere (1996, p. 42, footnote 19), APA and ASA eventually withdrew from
their sponsorship of the amicus curiae briefs opposing Singer's testimony in Molko and Leal that
Judge Jensen took into account in forming his opinion in the Fishman decision that Singer and
Ofshe's cultic brainwashing theory is not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community. In
forming this opinion. Judge Jensen reviewed affidavits from officers of these organizations regarding
the circumstances of their withdrawals, and determined that the withdrawals did not indicate that
the organizations had changed their judgments that Singer's proposed testimony in Molko lacked
scientific merit. With respect to the ASA brief, that organization withdrew from its sponsorship only
in the face of the threat of a lawsuit by Richard Ofshe, and only after the U.S. Supreme Court had
denied the writ o/certeriori that the brief was supporting. ASA's pro forma withdrawal at that point
had no legal relevence as the brief had no remaining legal standing with the court. In addition, the
executive council of ASA refused to pass a motion, as Ofshe had demanded, stating that ASA had
never officially sponsored the brief in the first place, and that it repudiated the opinions expressed in
the brief. See my article (Anthony, 1990a, pp. 322-324) for a discussion of the circumstances under
which APA withdrew from its brief and for a description of an associated subsequent formal action
by the APA that again repudiated Singer's cultic brainwashing theory. The APA had clearly stated in a
memo made public at the time of its withdrawal from the brief that it withdrew for "procedural and not
substantive reasons" and that it did not intend its withdrawal to indicate a repudiation of the opinions
it had expressed in the brief. See also the set of materials documenting the APA's actions with respect
to Singer's brainwashing theory that are available at http://www.cesnur.org/testi/se.brainwash.htm,
especially Massimo Introvigne's article, Liar Liar, available at that site, which is the most complete
discussion of the controversy concerning the APA's actions concerning cultic brainwashing theory.
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscience 439

claims against the Transcendental Meditation movement) that excluded Singer's


and Ofshe's theories as a basis for testimony endorsed the point of view expressed
in this article that cultic brainwashing theory is not based on a generally accepted
scientific foundation.
Subsequent to the decisions excluding their testimony, Singer and Ofshe
twice sued these professional associations as well as several individual scholars,
including this author, for defamation and conspiracy to defame.5 One suit was
filed in Federal Court in New York, claiming that those who opposed Singer and
Ofshe's presentation of their theories in court were engaging in a conspiracy to
defame them, which was illegal under Federal "RICO" (racketeering) statutes
(Singer et al v. American Psychological Association, et al, 1993). The second
suit was filed in California state court as a defamation action after the first suit
was dismissed (Singer et al v. American Psychological Association, et al, 1994).
Singer and Ofshe claimed that their professional reputations and careers as expert
witnesses had been severely damaged as a result of these amicus briefs and by the
publications of individual scholars such as myself, particularly the publications in
which the viewpoint described herein was expressed, as well as in my declaration
in the Fishman case.
Singer and Ofshe claimed that the amicus briefs of these associations were
mainly an application of the viewpoint presented in my articles and declaration.
They stated that contrary to the perspectives in these documents, their anti-cult
brainwashing theory is accurately based on the theoretical foundation provided
by Lifton's and Schein's research, and that such research is generally accepted
in the relevant scientific field. More specifically, they maintained that their cultic
brainwashing theory does not claim that cultic influence overwhelms free will. In
a declaration that she submitted in the second of these lawsuits, Singer claimed
that:
Distilling the assertions made by Mr. Anthony [in Anthony, 1990a,b, Anthony and Robbins,
1992] they [the APA and the ASA], amicus briefs essentially attribute to me what he calls
a Robot theory—a preposterous and certainly unscientific theory that subjects of coercive
persuasion were rendered automatons. Mr. Anthony had to have known that his attribution to
me of such a bizarre theory was wholly false. That "Manchurian Candidate" theory simply
never appeared in any of my writings, in any of my testimony, or in any of my statements.
(Singer, 1994, pp. 6-7)
In addition, Singer and Ofshe specifically cited as defamatory my statements
in my declaration in the Fishman case that their testimony in that case was centered
around a cultic brainwashing theory that Fishman's will was overwhelmed by
hypnosis. The complaint in Singer et al v. APA (1993) states:
a document in United States v. Fishman entitled "Declaration of Dick Anthony"... falsely,
fraudulently [states]... that Singer and Ofshe contended that the Church of Scientology used
hypnosis to brainwash Fishman and caused him to: (1) convert to the Scientology religion
5
The editor of this collection was also named as a defendant in these two legal actions, both of which
were ultimately unsuccessful.
440 Anthony

against his will, (2) "commit mail fraud" against his will, (3) be unable to comprehend the
moral significance of his criminal acts... (pp. 41-43)

Singer and Ofshe thus claimed in these lawsuits that their cultic brainwashing
theory is not based on the CIA robot theory—which maintains that brainwashing
overwhelms free will by means of hypnosis—but is based rather on the theories
of Schein and Lifton. Therefore, according to Singer and Ofshe, the claim in
these briefs and publications, as well as in my declaration in Fishman, that their
theory is not generally accepted is false and defamatory. (They specifically cited
the decision in the Fishman case as an example of the damaging impact that the
briefs and publications had had on their careers.) Responding to these claims in
my own declaration, I provided detailed evidence that both Singer and Ofshe had
in fact submitted reports in the Fishman case that asserted a cultic brainwashing
theory focused around the claim that Fishman had been hypnotized by Scientology
auditing procedures, and that therefore he had committed mail fraud against his
will. Both of these suits against me and others were dismissed on initial motions
as being without legal merit (but not without difficulties and some expense: see
Richardson, 1996b, and Anthony, 1996).
In addition, the judge who dismissed the second lawsuit then granted a Strate-
gic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion, a California remedy
for lawsuits that have no hope of ultimate success but simply are motivated by
an attempt to suppress freedom of speech by imposing large legal costs on the
defendants. When a SLAPP motion is endorsed by the court, as was the case in
the second lawsuit, the unsuccessful plaintiffs are required (as a penalty for their
misuse of the legal process) to pay the legal costs of the defendants. As a result.
Singer and Ofshe were required to pay the fees of the professional associations as
well as those of the individual defendants.6
It appears that the legal decisions in which Singer's and Ofshe's opinions
were ruled to be outside of generally accepted scientific opinion has discouraged
them from claiming research on communist mental coercion as the foundation for
their testimony in subsequent cases. In several cases since the Fishman decision,
Richard Ofshe abandoned his attempts to base his mental coercion argument on
research on communist thought reform. Singer, however, has not been very active
in brainwashing cases since the lawsuits described above, perhaps because of the
damages to her professional reputation that she complained of in her lawsuits.
Brainwashing arguments are also sometimes made in other countries, with mixed
success (Richardson, 1996a), but where they have been disallowed (e.g., Argentina,
Spain, Australia), it has generally been because of acceptance by the courts of the
arguments made herein.

6
Because of the nature of Singer's and Ofshe's attempts to suppress my scientific analysis of their cultic
brainwashing theory, which seemed intended to suppress my constitutional rights of free speech as
well as to threaten academic freedom more generally, my defense was conducted by the American
Civil Liberties Union.
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscience 441

THE THREE PHASES OF BRAINWASHING ARGUMENTS

The above sequence of actions by the courts and professional associations


definitively established that anti-cult brainwashing testimony based on the CIA
brainwashing theory such as that used by Abgrall and the American anti-cultists
is not generally accepted in the relevant scientific communities. Consequently,
the American courts generally no longer allow testimony that claims that new
religions overwhelm the wills of their converts in ways similar to how Korean
War prisoners were supposedly indoctrinated. In "Negligence, Coercion and the
Protection of Religious Belief (Anthony and Robbins, 1995a), we document this
change in such cases, as well as the development of strategies among American
anti-cultists that attempt to evade the force of these scientific and legal events.
These developments includes three phases.

The First Phase

The first phase of the development of the CIA brainwashing argument was its
use as a CIA disinformation and anti-communist propaganda campaign during the
McCarthyist period in American political life, and its use also as a rationalization
of illegal vigilante kidnappings and deprogramming of converts to new religions in
the late 1970s and early 1980s (and even more recently, especially in countries other
than the United States); see Bromley, 1983; LeMoult, 1978; Shupe and Bromley,
1980; and Anthony and Robbins, 1995a, for developments during this phase.

The Second Phase

The second phase of the career of the brainwashing paradigm was its use as
a basis for civil suits against cults for alleged brainwashing. It was characterized
by lawsuits and testimony that claimed to be based on a theoretical foundation of
research on communist brainwashing. This was the phase that has been described
herein thus far which culminated in U.S. v. Fishman and other lawsuits in which
the cultic brainwashing argument was excluded as unscientific, as well as Singer's
and Ofshe's lawsuits against APA and ASA, with myself and other scientists as
codefendants.

The Third Phase

Once some key professional associations and courts accepted research con-
clusions demonstrating that the CIA brainwashing paradigm was pseudoscientific
and not generally accepted in the scientific community, American anti-cultists
442 Anthony

began to look for alternative theoretical foundations and associated alternative


terminologies for their anti-cult brainwashing testimony. In its essence, anti-cult
brainwashing testimony continued during this period, but experts using it attempted
to evade the force of the legal and scientific developments exposing its pseudosci-
entific character by using alternative terminology and claiming a different scientific
foundation (Anthony and Robbins, 1995, pp. 520-536).

Characterizing Abgrall's Testimony

Abgrall's testimony (1990) also has some of the characteristics of third-phase


arguments. For instance, unlike his 1996 book, his testimony avoids reference to
Edward Hunter's books (Hunter, 1951, 1960) as the originator of the theory on
which his own viewpoint is based. In addition, in his testimony, Abgrall avoids the
brainwashing terminology (and its synonyms) that Hunter had coined and that was
generally used for the CIA theory and research, confining himself to the mental
manipulation term. This is not surprising, because his testimony was finished on
November 20, 1990, whereas the Fishman decision was filed with the court on
April 13, 1990. With this decision, the international anti-cult community began
to see the handwriting on the wall for testimony that explicitly claimed to be
based on a scientific foundation of Korean and Chinese communist brainwashing
research. The Green and Ryan v. Maharishi Mehesh Yogi (1991) decision, which
also excluded Singer's and Ofshe's testimony in advance of the trial on a basis
similar to that of the Fishman decision, gave a further indication that thereafter it
would be difficult to base brainwashing testimony on the theoretical foundation
of research on communist thought reform. Furthermore, preceding the Fishman
decision were several other decisions in which the unscientific character of anti-
cult brainwashing testimony was the basis of successful appeals of judgments that
had crucially turned on it (see, for examples, George v. ISKCON, 1988, Kropinski
v. World Plan Executive Council, 1988, and Meroni v. Holy Spirit Association,
1986, all of which are discussed in Anthony and Robbins, 1992).
Abgrall even goes so far in his testimony as to explicitly claim that his the-
ory of cultic mental manipulation is not based on research on Korean War-era
brainwashing of Western prisoners (1990, p. 25). This is very peculiar, given that
he claims exactly the opposite in his book. Therein, Abgrall repeatedly claims
that his cultic mental manipulation theory is based on research in Korean War-era
communist brainwashing, and he repeatedly uses the brainwashing term to refer
to his own theory (see Abgrall, 1996, pp. 20, 21, 139, 140).
Of course, Abgrall's book appeared after his testimony (1996), so it is striking
that it has the characteristics of phase-two testimony, whereas his earlier 1990 tes-
timony has the characteristics of phase-three testimony. In my opinion, the answer
to that question may be the following: His book is written for a popular audience
and is not testimony that he would expect to be scrutinized by knowledgeable
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscience 443

scientists, lawyers, and judges. Singer, also, in her 1995 book on cultic brain-
washing written for a popular audience, boldly claims that her theory is related to
communist brainwashing research as expressed by Edward Hunter (Singer, 1995,
pp. 52-82, especially pp. 53-56). This was long after she started avoiding these
claims in her legal testimony, apparently well aware that such claims would be
challenged as unscientific in a legal setting, perhaps leading to exclusion of her
testimony. Apparently, Singer still thinks (as does Abgrall) that there is value in
using brainwashing terminology and Hunter's books as the theoretical foundation
for her mind control theory in popular books because the general public is unaware
of the pseudoscientific character of the CIA brainwashing term and paradigm, and
this terminology and claimed theoretical foundation continues to have a potent pro-
paganda value with the public (see Bromley and Breschel, 1992, and Richardson,
1992b, for data on acceptance of such ideas by the general public).
In addition to his abandonment of the claimed theoretical foundation and ter-
minology of the CIA paradigm in his testimony, Abgrall also attempts to claim other
theoretical foundations for his mental manipulation theory therein. For instance,
he claims that his paradigm is based on addiction research (1999, pp. 17-18,257-
260) and also on the psychoanalytic theory of regression and transference (1990,
pp. 119-120; 1999, pp. 158-159). The addiction and regression/transference con-
cepts have been common substitutes for the CIA brainwashing paradigm as the
claimed theoretical foundation of mental coercion allegations in third-phase pub-
lications and testimony (see Singer, 1995, pp. 158-159; Martin, 1993; Tobias
and Lalich, 1994; Zablocki, 1998; Tobias, 1996; Heckers, 1997; Langone, 1997,
1998;Rutter, 1989,1997; Cooper-White, 1995,1997). Like the components of the
CIA paradigm (i.e., hypnosis, conditioning, debilitation, defective thought), these
concepts also have the characteristic of deterministic connotations with vaguely
nonspecific denotations. They are "buzz words" that imply coercion emotionally,
but supply no clearcut criteria for drawing the line between examples of social
influence that qualify and those that do not. I expand on these contentions later,
but first want to address the empirical disconfirmation of the use of hypnosis per
se as the theoretical foundation of mental manipulation arguments.

PROBLEMS WITH HYPNOSIS AS A SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION

In their search for an alternative scientific foundation to the CIA brainwashing


research, sometimes claims are made that third-phase mental coercion testimony
is based on scientific research on hypnosis (e.g., Langone, 1997, 1998). Legitimate
research on communist coercive indoctrination determined that hypnosis was not
involved in such indoctrination (Anthony, 1990, pp. 313-316), but nevertheless it
is theoretically possible that hypnosis is the basis of cultic mental coercion even
though it was not involved in communist coercive indoctrination of Westerners.
Abgrall appears to be adopting this strategy when he claims that the work of Barber
444 Anthony

(1969), a leading researcher on hypnosis, is the scientific basis for his claim that
alleged mental manipulation by new religions is based on hypnosis (Abgrall, 1996,
chap. 8, ftnt. 15).
However, it is well established in the relevant scientific communities (i.e.,
psychology and psychiatry) that hypnosis is not an effective technique for causing
people to engage involuntarily in conduct that is immoral, illegal, or against their
own self-interest (see Barber, 1961, 1969; Conn, 1982; Orne, 1961, 1962;Erikson,
1939;Moss, 1965, pp. 32-36; Fromm and Shor, 1979, pp. 6, 12). Strangely, someof
the best known research for demonstrating this fact was reported in the 1969 book
by Barber that Abgrall claims as the scientific foundation for his testimony. It is
interesting, then, that one of the few scientific experts whose work Abgrall cites as
foundation for his own opinions regarding the allegedly hypnotically overwhelmed
will of the supposed victims of new religions—namely, Barber (1961, 1969)—
actually holds opinions that are precisely the opposite of Abgrall's on this issue.
This is one of the most well-researched questions in the history of hypno-
sis research, and it is the consensus of informed scientific opinion that hypnosis
cannot be used effectively for overwhelming free will or for substituting the will
of the hypnotist for the will of he hypnotized. The myth of overwhelmed will by
means of hypnosis is a staple of stage hypnotism that has long been repudiated
by scientific research. Moreover, the idea that hypnosis could be used to impose
a false personality on another and establish long-lasting control over their whole
lifestyle is so farfetched that it is found only in popular science fiction on the topic
of brainwashing such as the book The Manchurian Candidate (Condon, 1958).
Indeed, the idea that participating in a new religion changes one's basic person-
ality is itself unsupported by empirical research (see Paloutzian, Richardson, and
Rambo, 1999).
In this connection, Nicholas Spanos, perhaps the most distinguished scien-
tific researcher on hypnosis, evaluated the claimed role of hypnosis in causing
involuntary influence, especially as it has been alleged to occur in the CIA brain-
washing theory and in cultic brainwashing. See Spanos (1996, pp. 49-53) in which
he criticizes Hunter as the originator of the CIA brainwashing paradigm and also
criticizes the use of the CIA paradigm as a basis for allegations that cults brainwash
converts by using hypnosis. He states (1996, p. 52):

The idea that people can be transformed into robots in this manner [i.e., through brain-
washing] is a cultural myth that grew out of the Korean conflict and subsequent cold war
tensions. The myth was reinforced both by simplistic notions concerning Pavlovian con-
ditioning and by even older cultural myths concerning the coercive "power" of hypnosis.
The robot mythology was maintained because it served a number of useful propaganda
purposes, and it continues to serve such purposes today for those who use notions like
"brainwashing," "mind control," "spot hypnosis," and "cult programming" to explain why
people sometimes join new religious movements such as the Unification Church (Moonies)
and the Hare Krishna sect (Anthony and Robbins, 1992).

Note that in this passage Spanos cites approvingly in support of his viewpoint
Anthony and Robbins (1992). Note also that Spanos' book was published by the
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscience 445

American Psychological Association. These two facts should go far in demon-


strating that the viewpoint expressed in this section—that is, that social influence
in new religions is not based on hypnosis—reflects a strong consensus among
scientists who are qualified to speak on this topic.

THE DAUBERT GUIDELINES

Now that third-phase cultic mental coercion testimony usually does not claim
to derive from research on communist brainwashing, there arises a need for criteria
other than those referring to research on alleged communist brainwashing for evalu-
ating the scientific standing of such testimony. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Daubert
v. Dow Chemical, recently defined such general guidelines for distinguishing be-
tween genuinely scientific and pseudoscientific foundations for allegedly scientific
testimony. According to the court, only testimony based on a scientific foundation
that fulfills criteria of scientific adequacy can be admitted in federal courts. (Most
state courts in the United States also accept the federal standard or something quite
similar.) According to this major decision, such guidelines include the following:
(1) general acceptance by the relevant scientific community; (2) falsifiability—has
the theory been tested or can it be tested; in particular, can it be shown to be false
if its predictions are disconfirmed? (3) error rate of classifications under the the-
ory; and (4) publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. (See Ginsburg and
Richardson, 1998, for another systematic application of the Daubert guidelines to
cultic brainwashing testimony.)
As the court documented in its decision, and as subsequent legal and scientific
commentary on the decision has generally agreed, these criteria are not specific
to the American scientific community, but represent international standards that
are generally accepted by knowledgeable philosophers of science and scientific
communities in most industrialized countries. For instance, Sir Karl Popper, who
developed the widely influential falsifiability criterion for differentiating science
from pseudoscience, did his important early work on this "demarcation criterion"
in Austria, his country of origin. He later completed work on the concept in England
after he had emigrated, where he was knighted and elected to the Royal Society
for his development of this very important criterion for differentiating science
from pseudoscience. (For discussions of the international character of Popper's
career and of his widespread influence, see Magee, 1985; O'Hear, 1980.). I briefly
consider the role of each of these scientific demarcation criteria in turn as they
have an impact on Abgrall's testimony.

The General Acceptance Criterion

In the United States, this criterion is generally referred to as the Frye Standard,
after U.S. v. Frye, the 1923 legal case in which it was first used to exclude testimony
446 Anthony

not based on a theoretical foundation that was generally accepted in the relevant
scientific community. Most of the brainwashing cases in which brainwashing tes-
timony was excluded toward the end of phase two (e.g., U.S. v. Fishmari) did so
on the basis of the general acceptance criterion or Frye standard. Basically, these
courts accepted the argument expressed to them by me and others that the CIA
brainwashing theory is not generally accepted as a valid scientific theory by the
relevant communities of scientists. Herein, I have adequately demonstrated that
Abgrall's testimony, like that of the American anti-cultists to which it is essentially
identical, does not satisfy this important criterion of scientific adequacy.

The Falsifiability Criterion

This is the most important of the scientific demarcation criteria specified in


Daubert. Sir Karl Popper, who has done the most significant work in develop-
ing this criterion, as well as much of modern philosophy of science, demarcates
science from other forms of expression according to whether it generates propo-
sitions/predictions that are precisely formulated enough that they can be discon-
tinued/contradicted by empirical observation (Popper, 1959, 1963). Perspectives
that do not meet this test but that nevertheless claim to be scientific are defined
by Popper and others as "pseudoscience." (For applications of Popper's falsifia-
bility and pseudoscience concepts to psychiatry, psychology, and the other social
sciences, see Leahey and Leahey, 1983; Blum, 1978; Machan, 1974; Cioffi, 1998;
Shermer, 1997).
Typically, pseudoscientific theories are circular and tautological—that is, they
conceal their conclusions in their initial premises through the use of semantic ma-
nipulations of various sorts [e.g., double talk, mumbo jumbo, tactical ambiguity,
heavily charged emotive language ("buzz words") with no precise empirical de-
notation]. In Anthony and Robbins (1995), we document that phase-three cultic
brainwashing arguments such as that used by Abgrall in his testimony fail the fal-
sifiability criterion and are essentially antireligious ideological propaganda rather
than science. Lurking beneath the rhetorical manipulation of Abgrall's analysis is
a bias in favor of scientific rationality as the basis of all human values, and against
supernaturally based religion of any sort, especially mystical religion. (See also
Anthony, 1990, pp. 318-322, for a discussion of this characteristic of Singer's
theories.)

Conditioning and Falsifiability

Above, I show that Abgrall's use of the alleged coercive conditioning con-
cept specifies no clearcut criteria for distinguishing coercive conditioning from
any other sort of social influence. If an allegedly scientific concept does not supply
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscience 447

precise empirical criteria for when it applies and when it does not, it is unfalsifiable
and results in irrefutable allegations. Interestingly, Noam Chomsky, generally rec-
ognized as the world's leading expert in the science of linguistics, and who is also
a recognized expert on the role of language in social influence and social control,
has argued that the conditioning/behaviorism concept, especially as used by B.F.
Skinner (whose work Abgrall cites as the theoretical foundation for his use of the
conditioning concept), is an ideological rather than scientific concept (Chomsky,
1987; see also Machan, 1974, on this point). Chomsky convincingly demonstrates
that the conditioning concept as developed by Skinner cannot be falsified, because
it has no well-defined criteria of application. Furthermore, Chomsky shows that
Skinner's argument that all behavior is conditioned by deterministic social influ-
ence and that free will is a myth is a pseudoscientific argument that is the basis of
totalitarian propaganda to influence people into giving up the freedom that would
otherwise be theirs. If Chomsky's argument is generally accepted in the relevant
scientific community, which it is, then Abgrall's use of Skinner's conditioning
concept would seems also to be a form of totalitarian propaganda that is concerned
with restricting freedom (e.g., freedom of religion, speech, association) rather than
protecting freedom.

Hypnosis and Falsifiability

Above I present research that shows that, contrary to Abgrall's testimony,


hypnosis is not effective as a technique of coercing involuntary compliance with
external demands for conformity. There is another important line of evidence
with respect to hypnosis that indicates that there is no way of clearly determining
whether a person is hypnotized. According to this viewpoint, which has been
widely demonstrated to be accurate on the basis of many research studies, hypnosis
is really only a socially collaborative situation that is not in any distinctive way
different from any other socially collaborative situation. From the point of view
established by this line of research, the hypnotic trance is a myth, and the state
of consciousness of a hypnotized person is not empirically distinguishable from
normal consciousness. Assuming this to be so, the allegation that a given form
of social influence is based on hypnosis is not empirically demonstrable. More
importantly with respect to the criterion of falsifiability, there is no scientifically
accurate way of disconfirming the claim that social influence is based on hypnosis.
Consequently, from this point of view, Abgrall's contention, for instance, that
Scientology auditing is a form of hypnosis is unfalsifiable and results in irrefutable
allegations, the opposite of a scientifically acceptable foundation for his testimony.
There are other lines of thought in hypnosis research that would quarrel
with the view that hypnosis does not involve an empirically distinctive state of
consciousness, but on the whole, the view expressed in this section enjoys much
more acceptance in the relevant scientific communities than does the contrary
448 Anthony

position. Interestingly, T.X. Barber, whose research Abgrall claims as the scientific
foundation for his testimony on hypnosis, is the most prominent scientist whose
research has tended to demonstrate that the hypnotic trance is a myth. In the forward
to the 1995 edition of Barber's book (which was a revised edition of Barber's 1969
book, which Abgrall cited as support of his testimony), Irving Kirsch (1995, p. v)
wrote:
During the 1960's Barber conducted an extensive series of experimental studies challenging
the assumption that hypnotic phenomena are due to an altered state of consciousness.
He demonstrated convincingly that all of the effects of hypnosis, including heightened
suggestibility, could be produced without a hypnotic induction. Hypnotic responses can
be explained by people's motivations, attitudes, and expectancies, the same variables that
produce nonhypnotic behavior.
At first, the radical nature of Barber's proposals led to a division of the hypnosis
community into two warring camps. However, the great state debate has come to an end.
Almost all contemporary researchers now agree that the impressive effects of hypnosis
stem from social influence and personal ability—not from a trancelike state of altered
consciousness. This transformation of the field of hypnosis has been aptly termed the
Barber Revolution by historian Alan Gauld (1992).

Thus, according to the primary theoretical thrust of the very research on


hypnosis that Abgrall claims as the theoretical foundation for his testimony in this
case—that is, the research of T.X. Barber, Abgrall's testimony on this score is
unfalsifiable and pseudoscientific.

Transference/Regression and Falsifiability

In addition to his use of the cultic brainwashing theory as the foundation for
his allegations of involuntary conversion and commitment to Scientology, Abgrall
claims as a part of his scientific foundation the transference of childhood depen-
dency needs to L. Ron Hubbard and the church and regression to a state of childish
dependency on the church. The transference/regression theory is an aspect of psy-
choanalytic theory, which was developed by Freud, whose book Totem and Taboo
(1953-1974a) Abgrall cites as part of his theoretical foundation. However, it was
Freud's view that all religious belief is based on transference of and regression
to childhood dependency. The use of this theory, therefore, to contend that any
particular form of religious influence is based on transference and regression is
unfalsifiable, because the theory supplies no empirical criteria for differentiating
religious belief that results from such influence and religious belief that does not.
Moreover, Karl Popper himself, the originator of the falsifiability concept, demon-
strated that Freudian psychoanalytic theory in total, and not merely with respect
to its transference/regression theory of religious influence, is one of the clear-
est examples of an unfalsifiable and thus pseudoscientific theory (Popper, 1963,
pp. 34-39; for extended applications of Popper's analysis of psychoanalysis as
inherently unfalsifiable and pseudoscientific, see Grunbaum, 1984; Cioffi, 1998;
Timpanaro, 1998). Finally, contemporary scientific research has shown that the
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscience 449

transference/regression concept cannot be applied reliably, and that even psychi-


atric professionals cannot determine reliably when transference is operating and
when it is not (Mallinckrodt, 1996; Greenberg, 1994). This offers further confir-
mation that Abgrall's use of this foundation for his mental manipulation theory is
unfalsifiable, and thus pseudoscientific.

Addiction and Falsifiability

As another alternative to research on communist coercive persuasion as a


theoretical foundation for his viewpoint, Abgrall contends that conversion and
commitment to cults is a form of addiction and that scientific research on addic-
tion supports this point of view (1999, pp. 17-18, 257-260). Other third-phase
brainwashing publications have also adopted this strategy of basing brainwashing
arguments on the addiction concept (Martin, 1993; Zablocki, 1998). Abgrall also
claims that cultic addiction conforms to the definition of addiction in the Diagnos-
tic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, Fourth Edition
[DSM IV] (APA, 1994, p. 258).
However, according to the generally accepted scientific definition, a habit
must have the following characteristics in order to qualify as addiction: (1) the
habit, typically involving an ingestible substance such as drugs or alcohol, must be
based on a clearly identifiable physiological processs, the maintenance of which
becomes a necessary part of the biological functioning of the organism; (2) ad-
diction to such an addictive substance must show the characteristic of "tolerance,"
whereby increasing amounts of the substance must be consumed in order to have
the same effect; (3) if the individual stops taking the substance, he must experience
a "withdrawal syndrome" based on the disruption of his or her normal biological
functioning; (4) the abuse of the substance must produce independently verifiable
psychological and/or physical harm to the individual; and (5) the physiological
mechanism of the addiction must produce compulsive continuation of the addic-
tive behavior even in the face of such deleterious effects. See Campbell (1981,
pp. 12-13) and Reber (1995, p. 12) for this definition of addiction.
The above generally accepted scientific definition of addiction, with its refer-
ence to well-defined and measurable characteristics, is clearly falsifiable such that
the assertion that a class of people are addicts can be refuted by scientific research
if it is inaccurate. Conversion to minority religions does not satisfy this falsifiable
definition of addiction, however, because it does not involve any measurable alter-
nation in the psychobiology of the individuals involved, nor the other definitional
characteristics of addiction that result from such a biological basis for the behavior
at issue. Furthermore, claims such as AbgralFs, Martin's, and Zablocki's that reli-
gious involvements are addictive do not supply any other falsifiable characteristics
of such conversions that are meaningful indices of the compulsivity and harm that
are also definitional criteria of addiction as a scientific concept. Also, contrary to
450 Anthony

Abgrall's claim, involvement in minority religion clearly does not fit the definition
of addiction in DSMIV. That manual's only treatment of the concept of addiction
is in the chapter entitled Substance-Related Disorders (APA, 1994, pp. 175-272;
see especially the table entitled "Criteria for Substance Dependence" on p. 181
that follows the generally accepted definition of addiction discussed above).
Abgrall's attempt to extend the definition of addiction to cultic membership
is part of a general popular movement to redefine addiction as any nonphysio-
logically based habit of which the observer disapproves. This pop-psychological
redefinition of addiction has become the central ideology of a widespread social
movement, sometimes referred to as the recovery movement, which has been much
been much discussed and much criticized by scientific observers and journalists.
For descriptions of this social movement and scientific critiques of the nonfalsifi-
able and pseudoscientific misinterpretation of the concept of addiction that is the
basis its ideology, see Rapping, 1996; Kaminer, 1992; Tavris, 1992; Katz and Liu,
1991; and Peele, 1989.
One of the key components of this popular "recovery" ideology is the claim
that allegedly addicted individuals are not morally or legally responsible for habits
that they wish to disavow. See Seeburger (1996) for a philosophical analysis and
critique of this aspect of recovery ideology. The most common scapegoat for
such shifting of responsibility for personal choices are parents, who allegedly are
responsible for the undesirable adult behavior of their children because of poor
parenting. Abgrall's and other anti-cultists" definition of cultic involvement as an
addiction that overpowers converts' free will is part of this pop-psychological social
phenomenon, as is shown both by their disavowal of the free will of cult converts
and also by their replacement of the generally accepted, falsifiable definition of
addiction for the indeterminate definition favored by the recovery movement.
One trend in the anti-cult movement, the attribution of alleged multiple per-
sonality disorder to parents having abused their children through their involvement
in Satanic cults, combines both the general recovery ideology that blames parents
for all of their adult childrens' problems and the more specific ideology that blames
psychological problems on allegedly involuntary cultic brainwashing. (For doc-
umentation and critique of the pseudoscientific character of the ideology of the
"satanic ritual abuse" division of the anti-cult movement, see Richardson, Best,
and Bromley, 1991; Victor, 1993; Nathan and Snedeker, 1995.)
Further evidence that Abgrall situates his definition of cultic involvement as
addiction within the recovery movement ideology is shown by his claim that cultic
addiction is comparable to addictions to "work," "sex," and "compulsive shop-
ping" (Abgrall, 1999, p. 258). Clearly, when the concept of addiction becomes
so widely extended, its boundaries are indeterminate and thus unfalsifiable, and
everyone may be regarded as an addict of some sort or other. It is this indetermi-
nate and unfalsifiable characteristic of the pop-psychological concept of addiction
that has been one of the central criticisms made by scientific observers of the
unscientific uses of the addiction term by the recovery movement. In his reliance
on thus vague and indeterminate pop-psychological concept of addiction, then,
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscience 451

as with his attempts to base cultic brainwashing on conditioning, hypnosis, and


transference/regression, Abgrall has failed to provide his theory with a falsifiable
scientific foundation.

Error Rate

Error rate refers to the accuracy with which a particular scientific methodol-
ogy can empirically identify a phenomenon of interest. For instance, with respect
to Abgrall's theory of mental manipulation, the error rate would be the percentage
of instances that identification of social influence as mental manipulation fails to
be accurate. False positive is a term referring to the percentage of the time that
Abgrall would identify such coercive social influence when it was not present.
False negative refers to the percentage of instances that a method fails to identify a
phenomenon when it is present. Logically, the concept of error rates is only relevant
when a scientific proposition/theory is falsifiable. When theories are unfalsifiable,
the error rate is indeterminate, but is potentially infinite because unfalsifiable theo-
ries are of no value in accurately identifying instances of the phenomenon at issue.
With respect to Abgrall's theory of mental manipulation, by use of which he claims
to be able to identify instances and noninstances of coercive religious conversions
and subsequent obedience that is against the free will of the victim, my demon-
stration that his theory is unfalsifiable has also shown that his theory applies just as
plausibly to all forms of religious commitment and belief as it does to participation
in NRMs. Therefore, his theory is of no use in identifying distinctively coercive
religious influence.
For instance, I think it would be relatively easy to show that his theory ap-
plies just as plausibly to the Roman Catholic Church as it does to the Church
of Scientology, the Unification Church, or the Hare Krishnas. As Anthony and
Robbins (1995, pp. 532-534) demonstrate, a cultic brainwashing argument that
is essentially identical to Abgrall's was recently used as the basis for testimony
in a cultic brainwashing case that a religious retreat conducted by the Catholic
Church used cultic brainwashing. The application of Abgrall's theory to a par-
ticular group, therefore, is based on religious prejudice or bias rather than iden-
tifiable empirical characteristics, and prosecutions based on it are instances of
"selective prosecution," apparently designed to extend the power of the state
against religious minorities so as to suppress freedom of belief, rather than de-
signed to protect citizens against clearcut and distinctive forms of coercive
influence.

Publications in Peer-Reviewed Journals

According to the Daubert criteria, in order for testimony to qualify as sci-


entific, it must be based on scientific research or a scientific theory that has been
published in prominent scientific peer-review journals. As far as I can determine.
452 Anthony

Abgrall has never published his cultic mental manipulation theory in respected,
peer-reviewed scientific journals. Moreover, as shown herein, Abgrall's citation of
research that has been published in such journals, such as T.X. Barber's research on
hypnosis (1969), is inaccurately cited as a foundation for his theory because such
research actually contradicts rather than supports his theory. Furthermore, Abgrall
does not appear to have conducted any systematic scientific research of any sort on
social influence in new religions, nor to have had an academic appointment where
such research would normally be expected to be conducted.

CONCLUSION

As demonstrated herein with respect to both the American cultic brainwash-


ing research as well as claims of brainwashing and thought reform in China and
Korea that are used by Abgrall as a basis for his ideas, Abgrall's testimony is
pseudoscientific rather than scientific. As such, it should not be used as a basis for
legal judgments or governmental actions of any sort. To the extent that Abgrall's
pseudoscientific theories are allowed to be presented in courts or to influence so-
cial policy, serious questions about social justice for minority religions should be
raised.

Acknowledgments

He wishes to thank James T. Richardson and Massimo Introvigne for signif-


icant help in the preparation of this article for publication. For communications
with respect to this article, contact the author at: 5200 Huntington Ave., Suite 370,
Richmond Ca 94804; tel. 510 527-1712; email danth@ix.netcom.com.

References

Abgrall, J.-M. (1990). Rapport Sur "L'Eglise de Scientologie": Les techniques de la Scientologie,
la doctrine Dianetique, leurs consequences medico-legates (trans: "Report on the Church of
Scientology: The Techniques of Scientology and the Doctrine of Dianetics, Their Medical-Legal
Consequences"). Submitted in "Case for Criminal Prosecution for Fraud," Case No. 90:6119074,
Defendants: Isabelle Archer, et al., Higher Court of Marseilles. (Also submitted in another case
in Lyon.)
Abgrall, J.-M. (1996). La Mecanique des Sectes, Documents Payot, Paris.
Abgrall, J.-M. (1999a). Les sectes de I'apocalypse: Goitrous de l'an 2000. Calmann-Levy, Paris.
Abgrall, J.-M. (1999b). Soul Snatchers: The Mechanism of Cults, English translation of La Mecanique
des Sectes, Algora, New York.
American Psychiatric Association (1980). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd
ed. (DSM III), American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC.
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th
ed. (DSM IV), American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC.
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscience 453

American Psychological Association et al. (1987). Arnicas Curiae Brief in Molko and Leal vs. Holy
Spirit Association, filed with the California Court of Appeal, Case no. A020935.
Anthony, D. (1989). Evaluating key testimony in trials involving brainwashing allegations against
religious movements. In American Bar Association National Institute on Tort and Religion: Course
Materials, ABA Division of Professional Education, Chicago.
Anthony, D. (1990). Religious movements and brainwashing litigation: Evaluating key testimony. In
Robbins, T., and Anthony, D. (eds.), In Cods We Trust, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 295-
344.
Anthony, D. (1996). Brainwashing and Totalitarian Influence: An Exploration of Admissibility Cri-
teria for Testimony in Brainwashing Trials, Doctoral Dissertation, Graduate Theological Union,
Berkeley, CA (copies can be obtained from Ann Arbor, Michigan, UMI Dissertation Services).
Anthony, D. (2000). The pseudoscientific and totalistic character of the brainwashing paradigm: Legal
implications and consequences. In Zablocki, B , and Robbins, T. (eds.), Misunderstanding Cults,
University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Anthony, D., and Robbins, T. (1992). Law, social science and the "brainwashing" exception to the First
Amendment. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 10: 5-30.
Anthony, D., and Robbins, T. (1994). Brainwashing and Totalitarian Influence. In Ramachandran, V. S.
(edilor-in-Chief), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, Academic Press, Division of Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich. Reprinted in Howard Friedman (editor-in-Chief), Encyclopedia of Mental Health,
Academic Press, Division of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1998.
Anthony, D., and Robbins, T. (1995a). Negligence, coercion, and the protection of religious belief.
Journal of Church and State, 37: 509-536.
Anthony, D., and Robbins, T. (1995b). Religious totalism, violence and exemplary dualism. In Barkun,
M. (ed.), Millennialism and Violence, a special issue of Terrorism and Political Violence, 1: 10-50.
Anthony, D., Dippe, S., Hofeldt, F., Davis, J., and Forsham, P. (1973). Personality disorder and reactive
hypoglycemia, Diabetes, 22:.Revised version published in 1974, Modern Medicine, 42.
Assembled Nationale (1999). Rapport fait au nom de la Commission d' Enquete sur la situation
financiere, patrimoniale etfiscale des sectes, ainsi que sur leurs activites economiques et leurs
relations avec les milieux economiques et I'Assemblee Nationale.
Bainbridge, W. S. (1999). The Sociology of Religious Movements, Routledge, London.
Barber, T. X. (1961). Antisocial and criminal acts induced by hypnosis: A review of experimental and
clinical findings. The Archives of General Psychiatry, 5.
Barber, T. X. (1969). Hypnosis: A Scientific Approach, Litton, New York.
Barker, E. (1984). The Making of a Moonie: "Brainwashing" or Choice? Basil Blackwell, New York.
Barker, E. (1989). New Religious Movements, HMSO, London.
Biderman, A. (1962). The image of "brainwashing." Public Opinion Quarterly 26: 547-563.
Blum, J. (1978). Pseudoscience and Mental Ability: The Origins and Fallacies of the IQ Controversy,
Monthly Review Press, New York and London.
Bromley, D. G. (1983). Conservatorships and deprogramming. In Bromley, D. G , and Richardson,
J. T. (eds.), The Brainwashing/Deprogramming Controversy, Edwin Mellen, New York, pp. 267-
294.
Bromley, D. G. (1996). Listing (in black and white): Some observations on sociological thought reform.
NovaReligio, 1: 250-266.
Bromley, D. G., and Breschel, E. F. (1992). General population and institutional elite support for social
control of new religions movements. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 10: 39-52.
Bromley, D. G., and Shupe, A. (1981). Strange Gods: The Great American Cult Scare, Beacon,
Boston.
Broussard, P. (1999). L'enquete sur le Temple Solaire revele le monde des societes secretes (Solar
Temple investigation exposes the world of secret societies). Le Monde, Dec. 24.
Campbell, R. (1981). Psychiatric Dictionary, 5th ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Chambre des Repre'sentants de Belgique (1997). Enquete parlementaire visant a elaborer une politique
en vue de latter centre les pratiques illegales des sectes et les dangers qu 'elles representent pour
la societe et pour les personnes, particulierement les mineurs d'age. Rapport fait au nom de la
Commission d'Enquete par MM. Duquesne et Willems, Bruxelles.
Chomsky, N. (1987). Psychology and ideology. In Peck, J. (ed.), The Chomsky Reader, Pantheon,
New York, pp. 157-182.
454 Anthony

Clark, J., Langone, M. et al. (1981). Destructive Cult Conversion: Theory, Research and Practice,
Center on Destructive Cultism, American Family Foundation, Boston.
Commission d'Enqueue sur les Sectes (1996). Les secies en France: Rapport, Les Documents
d'information de 1'Assemble'e Nationale, Paris.
Condon, R. (1958). The Manchurian Candidate, McGraw Hill, New York.
Conn, J. (1982). The myth of coercion under hypnosis. In Zeig, J. (ed.) Eriksonian Approaches to
Hypnosis and Psychotherapy, Brunner Mazel, New York, pp. 357-368.
Dawson, L. (1999). Comprehending Cults, Oxford University Press, Ontario.
Dericquebourg, R. (1998). Scientology: Its cosmology, anthropology, system of ethics and method-
ologies. In Scientology: Theology and Practice of Contemporary Religion; A Reference Work
Presented by the Church of Scientology, Bridge Publications, Los Angeles.
Erikson, M. (1939). An experimental investigation of the possible anti-social use of hypnosis. Psychi-
atry, 2: 391^14.
Erikson, M. (1980). The Collected Papers of Milton H. Erikson on Hypnosis: Vol. I, Rossi, E. L. (ed.),
Irvington, New York.
Freud, S. (1953-1974a). Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 13: Totem
and Taboo, Hogarth, London.
Freud, S. (1953-1974b). Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 21: The Future
of an Illusion, Hogarth, London.
Fromm, E., and Shor, R. (1979). Hypnosis: Developments in Research and New Perspectives, Aldine,
New York.
Gardner, H. (1985). The Mind's New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution, Basic Books,
New York.
Gauld, A. (1992). A History of Hypnotism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ginsburg, G., and Richardson, J. T. (1998)."Brainwashing" evidence in light of Daubert. In Reece, H.
(ed.), Law and Science, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 265-288.
Greenberg, L. (1994). What is real in the relationship? Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology,
41:307-310.
Grunbaum, A. (1984). The Foundations of Psychoanalysis: A Philosophical Critique, University of
California, Berkeley.
Hunter, E. (1951). Brainwashing in Red China, Vanguard, New York.
Hunter, E. (1960). Brainwashing: From Pavlov to Powers, The Bookmaster, New York.
Huxley, A. (1958). Brave New World Revisited, Harper and Row, New York.
Introvigne, M., and Melton, J. G. (eds.) (1996). Pour en finir avec les secies. Le debat sur le rapport
de la commission parlementaire, 3rd ed., Dervy, Paris.
Introvigne, M., and Richardson, J. T. (1999). "Brainwashing" theories in European parliamentary and
administrative reports on "sects and cults." Presented at Biannual Meeting of the International
Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Belgium, Louvain.
James, G. G. (1986). Brainwashing: The myth and the actuality. Thought: Fordham University Quarterly
LXI(241): 241-257.
Kaminer, W. (1992). I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional: The Recovery Movement and Other
Self-Help Fashions. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.
Katz, S., and Liu, A. (1991). The Codependency Conspiracy, Warner, New York.
Kirsch, I. (1995). Foreward to the 1995 Edition of T. X. Barber, Hypnosis: A Scientific Approach, Jason
Aronson, New York.
Langone, M. (1997). Report in Francon Marini vs. Church of Gaia, District Court, County of Boulder,
State of Colorado, Case No. 96-CV-1450, Division 5.
Langone, M. (1998). Deposition in Francon Marini vs. Church of Gaia, District Court, County of
Boulder, State of Colorado, Case No. 96-CV-1450, Division 5.
Leahey, T., and Leahey, G. (1983). Psychology's Occult Doubles: Psychology and the Problem of
Pseudoscience, Nelson Hall, Chicago.
LeMoult, J. (1978). Deprogramming members of religious sects. Fordham Law Review, 46: 599-
634.
Lifton, R. (1961). Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in
China, Norton, New York.
Machan, T. (1974). The PseudoScience of B. F. Skinner, Arlington House, New Rochelle, NY.
"Brainwashing" as Pseudoscience 455

Magee, B. (1985). Philosophy and the Real World: An Introduction to Karl Popper, Open Court,
LaSalle, 1L.
Mallinckrodt, B. (1996). Capturing the subjective and other challenges in measuring transference.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(3).
Marks, J. (1980). The Search for the Manchurian Candidate, Random House, New York.
Martin, P. (1993). Post-cult recovery: Assessment and rehabilitation. In Langone, M. (ed.), Recovery
from Cults, Norton, New York, pp. 201-231.
Meerloo, J. (1956). The Rape of the Mind: The Psychology of Thought Control, Menticide, and Brain-
washing, World Publishing Co., Cleveland.
Melton, J. G. (1999). Anti-cultists in the United States: An historical perspective. In Wilson, B., and
Cresswell, J. (eds.). New Religious Movements, Routledge, New York, pp. 213-234.
Moss, C. (1965). Hypnosis in Perspective, Macmillan, New York.
Nathan, D., and Snedeker, M. (1995). Satan's Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern
American Witchhunt, Basic Books, New York.
O'Hear, A. (1980). Karl Popper, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Ofshe, R., and Singer, M. (1986). Attacks on peripheral vs. central elements of the self and the impact
of thought reform techniques. Cultic Studies Journal 3: 2-24.
Orne, M. (1961). The potential uses of hypnosis in interrogation. In Biderman, A., and Zirnmer, H.
(eds.). The Manipulation of Human Behavior Wiley, New York.
Orne, M. (1962). Antisocial behavior and hypnosis. In Estabrooks, G. (ed.), Hypnosis: Current Prob-
lems, Harper and Row, New York. pp. 137-192.
Paloutzian, R., Richardson, J. T, and Rambo, L. (1999). Religious conversion and personality change.
Journal of Personality, 67: 1047-1079.
Peele, S. (1989). Disseasing America: Addiction Treatment Out of Control, Lexington Books, Lexing-
ton, MA.
Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Harper Torchbooks, New York.
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Routledge and
Kegan Paul, London and New York.
Rapping, E. (1996). The Culture of Recovery: Making Sense of the Self-Help Movement in Women's
Lives, Beacon, Boston.
Reber, A. (1995). The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, 2nd ed., Penguin, London.
Richardson, J., and Kilboume, B. (1983). Classical and contemporary applications of brainwashing
models: A critique and comparison. In Bromley, D., and Richardson, J. (eds.), The Brainwash-
ing/Deprogramming Controversy, Edwin Mellon, Lewiston, NY, pp. 29-45.
Richardson, J. T. (1991). Cult/brainwashing cases and the freedom of religion. Journal of Church and
Slate 33: 55-74.
Richardson, J. T. (1992a). Public opinion and the tax evasion trial of Reverend Moon. Behavioral
Sciences & the Law 10: 53-64.
Richardson, J. (1992a). Mental health of cult consumers: Legal and scientific controversies. In Schu-
maker, J. (ed.), Religion and Mental Health, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 233-244.
Richardson, J. T. (1993). A social psychological critique of "brainwashing" claims about recruitment
to new religions. In Hadden, J., and Bromley, D. (eds.), The Handbook of Cults and Sects in
America, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 75-97.
Richardson, J. T. (1996a). "Brainwashing" claims and minority religions outside the United States:
Cultural diffusion of a questionable legal concept in the legal arena. Brigham Young University
Law Review, 1996: 873-904.
Richardson, J. T. (1996b). Sociology and the new religions: "Brainwashing," "the courts, and religious
freedom." In Jenkins, P., and Kroll-Smith, S. (eds.), Witnessing for Sociology: Sociologists in
Court, Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 115-134.
Richardson, J. T., and Kilboume, B. K. (1983). Classical and contemporary applications of brainwashing
models. In Bromley, D. G., and Richardson, J. T. (eds.), The Brainwashing/Deprogramming
Controversy, Edwin Mellen, New York, pp. 29-45.
Robbins, T. (1985). Cults, Converts, & Charisma, Sage Publications, Beverley Hills, CA.
Scheflin, A., and Opton, E. (1978). The Mind Manipulators, Paddington, Washington, DC.
Schein, E. (1959). Brainwashing and totalitarianization in modern society. World Politics 2: 430-441.
Schein, E. (1961). Coercive Persuasion, Norton, New York.
456 Anthony

Seeburger, F. (1996). Addiction and Kepsponsibility: An Inquiry into the Addictive Mind, Crossroad,
New York.
Shermer, M. (1997). Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Con-
fusions of Our Time, W. H. Freeman, New York.
Shupe, A., and Bromley, D. G. (1980). The New Vigilantes, Sage, Beverley Hills, CA.
Singer, M. (1983). Testimony in Robin and Marcia George v. International Society of Krishna Con-
sciousness of California et al., 25-75-65, Orange County California Superior Court.
Singer, M., and Lalich, J. (1995). Cults in our Midst: The Hidden Menace in our Everyday Lives,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Skinner, B. F. (1972). Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Bantam/Vintage Books, New York.
Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, et al. (1988). Amicus Curiae Brief for George v. 1SKCON,
filed with the California Appeal Court, Case No. D007153, 29 Feb.
Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, American Sociological Association, et al. (1989). Amicus
Curiae Brief for David Molko and Tracy Leal v. Holy Spirit Association, et al., filed with US
Supreme Court, Case no. 88-1600, 1 May.
Spanos, N. P. (1996). Multiple Identities and False Memories: A Sociocognitive Perspective, American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Tavris, C. (1992). The Mismeasure of Women, Simon & Schuster, New York.
Timpanaro, S. (1998). Error's reign. In Crews, F. (ed.), Unauthorized Freud: Doubters Confront a
Legend. Viking, New York, pp. 94-105.
Victor, J. (1993). Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend. Open Court, Chicago.
Wallis, R. (1977). The Road to Total Freedom: A Sociological Analyisis of Scientology, Colombia
University Press, New York.
Watson, J. B. (1924). Psychology from the Standpoint of a Behaviorist, 2nd ed., Lippincott, J. B.
Philadelphia.
West, L., and Singer, M. (1980). Cults, quacks, and nonprofessional therapies. In Kaplan, H., Freecl-
man, A., and Sadock, B. (eds.), Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry—III, Williams & Wilkins,
Baltimore, MD, pp. 3245-3258.
Wright, S. (1987). Leaving Cults, Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Washington, DC.
Zablocki, B. (1998). Exit cost analysis: A new approach to the scientific study of brainwashing. Nova
Religio 1: 216-249.
Ziskin, J. (1981). Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony, Law and Psychology Press,
Venice, CA.

You might also like