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

The APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC[1]) formed at the request of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1983. The APA asked Margaret Singer, one of the leading proponents of theories of coercive persuasion, to chair a task force to:

  1. Describe the deceptive and indirect techniques of persuasion and control that may limit freedom and adversely affect individuals, families, and society.
  2. Review the data base in the field.
  3. Define the implications of deceptive and indirect techniques of persuasion and control for consumers of psychological services.
  4. Examine the ethical, educational, and social implications of this problem.[2]

Before the task force had submitted its final report, the APA submitted an amicus curiae brief (10 February 1987) in a case pending before the California Supreme Court. The case involved issues of brainwashing and coercive persuasion. The brief stated that Singer's hypotheses "were uninformed speculations based on skewed data." The APA subsequently withdrew from the brief, portraying its participation as premature in that DIMPAC had not yet submitted its report. (Scholars who had co-signed the brief[3] did not withdraw.)

The task force completed its final report in November 1986. In May 1987 the APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC final report; stating that the report "lack[ed] the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur", and also stating that the BSERP did "not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue".[4] The BSERP board requested that the task-force members not distribute or publicize the report without indicating that the Board found the report unacceptable, and cautioned the members of the task force against using their past appointment to it "to imply BSERP or APA support or approval of the positions advocated in the report".[5]

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

Members of the task force

The members of the task force were:[6]

Reported conclusions of the DIMPAC task force

The draft report of the DIMPAC task force[7] (which the BSERP board requested that task-force members not distribute or publicize without indicating that the Board found the report unacceptable[8]) included the following abstract:

Cults and large group awareness trainings have generated considerable controversy because of their widespread use of deceptive and indirect techniques of persuasion and control. These techniques can compromise individual freedom, and their use has resulted in serious harm to thousands of individuals and families. This report reviews the literature on this subject, proposes a new way of conceptualizing influence techniques, explores the ethical ramifications of deceptive and indirect techniques of persuasion and control, and makes recommendations addressing the problems described in the report.

Draft recommendations included:

The amicus curiæ brief

Before the task force had submitted its final report, the APA, together with a group of scholars, submitted on February 10, 1987 an amicus curiæ brief in a pending case before the California Supreme Court, involving issues of brainwashing and coercive persuasion related to the Unification Church. The brief portrayed Singer's hypotheses as uninformed speculations based on skewed data.[9]

The brief characterized the theory of brainwashing as not scientifically proven and advanced the position that "this commitment to advancing the appropriate use of psychological testimony in the courts carries with it the concomitant duty to be vigilant against those who would use purportedly expert testimony lacking scientific and methodological rigor".

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

The APA memorandum: dismissal of the DIMPAC report

On May 11, 1987 the APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC report because "In general, the report lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur."[10]

Along with the rejection memo came two letters from external advisers to the APA who reviewed the report (the APA did not make its internal review public):

The BSERP board also cautioned the members of the task force "against using their past appointment to imply BSERP or APA support or approval of the positions advocated in the report", and stated that they should "not distribute or publicize the report without indicating that the report was unacceptable to the Board."[10]

The memorandum concludes with "Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue."[10]

Impact of the DIMPAC report dismissal on court cases

In August 1988 the District of Columbia Court of Appeals overturned the Kropinski v. World Plan Executive Council case, based on the lack of scientific support for the theories presented by Margaret Singer, during her testimony as an expert witness.[11]

In 1989 the Fourth Appellate District Court of Appeal of California, in the Robin George v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness case, rejected Singer's expert testimony on the basis that the brainwashing theory of false imprisonment constituted an attempt to premise tort liability on religious practices that the plaintiff believed to be objectionable, and that such premise appeared inconsistent with the First Amendment.[12]

In 1990 District Court Judge Lowell Jensen excluded Singer's testimony in United States v. Fishman, because the Court remained unconvinced that the medical community widely accepted the application of coercive persuasion theory to religious cults and because the Court did not accept the theory of coercive persuasion in the context of cults.[13]

In 1991, in the Patrick Ryan v. Maharishi Yogi case filed in the US District Court in Washington, DC, Judge Oliver Gasch refused to allow Singer to testify, based on the premises that Singer and Ofshe's theory did not enjoy substantial scientific approval and was therefore not admissible as the basis of expert opinion.[14]

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

When the APA's BSERP declined to accept the DIMPAC findings, Singer sued the APA and other scholars in 1992 for "defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy", under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and lost in 1994.[15] The lawsuit alleged that several top executives at the APA and ASA attempted to destroy careers, charging that from 1986 to 1992 they resorted to improper influence of witnesses in state court litigations, filed untrue affidavits, attempted to obstruct justice in federal litigations, deceived federal judges, and committed wire and mail fraud. Ofshe and Singer said that these actions damaged their reputations as forensic experts in the fields of psychology and sociology in the area of coercive persuasion, preventing their testimony against cults, and specified acts of collusion between several of the defendants and cult groups.[16]

The court summons filed by Singer and Ofshe's lawyer described the rejection of the DIMPAC report by the APA's BSERP as a "rejection of the scientific validity of the theory of coercive persuasion".[17]

The court dismissed the case on the basis that the claims of defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy constituted a dispute over the application of the First Amendment to a public debate over academic and professional matters. The court stated that one could characterize the parties as the opposing camps in a long-standing debate over certain theories in the field of psychology; and that the plaintiffs could not establish deceit with reference to representations made to other parties in the lawsuit.[18]

In a further ruling, James R. Lamden ordered Ofshe and Singer to pay $80,000 in attorneys' fees under California's SLAPP suit law, which penalizes those who harass others for exercising their First Amendment rights. At that time, Singer and Ofshe declared their intention to sue Michael Flomenhaft, the lawyer who represented them in the case, for malpractice.[19]

PIRI resolution

APA Division 36 (then Psychologists Interested in Religious Issues (PIRI), subsequently Psychology of Religion) in its 1990 annual convention approved a resolution stating that insufficient consensually accepted research then scientifically supported the assertion that equated the use of "techniques of influence as typically practiced" by religious groups with "coercive persuasion", "mind control", or "brainwashing". The Executive Committee invited researchers to submit proposals to present their work on the topic.[20]

See also

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

References and footnotes

  1. ↑ The acronym "DIMPAC" echoes an alternative naming: the task force on "Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control"
  2. ↑ APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control (November 1986). "Report of the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control], November 1986., Margaret Singer, chair; Harold Goldstein, National Institute of Mental Health; Michael Langone, American Family Foundation; Jesse S. Miller, San Francisco, California; Maurice K. Temerlin, Clinical Psychology Consultants, Inc.; Louis Jolyon West, University of California Los Angeles". American Psychological Association. Archived from the original on 2 June 2008. Retrieved 2008-05-24. Compare the version of the report at http://www.cesnur.org/testi/DIMPAC.htm, retrieved 2008-05-24.
  3. ↑ Including: Jeffrey Hadden, Eileen Barker, David Bromley and J. Gordon Melton, Joseph Bettis, Durwood Foster, William R. Garret, Richard D. Kahone, Timothy Miller, John Young, James T. Richardson, Ray L. Hart, Benton Johnson, Franklin Littell, Newton Malony, Donald E. Miller, Mel Prosen, Thomas Robbins, and Huston Smith.
  4. ↑ American Psychological Association Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) (1987-05-11). "Memorandum". CESNUR: APA Memo of 1987 with Enclosures. CESNUR Center for Studies on New Religions. Retrieved 2008-11-18. BSERP thanks the Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control for its service but is unable to accept the report of the Task Force. In general, the report lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur. [...] Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue.
  5. ↑ American Psychological Association Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) (1987-05-11). "Memorandum". CESNUR: APA Memo of 1987 with Enclosures. CESNUR Center for Studies on New Religions. Retrieved 2008-11-18. The Board cautions the Task Force members against using their past appointment to imply BSERP or APA support or approval of the positions advocated in the report. BSERP requests that Task Force members not distribute or publicize the report without indicating that the report was unacceptable to the Board.
  6. ↑ Report of the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control, November 1986., Margaret Singer, chair; Harold Goldstein, National Institute of Mental Health; Michael Langone, American Family Foundation; Jesse S. Miller; Maurice K. Temerlin, Clinical Psychology Consultants, Inc.; Louis Jolyon West, University of California Los Angeles.
  7. ↑ As archived at http://www.cesnur.org/testi/DIMPAC.htm, retrieved 2008-06-23
  8. ↑ American Psychological Association Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) (1987-05-11). "Memorandum". CESNUR: APA Memo of 1987 with Enclosures. CESNUR Center for Studies on New Religions. Retrieved 2008-11-18. BSERP requests that Task Force members not distribute or publicize the report without indicating that the report was unacceptable to the Board.
  9. ↑ "Review of Decision of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two". CESNUR website. Archived from the original on 10 December 2008. Retrieved 2009-01-24. I. THE COERCIVE PERSUASION THEORY THAT PLAINTIFFS ADVANCE IS NOT A MEANINGFUL SCIENTIFIC CONCEPT ... C. The Methodology of Drs. Singer and Benson Has Been Repudiated by the Scientific Community ... the hypotheses advanced by Drs. Singer and Benson are little more than uninformed speculation, based on skewed data ...
  10. 1 2 3 4 "CESNUR - APA Memo of 1987 with Enclosures". Retrieved 2008-07-01.
  11. ↑ District of Columbia Court of Appeal, case 853 F.2d 948, Kropinski v. World Plan Executive Council.
    "Kropinski failed to provide any evidence that Dr. Singer’s particular theory, namely that techniques of thought reform may be effective in the absence of physical threats or coercion, has a significant following in the scientific community, let alone general acceptance."
  12. ↑ Robin George v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness of California, District Court of California Appeals, August 1989, case cited in Lewis, James R. The Oxford Handbook of New Religious Movements, page 194, ISBN 0-19-514986-6
  13. ↑ Boyle, Robin A., Women, the Law, and Cults: Three Avenues of Legal Recourse — New Rape Laws, Violence Against Women Act, and Antistalking Laws, Cultic Studies Journal, 15, 1-32. (1999) in reference to United States v. Fishman, United States District Court of California, CR–88-0616; DLG CR 90 0357 DLG
  14. ↑ Jane Green and Patrick Ryan v. Maharishi Yogi, US District Court, Washington, DC, 13 March 1991, Case #87-0015 OG
  15. ↑ Case No. 730012-8 Margaret Singer v. American Psychological Association, Court order
  16. ↑ "Cultologists sue social science associations; Margaret Singer, Richard Ofshe, American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association". NCAHF Newsletter 15 (6): 2. 1992-11-11. ISSN 0890-3417.
  17. ↑ Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe v. American Psychological Association and others before the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda, January 31, 1994, Summons, 110, p. 31)
  18. ↑ Case No. 730012-8, Margaret Singer, et al., Plaintiff v. American Psychological Association, et Al., Defendants
    'This case, which involves claims of defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy, clearly constitutes a dispute over the application of the First Amendment to a public debate over matters both academic and professional. The disputant may fairly be described as the opposing camps in a longstanding debate over certain theories in the field of psychology. The speech of which the plaintiff's complain, which occurred in the context of prior litigation and allegedly involved the "fraudulent" addition of the names of certain defendants to documents filed in said prior litigation, would clearly have been protected as comment on a public issue whether or not the statements were made in the contest of legal briefs. The court need not consider whether the privilege of Civil Code 47 (b) extends to an alleged interloper in a legal proceeding. Plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence to establish any reasonable probability of success on any cause of action. In particular Plaintiffs cannot establish deceit with reference to representations made to other parties in the underlying lawsuit. Thus Defendants' Special Motions to Strike each of the causes at action asserted against them, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 425.16 is granted.'
  19. ↑ Allen, Charlotte (December 1998). "Brainwashed! Scholars of Cults Accuse Each Other of Bad Faith". Lingua Franca. Retrieved 2008-07-27. We are suing our lawyer, Michael Flomenhaft, for malpractice," says Singer. "There was no First Amendment issue in this case. We were saying that the APA and the ASA had been co-opted.
  20. ↑ "PIRI Executive Committee Adopts Position on Non-Physical Persuasion". APA Division 36 Newsletter, Psychologists Interested in Religious Issues (APA) 16 (1): 3. Winter 1991. Cited in: Amitrani, Alberto; Raffaella Di Marzio (2001). ""Mind Control" in New Religious Movements and the American Psychological Association". Cults and Society (International Cultic Studies Association) 1 (1). Retrieved 2008-07-27. The Executive Committee of the Division of Psychologists Interested in Religious Issues supports the conclusion that, at this time, there is no consensus that sufficient psychological research exists to scientifically equate undue non-physical persuasion (otherwise known as "coercive persuasion," "mind control," or "brainwashing") with techniques of influence as typically practiced by one or more religious groups. Further, the Executive Committee invites those with research on this topic to submit proposals to present their work at Divisional programs.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Wednesday, March 23, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.