Who says what to whom? Elements of Extreme Persuasion in Cults
Persuasion is a tactic that is used on people in their daily lives. Some persuasion is so fine-tuned that it is not noticeable, while other times the attempts to persuade people are blatant enough to offend an average person. Persuasion can be used for various purposes and to many different ends. A more severe form of persuasion, extreme persuasion, has been used throughout history but is most noted when used within New Religious Movements (NRM’s) and cults. While understanding the debates of the difference and similarities of NRM’s and cults, for the purpose of this paper we will be using the definition of cults as defined by Lifton. There are three characteristics that must be present for organizations to be categorized as cults, these include the following:
1. Leaders that are worshipped over broader, often religious, principles.
2. Thought reform-like characteristics including systematic indoctrination acts such as confession and self-criticism.
3. Leaders use of the authority of their position to exploit its members, usually for money or sex (History, 2009).
There are three elements, when all work together, result in persuasion that can be used for the betterment of people and society as well as for sinister purposes. These three elements include the person doing the persuading, the message they are using to persuade, and the person receiving the message. Many people have lost years of their life serving cults, and in some cases many people have literally lost their lives. By examining the elements of persuasion and the psychological experience of those being persuaded one can better understand how it is used, the persons more likely to use it, how the given messages may affect people, and who would be more prone to cult recruitment.
Modifying others attitudes, beliefs, or values through influential communication is the trademark of persuasion (Simons, 1976 as cited in Dainton & Zelley, 2004). Persuasion can be broken down into three necessary elements which include the speaker of a message (messenger), the message that is being relayed, and the audience receiving the message (O'Keefe, 1990 as cited in Dainton & Zelley, 2004). The messenger must have a goal in mind and the desire to achieve said goal. The message that is relayed should be designed and communicated in a way to help achieve the messenger’s goal. The audience of the messenger should be acting in free will; specifically the audience cannot be threatened to do something as this becomes force and not persuasion (Dainton & Zelley, 2004).
Those that recruit for cults can potentially be seen as messengers with their goal in mind to bring potential new members to the group. In the past some cult leaders chose specific people to become a partial messenger for the purpose of recruiting new members; such as Charles Manson’s choice to use Tex Watson as his main recruiter. Manson chose Watson to bring new members to his group due to Watson’s attractiveness (Bugliosi & Gentry, 2001). While recruiters become messengers that work towards a goal, the primary messenger of a cult is none other than its leader. It is the cult’s leader who imagines the bigger picture of an ultimate goal they are trying to achieve and it is the leader who will relay the message to a larger audience in hopes of persuading them to work towards his goal.
According to Ulman and Abse (1983), due to their ability to capture the hearts and minds of their followers, charismatic leaders are the best candidates to command a cult. Ulman and Abse (1983) further agree with the notions of Freud that the relationship of leaders and those being lead is similar to that of a hypnotist and one being hypnotized, which is in the abilities of charismatic leaders. Charm is the charismatic leaders favored weapon, one which they use to both draw people closer. Charm is used both to intimidate as well as encourage others in activity, something close to what a parental figure can do for their children. The charismatic leaders use of charm in this way can bring about paternal and maternal imago (Schiffer as cited in Ulman & Abse, 1983).
According to Newman (1983) the words of a charismatic leader brings about admiration in people that do not simply herald compliance but adoration to the point where one feels special to be able to serve such a person. The adoration one feels for the leader often becomes a slippery slope in which they comply more and more over time. With time, leaders and the people they leader, transform by group symbiosis to the point where the leader takes on accountability for their members. With symbiosis the leader shows that so long as their members are part of the group they will never be blamed for things they do (Newman, 1983).
The message that cult leaders are trying to relay should be one that assists them in goal achievement. Many factors play into relaying information to people in a way that is meant to persuade such as message content, the way messages are relayed and even pre-message elements such as priming. If one of these message factors is more important than the others in lieu of persuasion is an enduring topic of debate in disciplines from psychology to advertising. Some studies, however, have yielded fascinating results suggesting that no one factor is more important than the other.
A hook is one of the things used before the message is relayed to show a person’s authority or abilities. According to Goldberg (1997), the hook plays into the divine nature of the person speaking which is often the leader. The hook is often a cold reading where a person is told things about their lives even though the speaker has never met them before (Various, 1997). Jim Jones used to be able to tell new congregation members details about their lives by simple trickery. When entering The People’s Temple the person at the door would take their information down and during service use this information to gather details about the person’s life by either calling their house to gain information, or even going by their place quickly and rummaging through the garbage (Ulman & Abse, 1983; Witness to Jonestown, 2008). Even though a hook relies on both message content and delivery, it is not enough to just have a hook; a broader message must also draw the potential member in further with its content and delivery.
What you say versus how you say it was the topic of a study by Boyd at Robert H Smith School of Business (2006). Boyd noted how little empirical research had been done over message content versus message delivery despite 9 to 11 percent of the variance in persuasion score being due to creative execution, noting that the audience’s assessment of communication is what the ability to persuade a person depends upon. In terms of the message itself Boyd conveyed McGuire’s Theory of Personality of Persuasion that describes persuasion is affected by individual difference variables which are reception and yielding. The extent that the audience comprehends the message is reception, while the extent to which the audience agrees with the message is yielding. According to McGuire these two variables are imperative to persuasion but one is not more important than the other (McGuire, 1968 as cited in Boyd, 2006). Along the same lines, Dainton discussed the contrast effect and assimilation effect in terms of the message; two occurrences that can impact the likelihood of persuasion on an individual by making them either maximize or minimize the differences between the message relayed and the one’s personal position on topics (Dainton & Zelley, 2004).
When it comes to message delivery, Boyd discussed a study by Thomas and Soldow (1989) in which the messenger’s voice and speech are important factors. In their study loud tone and inflection were thought to be portraying dominance, strong-mindedness, and confidence over those who spoke with softer tones. Additionally, speaking with a smooth even cadence was thought to be indicative of forcefulness (Thomas & Soldow, 1989 as cited in Boyd, 2006). The overall results of Boyd’s multiple case studies yielded evidence that what you say is no more important than how you say it and vice versa. One interesting finding was that “dialogue quality seems to affect more distal measures of persuasion, namely attitudinal and behavioral response” (Boyd, 2006, p. 90).
On top of message content and delivery, one can also use priming to assist them in making their message more persuasive. A study by Légal, Chappé, Coiffardm and Villard-Forest (2011) took a look at the effect of goal priming and how it impacts the processing and susceptibility of a persuasive message. Specifically, one group was not primed before hearing a message while a second group had priming used on it with words such as “trust,” “approve,” “ agree” and other similar words. Each group then read a message advocating use of tap water in daily activities. After reading the message the groups were asked to complete a questionnaire about the message, the message source, and their future intentions for tap water use. What was discovered was that those in the group that experienced priming were more likely to accept the message and expressed more intention to use tap water in their daily activities (Légal, Chappé, Coiffard, & Villard-Forest, 2012). This study shows empirical proof that priming prior to giving a message can be a major component in persuasion.
Though the messenger is necessary to lead the group and relay the message there is yet one other component necessary for the elements of persuasion to be complete: the audience. The characteristics of people targeted for persuasion and those that become full members of either cults or other organizations, have been examined by many researchers (Coates, 2012; Eichel, 1985; Hochman, 1990; “Lofland-Stark Conversion Model: A Critical Reassessment, The,” n.d.; Sirkin, 1990). While there are some characteristics that make one more prone to the charm of a charismatic leader or the message they deliver, studies have shown that there is no definite set of criteria that says a person will succumb to extreme persuasion it can happen to anyone (Eichel, 1985).
Sirkin (1990) used case studies to examine the stages of cult involvement from the hook through realignment, the point at which an individual has aligned themselves with the group’s beliefs. In his study and suggestions for treatment Sirkin notes that involvement in cults typically involve a two Axis diagnosis. With the presence of Axis I diagnosis, it should be noted that cult involvement is most likely the cause or proximal cause. The Axis II diagnosis, if present, may have been at least partially responsible for initial cult involvement (Sirkin, 1990). Sirkin seems to be implying that enduring disorders, such as those noted along Axis II diagnoses, make one more prone to cult involvement.
The larger concept of strain theory was the topic of research by Blazak (2001) when examining recruitment of boys for Nazi Skinhead groups. Anomie theory and General Strain Theory is said to leave people with a feeling of normlessness which manifests in anger, frustration, and a need to rectify inequalities in a situation. Subculture solutions are often sought out by people experiencing strain (Cohen, 1955 as cited in Blazak, 2001). In his study Blazak noted that hate groups often seek out the unpopular, isolated, loners for recruitment as well as others experiencing strain (New Order, 1989 as cited in Blazak, 2001). Blazak claims that there are parallels between hate groups and cults because they both bring members into an organization that is on a crusade to fight against evil forces in the world (Blazak, 2001).
Perhaps the most frightening fact of the audience that is persuaded is that it can be any one of us. According to Zambardo, those that are less vigilant; in particular, when one believes they are immune from con artists or cult agents it is then that they are more susceptible (Dittmann, 2003). Normal individuals are not good at recognizing when they are being manipulated; because of this the average person is highly susceptible to persuasion (Festinger & Carlsith, 1968 as cited in Eichel, 1985). People experiencing transitional periods in life seem to be more prone to covert manipulation as are those who depressed, lonely, or simply looking for ‘something more’ out of life (Eichel, 1985). Though many believe members of cults to be have weaker intellects and psyches, intellectual or psychological weaknesses are not trademarks of those prone to persuasion (Eichel, 1985).
There are many factors to consider when attempting to describe the psychological experience of being involved in a cults and as a person who has experienced extreme persuasion. Why cult members stay in their groups can be based upon two theories: direct rewards of membership and dependency inducing practices (Coates, 2012). In his study, Coates utilized testimony from seven former cult members and asked that pertained to cult ‘experience of membership.’ Social drift and brainwashing were thought to have a part in how people become committed to and remain in cults. The direct rewards and dependency inducing theories were described by former members as well as detailed aspects such as relationship control, psychological control, and behavior control. In the end both theories apply according to the author.
Direct rewards were those that gave its members desired affection and friendship. Considering that many who are targeted to become part of a cult are often lost and lonely people, group symbiosis that is experienced can provide a comfort as the member feels he is she is one of the chosen few to be part of the organization. Often cult organizations work towards a specific goal such as the building of a tropical paradise for people of all color to reside in (Jonestown) or heralding in a necessary race war (Manson’s Helter Skelter). The inclusion in these battles of importance can help quell feelings of unimportance and provide potentially lacking structure to one’s life.
Induced dependencies manifest opposite of direct rewards and included controlling aspects. Powerless in induced in a person by taking away control of their major elements of their environment (Coates, 2012). Emotional and psychological control combined with threats of violence leave members both fearful and even unable to think outside of their new, cult induced thought patterns. When some are able to break the cult mindset they are lead to thinking about the guilt and fear that are instilled into members. Some cult members may have succumbed to their survival instincts where getting along with the cult increases chances of survival. These people believe that their group cohesion will lead to things such as more access to resources and less torturous activity like confession, discipline, and self-criticism. This is similar to the survival tactics of Stockholm Syndrome and is a very difficult mindset to break. Further, the feelings of adoration feed into guilt when one contemplates leaving the cult. One can imagine this being akin to guilt that may be felt by “abandoning their parent” or when splitting with a lover who one adored.
Based upon strain theory, the feeling of normlessness can be trumped by being a part of something that can provide them with companionship with people whom they ‘share beliefs’ and provide a sympathetic ear to the woes of daily life. Not only does a person feel that they have companions in life’s discontent they become part of a larger cause that seemingly sets to rectify the issues which may have placed them in a state of strain (Blazak, 2001). This may have been particularly true of the zeitgeist of the 60’s where strain may have been rampant with many examples of normlessness and transition present in daily life.
Little empirical scientific data has been collected about the psychological makings of cult leaders or persons similar to them. There have been case studies that look at cult leaders personalities which yield results such as most cult leaders displaying 8 or 10 criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (History, 2009). Based upon the lack of scientific evidence in this area, future research in the area of extreme persuasion should focus more on the persons that are doing the persuading. One thing that is yet to be seen is how people who lead cults seem to do so with ease; it is almost as if the ability to persuade is inherent within them. If this is true, then it begs the question: what do these leaders embody that separates them from the average person? Perhaps, then, emotional intelligence of a person should be examined.
Figuring out emotions and how to use them to problem solve is a large component of Emotional Intelligence (EI) (Mayer, Caruso, Salovey, & Sitarenios, 2001). The Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) is a test that aims to measure the emotional intelligence in individuals. Future research in the area of persuasion could include administration and examination of EI scores from leaders and followers (potentially those that fall into the messengers and audience elements of persuasion) acquired through the MSCEIT. By examining the EI of leaders compared to those that are followers one might gain better insight into the role EI plays in the ability to persuade and to be persuaded. Classroom environments and school settings would be a particularly interesting area to examine this phenomenon. Additionally, one could expand research on EI and leadership to sports, businesses, and even new religious movements. The results of research on EI and leadership may potentially show us that when raising a child EI is just as important as IQ, maybe even more so.
Beyond initial studies on EI of leaders it might be interesting to examine the development of charismatic leadership and potentially heightened EI as a product of survival instinct. Based upon the childhood stories of several cult leaders there seems to be one commonality: many have distressed childhood that leave them alone a lot be it at home or in institutions. It might be interesting to examine the EI of people who have gone through distressed or very low income childhoods but ended up in some sort of leadership positions such as gang leaders, NRM leaders, community leader, or other leadership roles. Perhaps these findings could be compared to children who had well off childhoods and ended up in leadership positions. There is the potentiality to make a case for the development of heightened EI to assist in survival in cases where a child has little resources to relay on other than itself. Due to the many ways EI can be analyzed I suggest it take a place in the future research on cult leaders.
Blazak, R. (2001). White Boys to Terrorist Men. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(6), 982–1000.
Boyd, H. C. I. (2006). Persuasive Talk: Is It What You Say or How You Say It? Journal of Advertising Research, 84–92.
Bugliosi, V., & Gentry, C. (2001). Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders (Older ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
Coates, D. D. (2012). “Cult Commitment” from the Perspective of Former Members: Direct Rewards of Membership versus Dependency Inducing Practices. Deviant Behavior, 33(3), 168–184.
Dainton, M., & Zelley, E. D. (2004). Applying Communication Theory for Professional Life: A Practical Introduction (1st ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
Dittmann, M. (2003, November). Lessons from Jonestown. Monitor on Psychology, 34(10), 36.
Eichel, S. K. D. (1985). Building Resistance: Tactics for Counteracting Manipulation and Unethical Hypnosis in Totalistic Groups. Suggestion: The Journal of Professional & Ethical Hypnosis, 1, 34–44.
History. (2009). Cults: Dangerous Devotion. A&E HOME VIDEO.
Hochman, J. (1990). Miracle, mystery, and authority: The triangle of cult indoctrination. Psychiatric Annals, 20(4), 179–184.
Légal, J.-B., Chappé, J., Coiffard, V., & Villard-Forest, A. (2012). Don’t you know that you want to trust me? Subliminal goal priming and persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 358–360.
Lofland-Stark Conversion Model: A Critical Reassessment, The. (n.d.).
Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., Salovey, P., & Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotional Intelligence as a Standard Intelligence. Emotion, 1(3), 232–242.
Newman, R. G. (1983). Thoughts on superstars if Charisma Pipers in our Midst. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53(2), 201–208.
Sirkin, M. I. (1990). Cult Involvement: A Systems Approach to Assessment and Treatment. Psychotherapy, 27(1), 116–123.
Ulman, R. B., & Abse, D. W. (1983). The Group Psychology of Mass Madness: Jonestown. Political Psychology, 4(4), 637–661.
Various. (1997, January 1). Badaboom Gramaphone #2.
Witness to Jonestown. (2008). Documentary.
turnnoffyourmind
stormborns
romaincrisis
tangentwithtanner