Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2002, Page 36
of wood by soaking it in a variety of sauces including wine, teriyaki sauce, spices, alcohol,
and seeds, then microwaving and baking it. When Jammal‘s claims made it into Time
magazine, the trickster decided it was time to come clean (and to obtain legal counsel). He
admitted to the hoax, provided proof of his long-standing membership in an anti-religious
organization, and stated that his intent was to show how easy it is to pull the wool over the
eyes of the ICR, Sun International, mass media, and Bible-literalist scholars throughout the
world.
The Social Psychology of Influence
Social psychology is often a mundane science, yet some of its most resilient findings have
involved the study of social and psychological influence. Some of these findings are
especially relevant to those of us engaged in researching new religious movements.
What factors--unrelated to actual facts--enter into the decision-making processes of
scholars and scientists? Some are obvious, some not so obvious, and most are rather banal.
Social psychological research has repeatedly demonstrated that we are more likely to
believe and judge as accurate statements made by those we perceive as attractive and
prestigious (cf., Cialdini, 1984 Baron &Byrne, 1991). Individuals judged to be prestigious
do not have to actually make these statements merely being associated with these
statements (the halo effect) is enough to significantly affect us. Thus, when a group
sponsors a conference listing Nobel laureates and professors from famous universities
among its speakers, it may not matter what the speakers say or even if they actually
attend.
The same holds true when we hear statements made with great confidence. The more
confident the speaker sounds, the more likely we will judge him or her to be accurate
(Bloomfield, Libby, &Nelson, 1996). This is why hypnotically refreshed testimony has been
disallowed in some American courtrooms. Even though hypnosis does not in fact produce
more accurate recollections than other methods, hypnotized witnesses tend to testify with
increased confidence and may, consequently, exercise ―unfair influence‖ over juries (Brown,
Scheflin &Hammond, 1998). Scheflin (1996), however, argues on legal grounds that such
testimony should not automatically be banned and should be considered on a case-by-case
basis.
The influence of scientists‘ prior beliefs on their judgments of evidence quality may also
significantly bias their evaluations. University of Texas psychologist Jonathon Koehler
(1993), for example, studied 297 advanced graduate students in the sciences and 195
practicing scientists. He found that research results supporting the scientists‘ prior beliefs
were evaluated as more accurate and credible. In both studies, this effect was larger for
general, evaluative judgments than for more specific, analytical judgments.
John Innes and Colin Fraser (1971) of the University of Birmingham summarized the
research on bias in terms of their source, namely the political ideologies, cultural
backgrounds, biographical characteristics, and personal characteristics of scientists. In
considering the implications of biases, three reactions to bias were discussed: ignoring,
controlling, and understanding. Innes and Fraser proposed that understanding the operation
of bias might be furthered by working towards a taxonomy of biases, organized in terms of
the sources of biases and the points in the research process at which they intrude.
The issue of financially-induced bias is trickier than one might think. For one thing, it is not
always clear who is paying for what. Many organizations, including some new religions, may
use front groups to bankroll books, studies, and conferences. Of course, this tactic is
certainly not unique to NRMs. The tobacco industry bankrolled dozens of studies, some by
highly-respected researchers, most of whom (perhaps not surprisingly) concluded that the
connection between smoking and health problems might be spurious, or was strongly
of wood by soaking it in a variety of sauces including wine, teriyaki sauce, spices, alcohol,
and seeds, then microwaving and baking it. When Jammal‘s claims made it into Time
magazine, the trickster decided it was time to come clean (and to obtain legal counsel). He
admitted to the hoax, provided proof of his long-standing membership in an anti-religious
organization, and stated that his intent was to show how easy it is to pull the wool over the
eyes of the ICR, Sun International, mass media, and Bible-literalist scholars throughout the
world.
The Social Psychology of Influence
Social psychology is often a mundane science, yet some of its most resilient findings have
involved the study of social and psychological influence. Some of these findings are
especially relevant to those of us engaged in researching new religious movements.
What factors--unrelated to actual facts--enter into the decision-making processes of
scholars and scientists? Some are obvious, some not so obvious, and most are rather banal.
Social psychological research has repeatedly demonstrated that we are more likely to
believe and judge as accurate statements made by those we perceive as attractive and
prestigious (cf., Cialdini, 1984 Baron &Byrne, 1991). Individuals judged to be prestigious
do not have to actually make these statements merely being associated with these
statements (the halo effect) is enough to significantly affect us. Thus, when a group
sponsors a conference listing Nobel laureates and professors from famous universities
among its speakers, it may not matter what the speakers say or even if they actually
attend.
The same holds true when we hear statements made with great confidence. The more
confident the speaker sounds, the more likely we will judge him or her to be accurate
(Bloomfield, Libby, &Nelson, 1996). This is why hypnotically refreshed testimony has been
disallowed in some American courtrooms. Even though hypnosis does not in fact produce
more accurate recollections than other methods, hypnotized witnesses tend to testify with
increased confidence and may, consequently, exercise ―unfair influence‖ over juries (Brown,
Scheflin &Hammond, 1998). Scheflin (1996), however, argues on legal grounds that such
testimony should not automatically be banned and should be considered on a case-by-case
basis.
The influence of scientists‘ prior beliefs on their judgments of evidence quality may also
significantly bias their evaluations. University of Texas psychologist Jonathon Koehler
(1993), for example, studied 297 advanced graduate students in the sciences and 195
practicing scientists. He found that research results supporting the scientists‘ prior beliefs
were evaluated as more accurate and credible. In both studies, this effect was larger for
general, evaluative judgments than for more specific, analytical judgments.
John Innes and Colin Fraser (1971) of the University of Birmingham summarized the
research on bias in terms of their source, namely the political ideologies, cultural
backgrounds, biographical characteristics, and personal characteristics of scientists. In
considering the implications of biases, three reactions to bias were discussed: ignoring,
controlling, and understanding. Innes and Fraser proposed that understanding the operation
of bias might be furthered by working towards a taxonomy of biases, organized in terms of
the sources of biases and the points in the research process at which they intrude.
The issue of financially-induced bias is trickier than one might think. For one thing, it is not
always clear who is paying for what. Many organizations, including some new religions, may
use front groups to bankroll books, studies, and conferences. Of course, this tactic is
certainly not unique to NRMs. The tobacco industry bankrolled dozens of studies, some by
highly-respected researchers, most of whom (perhaps not surprisingly) concluded that the
connection between smoking and health problems might be spurious, or was strongly
