Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2002, Page 37
mitigated by other, non tobacco-related factors. Here‘s a more recent, personal example. I
recently received (unsolicited) the ―1998 Annual Report of the National Center for
Responsible Gaming.‖ According to its mission statement, the NCRG exists ―to help
individuals and families affected by gambling disorders‖ by, among other things, ―supporting
the finest peer-reviewed basic and applied research on disordered gambling behavior.‖ A
close examination of the report yielded the following information: of the 20 individuals on
the Board of Directors, 11 listed casinos, parent companies of casinos, or gaming industry
professional associations as their affiliations. The donor list is even more interesting. Of
those donating at least $300,000, 6 of 7 were casinos. Of those donating $100,000 to
$299,000, all 3 were casinos. Of those donating $50,000 to $99,000, all 7 were casinos.
Would anyone really be surprised to learn that the studies supported by the NCRG tend to
emphasize the role played by biological and comorbid psychiatric factors in the development
of compulsive gambling? If bad biology or mental illness is found to be the root cause of
gambling problems, then the gaming industry could use these results to deny any liability
for harm suffered by compulsive gamblers. My point is simple: It is not unreasonable to
question the objectivity of gambling research paid for by the gaming industry, just as it was
highly appropriate to question studies on the health risks of smoking that were financed by
the tobacco industry.
Might the same be true in the study of NRMs?
I am currently reviewing two books that present the results of sociological surveys of the
U.K. and U.S. membership of the Soka Gakkai International. The SGI is a new religious
movement that practices the Buddhism founded by a 13th century Japanese monk, Nichiren
Daishonin. Both books are published by the Oxford University Press, certainly a publisher
with name recognition and associated prestige. Both books are, in my opinion, extremely
well-constructed and informative studies that are unabashedly friendly toward the SGI. The
first study, by Bryan Wilson and Karel Dobbelaere (1994) was published as A Time to Chant.
It was funded by Oxford University and the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. The
second study, by Phillip Hammond and David Machacek (1999) has just been published as
Soka Gakkai in America. It was funded by the Boston Research Center, which, to their
credit, the authors squarely identify as an arm of the SGI. The Hammond and Machacek
book even provides an accounting of how much funding was provided ($28,000). This is
only part of the story, however, because both books have been heavily advertised in official
SGI publications, and I know members are strongly encouraged to buy them. If the
Philadelphia keikon is at all indicative of other SGI community centers, thousands of these
books have been advanced ordered. I bought A Time to Chant at the Philadelphia keikon,
which at the time stocked a dozen or so copies. (The SGI bookstore salesperson told me
―Oh yes, we sell a lot of these.‖) I conservatively estimate that these books have sold or will
sell well into the thousands, perhaps even into the tens of thousands. In academia, this
constitutes a runaway best seller. And while I doubt any of the authors are using their
royalty checks to purchase beach front property on Martha‘s Vineyard, I would not be
surprised if, compared to other sociologists, they have a somewhat easier time getting
published by Oxford (or some other press) in the future. And publishing in academia means
survival and, better yet, advancement.
But academics may not generally respond to overt financial reward, for most of us like to
think our opinions cannot be bought. However, cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957
Kelman, 1974), one of the most researched and cross-validated constructs in social
psychology, helps us to understand why it is unnecessary to buy us outright. In general, if
you want to influence scholars, don‘t pay them too much! You‘d do much better to underpay
them. Since few of us want to think of ourselves as ―cheap labor,‖ when we are underpaid
for our services we tend to resolve the ensuing dissonance by experiencing our behavior as
a product of true conviction rather than avarice. This is the psychological mechanism behind
mitigated by other, non tobacco-related factors. Here‘s a more recent, personal example. I
recently received (unsolicited) the ―1998 Annual Report of the National Center for
Responsible Gaming.‖ According to its mission statement, the NCRG exists ―to help
individuals and families affected by gambling disorders‖ by, among other things, ―supporting
the finest peer-reviewed basic and applied research on disordered gambling behavior.‖ A
close examination of the report yielded the following information: of the 20 individuals on
the Board of Directors, 11 listed casinos, parent companies of casinos, or gaming industry
professional associations as their affiliations. The donor list is even more interesting. Of
those donating at least $300,000, 6 of 7 were casinos. Of those donating $100,000 to
$299,000, all 3 were casinos. Of those donating $50,000 to $99,000, all 7 were casinos.
Would anyone really be surprised to learn that the studies supported by the NCRG tend to
emphasize the role played by biological and comorbid psychiatric factors in the development
of compulsive gambling? If bad biology or mental illness is found to be the root cause of
gambling problems, then the gaming industry could use these results to deny any liability
for harm suffered by compulsive gamblers. My point is simple: It is not unreasonable to
question the objectivity of gambling research paid for by the gaming industry, just as it was
highly appropriate to question studies on the health risks of smoking that were financed by
the tobacco industry.
Might the same be true in the study of NRMs?
I am currently reviewing two books that present the results of sociological surveys of the
U.K. and U.S. membership of the Soka Gakkai International. The SGI is a new religious
movement that practices the Buddhism founded by a 13th century Japanese monk, Nichiren
Daishonin. Both books are published by the Oxford University Press, certainly a publisher
with name recognition and associated prestige. Both books are, in my opinion, extremely
well-constructed and informative studies that are unabashedly friendly toward the SGI. The
first study, by Bryan Wilson and Karel Dobbelaere (1994) was published as A Time to Chant.
It was funded by Oxford University and the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. The
second study, by Phillip Hammond and David Machacek (1999) has just been published as
Soka Gakkai in America. It was funded by the Boston Research Center, which, to their
credit, the authors squarely identify as an arm of the SGI. The Hammond and Machacek
book even provides an accounting of how much funding was provided ($28,000). This is
only part of the story, however, because both books have been heavily advertised in official
SGI publications, and I know members are strongly encouraged to buy them. If the
Philadelphia keikon is at all indicative of other SGI community centers, thousands of these
books have been advanced ordered. I bought A Time to Chant at the Philadelphia keikon,
which at the time stocked a dozen or so copies. (The SGI bookstore salesperson told me
―Oh yes, we sell a lot of these.‖) I conservatively estimate that these books have sold or will
sell well into the thousands, perhaps even into the tens of thousands. In academia, this
constitutes a runaway best seller. And while I doubt any of the authors are using their
royalty checks to purchase beach front property on Martha‘s Vineyard, I would not be
surprised if, compared to other sociologists, they have a somewhat easier time getting
published by Oxford (or some other press) in the future. And publishing in academia means
survival and, better yet, advancement.
But academics may not generally respond to overt financial reward, for most of us like to
think our opinions cannot be bought. However, cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957
Kelman, 1974), one of the most researched and cross-validated constructs in social
psychology, helps us to understand why it is unnecessary to buy us outright. In general, if
you want to influence scholars, don‘t pay them too much! You‘d do much better to underpay
them. Since few of us want to think of ourselves as ―cheap labor,‖ when we are underpaid
for our services we tend to resolve the ensuing dissonance by experiencing our behavior as
a product of true conviction rather than avarice. This is the psychological mechanism behind
