Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 80
Using the Bounded Choice Model as an Analytical Tool: A
Case Study of Heaven’s Gate1
Janja Lalich, Ph.D.
California State University, Chico
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to describe the ―bounded choice‖ theory and to
illustrate how this new model can be used as a tool for examining and
analyzing high-demand groups, sometimes called cults. Based on findings
from a comparative study of two cultic groups, a social-psychological theory
is developed to interpret the behavior of true believers in a closed,
charismatic context. Based on textual analysis and interview data, the
Heaven‘s Gate cult is used to illustrate the conceptual framework, which is
comprised of four organizational aspects: charismatic authority, the
transcendent belief system, the system of control, and the system of
influence. The result of this interactive dynamic is a ―self-sealing system,‖
that is, a social system that is closed to disconfirming evidence and
structured in such a way that everything reinforces the system. Drawing on
Anthony Giddens‘s (1984) theory of structuration, Herbert Simon‘s (1955,
1956, 1976) theory of bounded rationality, and Robert Jay Lifton‘s (1961)
theory of personal closure, ―bounded choice‖ theory helps us understand the
seemingly irrational behavior of the most dedicated adherents. The theory
attempts to take into account individual choice within the context of an
authoritarian, transcendent, closed group.
The purpose of this paper is to describe the ―bounded choice‖ theoretical model and to
illustrate how this new model can be used as a tool for examining and analyzing high-
demand groups or situations, sometimes called cults. This new approach uses a conceptual
framework of four interlocking dimensions that I submit are integral to the social dynamic
found in cults. The four dimensions are charismatic authority, transcendent belief system,
systems of control, and systems of influence. The dimensions involve both structure and
process. That is, they make up the framework of the social system, and they include social
processes that uphold and reinforce that social structure. The four dimensions are defined
briefly as:
Charismatic authority: This is the emotional bond between leader and
followers. It lends legitimacy to the leader and grants authority to his or her
actions while at the same time justifying and reinforcing followers‘ responses
to the leader and/or the leader‘s ideas and goals. The relational aspect of
charisma is the hook that links a devotee to a leader and/or his or her ideas.
Transcendent belief system: This is the overarching ideology that binds
adherents to the group and keeps them behaving according to the group‘s
rules and norms. It is transcendent because it offers a total explanation of
past, present, and future, including a path to salvation. Most important, the
leader/group also specifies the exact methodology (or recipe) for the personal
transformation necessary to qualify one to travel on that path.
Systems of control: This is the network of acknowledged, or visible,
regulatory mechanisms that guide the operation of the group. It includes the
overt rules, regulations, and procedures that guide and control members‘
behavior.

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 81
Systems of influence: This is the network of interactions and social influence
residing in the group‘s social relations. This is the human interaction and
group culture from which members learn to adapt their thoughts, attitudes,
and behaviors in relation to their new beliefs.
The interrelated and interlocking nature of the four dimensions form a ―self-sealing system,‖
a social system closed in on itself and closed to the outside world. It is characterized by
ideological totalism and processes of influence and control that may lead adherents to a
high degree of commitment that I have identified as ―charismatic commitment.‖ Now the
dedicated adherent becomes a ―true believer‖ in the sense of being a deployable agent for
the group or leader. Living within the bounded reality of the cultic social system, the cult
member encounters no meaningful reality checks and becomes more and more enmeshed
with and invested in the closed world of the group. For some, this may lead to a state of
―personal closure,‖ or the individualized version of the self-sealing system. The member‘s
life and choices are constrained not only by the system but also, and perhaps even more
powerfully, by the close-mindedness of the individual him- or herself who is functioning in
alliance with that system. Now the dedicated adherent has entered a social-psychological
state of being that I am calling bounded choice: in essence, life outside the cult has become
impossible to imagine.
The exemplar group studied here is the Heaven‘s Gate cult, which came to prominence
when the members committed collective suicide. On March 27, 1997, thirty-nine dead
bodies were found in a mansion in Rancho Santa Fe, California. The deceased were followers
of Bonnie Nettles and Marshall Applewhite (known to their devotees as Ti and Do).2 In
addition to the male leader, Applewhite, among the dead were twenty-one women and
seventeen men. According to announcements by the local coroner‘s office, the deaths had
been caused by ingestion of a mixture of drugs and alcohol, and suffocation by plastic bag
over the head. Because the group‘s Web site (www.heavensgate.com) garnered so much
attention after the suicides, this group, previously known as the Bo Peep cult by those who
had some familiarity with the group, came to be called Heaven‘s Gate.
The data for this study include interviews with former group members, sympathetic
followers and believers, and families of members and other associates. Additional data were
drawn from my content analysis of archival material including the group‘s written
documents, Internet postings, and audio and video recordings. Also I relied on the work of
Robert Balch and David Taylor, who have been studying and writing about the group since
the mid-1970s, as well as reviewing other scholarly and popular articles and media reports.
Charismatic Authority
The first dimension in the four-part framework is charismatic authority, characterized by
leadership and specialness. The concept of charisma was introduced by sociologist Max
Weber in his study of ancient religions, bureaucracy, and institution building (Weber 1946a,
1946b, 1964, 1968). Charisma is often thought of as traits that inhere in special individuals,
but more to the point, charisma is a powerful social relationship. In this vein Weber wrote,
―What is alone important is how the individual is actually regarded by those subject to
charismatic authority, by his ‗followers‘ or ‗disciples‘‖ (1968, 48).
In relation to this aspect, I examined and analyzed charismatic attraction, the leadership
principle, and the charismatic community that grew around the leaders. Applewhite and
Nettles had met by chance in their hometown of Houston, Texas in the early 1970s (Balch
1982, 1995 Balch and Taylor 1976, 1977, 2002) Each gave up a ―normal‖ life to live with
the other. Nettles had worked as a nurse, and was married with four children. Applewhite
had been a music professor and choir leader at southern religious colleges. He, also, had
been married and had children, but was already divorced for several years before meeting
Nettles. Applewhite had lived both openly and ―in the closet‖ as a homosexual. The two met