Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 94
group some transcendent purpose, mission or messianic goal. Bass (1998), like Hogg
(2001), recognizes that members of the group may exaggerate the positive features of such
leaders by amplifying their perceived charisma. Effective transformational leaders,
however, will, in fact, manifest the three charismatic elements listed above.
From a transactional (or exchange) perspective, totalist groups provide members with a
sense of mission, purpose, belonging, and the benefit of not having to agonize over various
life decisions (which are dictated by the group‘s norms). The group in turn imbues the
leader with exaggerated positive attributes, extreme power, as well as privilege, gladly
tolerating the leader‘s violation of particular aspects of group doctrine. Thus, a surprising
number of totalist leaders have had erotic and material perks that were strictly forbidden to
others (e.g., Davis, 1984 Kelley, 1995). Moreover, in accordance with this theoretical
perspective, leaders in such groups invariably offer members a messianic purpose that most
frequently requires members to override their immediate self-interest in lieu of some self-
actualizing and transcendent common group goal (Baron, 2000 Hoffer, 1951).
From a charismatic perspective, leaders in totalist groups, typically are confident decision
makers, accomplished speakers and imaginative at generating messianic group goals. As
such, they generally qualify as ―stimulating and inspiring‖ (e.g., Weightman, 1983 Ofshe,
1980). However, in several key respects, leaders in totalist groups deviate from the
charismatic pattern that Bass considers to be defining features for transformational
leadership. Bass assumes such leaders encourage group member innovation, do not
prematurely criticize ideas that contradict group policy, act in an unselfish and morally
correct fashion and use a contingent reward system that justly rewards individuals based on
their efforts and investments. Such leaders also depict an optimistic future. In contrast,
Bass describes pseudo-transformational leaders who while having many of the trappings of
the transformational leader, cater to their own self-interest, rely on manipulation, fear,
threat, and punishment to maintain control and seem to be governed by warped moral
principles (Bass, 1998). It appears that leadership in totalist groups nicely illustrates this
pattern of pseudo-transformational leadership. Thus, in such groups, leaders do not
consistently use ―contingent‖ rewards to compensate followers on a basis that is
commensurate with their contributions, tend to punish transgressions more than they
reward correct behavior, and do not rise above self-interest. The case studies we consider
below explore these themes.
The Effects of Intense Indoctrination on Leadership in Totalist Groups
Several key factors elevate the power of leaders in such ―high demand‖ groups. One such
factor is that the identity-related benefits provided by group membership (Hogg, in press)
are particularly gratifying for group members. As a result, members find themselves
unusually dependent upon the group (i.e., the leader), for guidance, self-esteem and a
sense of purpose, etc. A second factor involves the impact that totalist groups have on the
attentional capacity of group members and how this in turn causes and maintains attitude
change in such groups (Baron, 2000).
Numerous writers have noted that several social psychological processes appear crucial in
triggering the attitude and value change that occurs in totalist groups. These include such
processes as conformity dynamics, stereotyping of non-group members, group polarization,
biased and incomplete message processing, and cognitive dissonance mechanisms that
stem from inducing escalating commitments from group members (Pratkanis &Aronson,
2000, Schein, Schneier &Barker, 1961, Singer, 1995). Various writers have also
commented on the stress and capacity-draining activity associated with group indoctrination
and membership (e.g., Baron, 2000 Sargant, 1957). Sleep deprivation is extremely
common in totalist groups with long work days and heavily regimented activity being an
almost universal feature (Pratkanis &Aronson, 2000). Emotional arousal is frequently

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 3, Nos. 2 &3, 2004, Page 95
manipulated in such groups such arousal is thought itself to deplete attentional capacity
(Eysenck, 1977).
Baron (1986, 2000) has argued that such stress and capacity depletion heightens the
various social psychological processes alluded to above (see also Bodenhousen, 1993).
Several studies indicate that fear and arousal decrease the likelihood that individuals will
notice and react to logical flaws in a persuasive message while elevating the tendency of
individuals to be influenced by superficial aspects of a message such as the reactions of the
audience, or the presumed credentials of the speaker (e.g., Baron, Inman, Kao &Logan,
1992 Sanbonmatus &Kardis, 1988). Similarly, fear has been shown to elevate
stereotyping (Baron, Inman, Kao, &Logan, 1992 Keinan, Friedland, &Even-Haim, 2000),
compliance (Dolinski &Nawrat, 1998), conformity (Darley, 1966), and cognitive dissonance
generated attitude change (Pittman, 1975).
Given that life in totalist groups often entails emotional manipulations, sleep deprivation,
high levels of regimented and required activity, and inadequate nutrition, there is ample
reason to assume that attentional capacity is compromised in such groups, thereby
heightening group members‘ susceptibility to a variety of persuasion manipulations. It is
likely that such stress and the attentional depletion it causes, will also affect leadership
dynamics in such groups. This argument is based on several key assumptions. The first is
that low capacity increases the power differential between members and leader regarding
expert and informational power. If stress does lower attentional capacity (or even if it just
decreases confidence in one‘s capacity) one is rendered more dependent on a confident,
informed, and well-credentialed leader to provide interpretations of events, as well as pre-
packaged solutions and decisions.
The second assumption is that the stress of indoctrination lowers the self-confidence and
self-efficacy of group members. Numerous reports support this view (e.g., Singer, 1995).
Thus, a common indoctrination feature within totalist groups are recurrent instances where
individuals must submit to detailed criticism, confession and other acts of mortification
(e.g., Baron, 2000 Hinkle &Wolff, 1956). Moreover, members in totalist groups are often
placed in the position of having to adjust to unusual group norms while trying to master an
unfamiliar and complex doctrine or skill set, be it political, quasi-scientific, or religious. This
confusion, coupled with criticism of the individual member from within the group, is
sufficient to shake the confidence of all but the most self-resilient (Lifton, 1961). Such
attacks on self-efficacy and self-esteem make identification with the group very attractive.
It has been assumed for some time that group identification is a very effective means of
bolstering self-esteem or of ―escaping‖ from an inadequate self (Hoffer, 1951). It follows
that the more inadequate one feels about oneself, the greater the allure of a totalist group.
A related idea is that these attacks on the member‘s confidence and self-efficacy, render the
member more dependent on the group (in cults this means the group leader) for guidance,
interpretation, explanation and normative control over activity and choices. As Hogg (2001)
points out, one benefit of committed group membership and identification is that group
norms reduce uncertainty regarding what to think, feel and do. Hogg (in press) extends this
logic by arguing that people who experience uncertainty regarding their self-concept should
be particularly attracted to distinctive groups characterized by unique, clear norms that
produce high group entitativity—a common feature of totalist groups. Thus, uncertainty is
viewed as a factor that heightens normative power. Interestingly, normative control has
been found to be particularly strong in cases in which group members‘ task confidence is
low (Bond &Smith, 1996) and the salience of group membership is very high (Abrams,
Wetherall, Cochrane, Hogg, &Turner, 1990), as is the case in totalist groups. Indeed,
recent research indicates that the more one conforms to the dictates of such highly salient,
confident and self-referential groups, the better one feels about oneself (Pool, Wood, &