Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 76
appointed Elders and concern themselves with the vital work of preaching and
making disciples. (“Do Restrictions,” 1994, p. 27)
Later, in the same article, in reference to dealing with restrictions in general, WTS provides
this dubious comfort: “Things may not change until Jehovah‟s new world is here.
Nevertheless, what is to be gained from fretting because one cannot do what others can?”
(p. 28). Bergman (1992), in a discussion of WTS, states that
Much concern exists over insuring that the male openly acts as the clear Ahead” of
the house. If it is felt that the wife makes too many decisions, or has too much to
say in the affairs of the house, the husband may not be eligible for positions of
responsibility within the congregation. (p. 246)
Clearly, women are relegated to a position of less power than their male counterparts.
Women are instructed to defer to men both in their personal/marital relationships, and in
the social and religious life of the congregation.
Psychological Issues
Locus of Control and Cognitive Dissonance
Psychological literature refers to an individual‟s source of motivation as the “locus of
control.” Locus of control is viewed as either internal--that is, stemming from inside the self
--or as external, where control is attributed to sources outside the self, such as another
person, group, or adopted philosophy. Studies have shown that people with an internal
locus of control tend to fare better psychologically then those whose locus of control is
external (Pearce &Martin, 1993 Thompson et al., 1993). Having an internal locus of control
has been found to correlate significantly with feelings of happiness and self-esteem (Kopp &
Ruzicka, 1993). People with an external locus of control tend to have difficulty accepting
responsibility for their lives and tend to blame forces outside themselves for difficulties
when they arise (Wang &Anderson, 1994).
Those involved in high-control groups have their reality defined by the group‟s ideals--that
is, their locus of control is external. Winell (1993), in a discussion of fundamentalist family
structure, states:
Doctrinal rules are applied and fear of punishment are used for control. By
adopting such a simple formula, a family can be robbed of the enormously
constructive process of consciously developing family values and mores…. As a
result, children often fail to learn about personal responsibility or how to make
complex choices. (p. 119)
The group dictates what is acceptable behavior, what and who is good and bad, and so on.
Ambivalence, uncertainty, moral struggles, and conflicting feelings are tidily resolved by the
group‟s dictates. For the practiced member, such feelings are repressed before even being
raised to consciousness.
In high-control groups such as WTS, doubt and ambivalence are seen as “moral weakness.”
Should doubt arise, members are exhorted to “work harder” and “have more faith.” In many
cases, the group defines how one should even feel. Certain feelings and thoughts are
defined as “bad,” while others are seen as “good.” The world is perceived in black and
white. Tobias and Lalich (1994) write, “Cults create a world in which all the answers are
known--and the cult supposedly has them. This type of thinking also serves a protective
function, saving members from the anxiety of thinking for themselves” (p. 100). The
individual in a high-control group does not have to struggle to develop her own beliefs and
perceptions because they are defined, interpreted, and predicated by the group. Right and
wrong are known, not discovered. In fact, The Watchtower plainly states that “Adam and

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1997, page 77
Eve lost Paradise because they wanted to make their own decisions about right and wrong”
(“Shepherds and Sheep,” 1994, p. 16). Friesema (1995) writes:
One of the most destructive processes within fundamentalism is, paradoxically, one
of the sources of its greatest appeal: The dogmatic certainty, the good/evil,
right/wrong view of the world that reduces true understanding to judgmentalism,
also provides an unambiguous sense of direction and righteousness…. The promise
of redemption and future salvation becomes like the alcoholic fix which mollifies
fears, perplexing emotions, and unpleasant realities. (pp. 29-30)
In a high-control group, truth is presented as indisputable, solid, and reassuring fact.
Questioning or deciding for oneself about right or wrong is viewed as a potentially fatal sin
or as being under the influence of the devil. The danger of this “certainty of experience”
occurs when a member cannot successfully dismiss doubt and ambivalence, or cannot
repress unseemly emotional experiences such as envy, lust, and so forth. Cognitive
dissonance is then experienced. Cognitive dissonance can be defined as a sense of unease
or disharmony which occurs when feelings or reality fail to match one‟s beliefs or opinions
(Festinger, 1957). Festinger states that
The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the
person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance … when dissonance
is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations
and information which would likely increase the dissonance. (p. 3)
Therefore, cognitive dissonance theory predicts that once one has invested time and energy
into a course of action, inconsistencies will be ignored because the advantages of continuing
on course will tend to outweigh the uncertainty of changing. Festinger found that once a
decision is made in a given direction, confidence that the decision is correct tends to
increase, regardless of evidence to the contrary. As Friesema (1995) writes:
Either the doubt is kept hidden and an aspect of the self is split off or there is
fervent prayer and soul-searching to remove the doubt … the doubt or discontent is
not seen as having validity, but as a blotch or irritant to be removed … fundamen-
talists do not consider perspectives that may threaten the status quo, but rather
turn the dissenting voice back onto the dissenter with the injunction that he or she
is “weak in the faith.” The doubt then becomes self doubt, and trust in one‟s own
perceptions is undermined. (p. 30)
A woman with an internal “locus of control” defines and interprets her experience by a set of
internal judgments, comparison of prior to current experiences, and a singular set of moral
values that has been refined and constructed over trial and error. The internally defined
person will periodically experience cognitive dissonance and ambivalence because feelings
and judgments are constantly being refined and adapted through experience. When conflict
is successfully resolved for the internally defined person, personal growth and a higher level
of functioning are achieved. When conflict and cognitive dissonance are not adequately
resolved, the internally defined person may experience substantial psychological symptoms.
He or she may then be tempted to turn to an external structuring system such as a high-
control group to help quell uncertainty and provide a sense of direction.
The Dangers of Repression
For the person with an external locus of control, cognitive dissonance presents a difficult
conundrum. In a high-control group, one is told what is right to feel and believe. Yet, when
feelings and beliefs cannot be reconciled with the “party line,” the only “safe” solution is to
disavow or ignore the inconsistencies. Winell states that for the fundamentalist: