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:
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:
