Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 68
Zablocki, B., &Robbins, T. (Eds.) (in press). Misunderstanding cults. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Acknowledgment
I wish to thank Dr. David G. Bromley for receipt of and permission to quote from his in-
press manuscript, ―A Tale of Two Theories: Brainwashing and Conversion as Competing
Political Narratives.‖
A version of this article first appeared in AFF‘s Internet journal, www.cultsandsociety.com.
**********
Michael D. Langone, Ph.D., a counseling psychologist, is AFF‘s Executive Director. He is
the editor of Cultic Studies Journal and Recovery From Cults. He is co-author of Cults: What
Parents Should Know and Satanism and Occult-Related Violence: What You Should Know.
Dr. Langone has spoken and written widely about cults. In 1995 he was honored as the
Albert V. Danielsen visiting Scholar at Boston University. (dir@csj.org)
This article is an electronic version of an article originally published in Cultic Studies Journal, 2000, Volume 17,
pages 79-100. Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from that of the bound
volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic information in papers that you may write.

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 69
“Mind Control” in New Religious Movements and the
American Psychological Association
Alberto Amitrani
Raffaella Di Marzio
GRIS, Roma
Abstract
During the past 10 years some scholars have claimed that the American
Psychological Association (APA) formally rejected the notion of brainwashing
as unscientific because APA rejected the report of a committee headed by
noted cult critic, Dr. Margaret Singer. In an attempt to investigate the
accuracy of these claims the authors embarked upon a long and difficult
search for the documents on which this seemingly significant claim is based.
They concluded that a careful reading of the relevant documents indicates
that APA has not rejected the notion of brainwashing and that, as Dr.
Benjamin Zablocki notes, ―like so many others theories in the behavioral
sciences, the jury is still out on this one.‖
Researchers and scholars in sociology and psychology hold different positions concerning
the existence of techniques of mental manipulation inside New Religious Movements. Some
deny it altogether others state that it definitely exists yet others take on intermediate
positions, some more in one direction, others more in the other.
What is definitely harmful for balanced research in the fields of sociology and psychology of
religion is the unfortunate division of scholars into two opposing camps. Some, in fact,
behave as if they were in a symbolic courtroom, where New Religious Movements are being
judged, or where freedom of religion is under discussion. In this hypothetical courtroom,
scholars play the roles of defense lawyers or public prosecutors, instead of doing their job,
which is that of investigating and drawing up hypotheses for experimental verification.
When we started looking into the various positions of scholars in order to try to understand
the current situation of research concerning theories of ―mind control‖ or thought reform
applied to New Religious Movements, we chanced on certain statements, according to which
the whole matter seems to have already been settled, and no further research appears to
be necessary, as science has already given a final reply.
Considering the complex nature of this issue, these statements had a profound effect upon
us, also because they were made by scholars well known in Italy. The people whose articles
and interviews we referred to are generally recognized as experts in the field of New
Religious Movements. Nevertheless, in the specific issue we were dealing with  the
quotation and interpretation of the ―Memo to the DIMPAC Committee‖  the authors we
quoted had not behaved like experts, since they had acted naively (there is always
somebody who will check the sources!): real experts, in fact, always refer the whole idea of
a source they quote.
These scholars told us that the last word had already been said by one of the most
prestigious professional associations in the world, the APA (American Psychological
Association), which has about 150.000 members. The final statement was supposed to have
been made long ago, in May 1987.
This, for example, is what Massimo Introvigne had to say in an article published in Avvenire
on January 2, 1997, p. 18, titled ―Ma il Cattolico non Va alla Setta: