Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 70
...back in 1987, the American Psychological Association officially stated that
―brainwashing‖ theories  of the first or second generation  applied to
religious movements are not scientific, and US courts have ever since
rejected them systematically.
The same author repeats this allegation in an article published on CESNUR‘s Web Site, ―The
Return of the Jacobins: The Report of the Belgian Parliament Inquiry Committee on Cults”:
...opposition to the anti-cult model based on theories of mental manipulation
and brainwashing is virtually unanimous among both psychologists and
sociologists of religion. In 1987 the American Psychological
Associationprobably the most authoritative body in the world in the field of
psychological sciencespublished a document stating that the theories of
mental manipulation and brainwashing applied to new religious movements
lack in ―scientific rigor‖ and must not be presented as scientific […]. No
―division in the academic world‖ therefore exists, dividing it into two different
fields, one favorable and one contrary to the theses of the anti-cult
movements. The overwhelming majority of academic researchers reject
these theses as not being scientific. (www.cesnur.org/testi/Belgique.htm)
The CESNUR Web Site also quotes from a report given at a press conference at the National
Press Club on December 1st, 1997 in Washington, D.C. The report was entitled, ―Religious
Liberty in Western Europe‖:
…On May 11, 1987 the Board rejected the report and concluded that the
mind control theories, used in order to distinguish ―cults‖ from religions, are
not part of accepted psychological science. The results of this document were
devastating for mind control theories.
Another CESNUR member, Pier Luigi Zoccatelli, repeats these ideas in an article published in
the February 1997 issue of Il Messaggero di S. Antonio, and reprinted on their Web Site. At
the end of this article, ―Scientologia, Religione e Gnosticismo,‖ the author says:
Today, therefore, the crime of plagio [undue persuasion] no longer exists,
and the idea of bringing it back is hardly to be imagined. The same
conclusion, regarding ―brainwashing‖ theories of both the first and second
generation…was reached in 1987 by the authoritative American Psychological
Association, which called such theories ―not scientific.‖
In a radio program called Lavori in Corso [Work in Progress], broadcast on December 9,
1997 Mr. Introvigne said the following:
...I do not believe one should speak too quickly here of plagio [undue
influence], which our Constitutional Court in 1981 called a fictitious and non-
existent crime in 1981, or brainwashing, which the American Psychological
Association equally declared to be nonexistent in 1987.
In this specific case, he is actually claiming that APA came to a final conclusion, according to
which ―brainwashing‖ theories are not only lacking in the features needed to call a theory
scientific, but that these theories deal with a phenomenon which does not even exist.
During a TV transmission (the seventh edition of 7 volte 7 [7 time 7], broadcast by
Telenova and Telesubalpina and re-broadcast by Sat2000, the Italian Bishops‘ Conference
satellite TV, Mr. Introvigne said that the words, ―cult‖ and ―brainwashing‖ or ―mind control,‖
are typical of anti-cult movements. These movements supposedly use them as ―sticks‖ with
which to beat minority religious movements. They are only a way of expressing religious
intolerance.

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 71
We could continue for a long time with quotes and examples of lectures or programs of
various kinds where such statements were made.
The position of these Italian scholars is also shared by other Italian and foreign scholars.
This is a current in sociology and psychology that opposes a different view of the problem,
upheld by other scholars who do not deny the existence of forms of conditioning in certain
religious movements, although in different degrees and with different features, depending
on the individual case.
What makes the reader or the listener immediately inclined to accept the opinion of the
―expert‖ is the mention of the prestigious APA. It is natural to think that, if such an
important association expressed a negative opinion on a theory, this theory cannot be
scientific and must be rejected.
However, common sense and experience in this field led us to harbor some doubts about
such absolute certainties. In a field as complex and controversial as that of psychology,
acquiring certainties is truly difficult. For this reason, we wondered whether the famous
official APA document actually said what it was supposed to have said.
We therefore started a long and difficult search for a document that, considering its
importance, should have been easily available to everybody, especially to those who quote
it on their own Web site. We asked CESNUR (which claims to have a library of over 10.000
books) for a copy of the document. Inexplicably, they referred us to their American
colleague, Gordon Melton. Dr. Melton, whom we repeatedly contacted by e-mail, never sent
the document, although he said he had it and was ready to fax it to us. (1)
We then decided to go to the source, and contacted  by e-mail  several members of APA
(including Department Chiefs), asking for a copy of the document. We were very surprised
that none of these people were able to place this document, so important for deciding the
fate of a scientific theory. We were told that the document exists but is not easy to find.
Thanks to the admirable help of members and officers of this Association, we received a
considerable quantity of bibliography on the issue of ―mind control‖ applied to New Religious
Movements.
This help, together with that of Dr. Michael Langone of AFF and Dr. Benjamin Zablocki (a
Rutgers University sociologist who published an article in Nova Religio 
www.novareligio.com  ―The Blacklisting of a Concept: The Strange History of the
Brainwashing Conjecture in the Sociology of Religion‖) helped us to increase our knowledge
and to clear up many issues which had been left in the dark.
After two months of research on the Internet, we were finally able to obtain a photocopy of
the document by fax from the USA. (The document is on our Web site at
www.grisroma.it/inglese/Memo_11-05-87.htm.) We can now clarify some basic points:
The document opens and closes thanking the Task Force (DIMPAC  Task Force on
Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control) for its job, and openly expresses
the enormous difficulty involved in coming to a final report on such a complex and
controversial issue. No polemics against those who had done the job, rather the
acknowledgement of the job they had done, which the Board, while not agreeing, did
appreciate.
The report drawn up by DIMPAC was examined by two outside experts and by two members
of the APA committee called Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology
(BSERP). They found the DIMPAC report lacking in scientific rigor and in an impartial critical
approach needed to obtain APA approval. The report was therefore unanimously rejected by
4 people (only 2 of whom belonged to APA).