Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 72
The main point of the document is this: the Memorandum expresses no official rejection of
mind control theories, but only rejects a report drawn up buy a committee on the issue of
mental manipulation theories as applied to New Religious Movements. This rejection was
due to a lack of proper methods.
The memo called on DIMPAC members to avoid stating that APA shared the conclusions of
their report.
The most important part of the memo, which is the part that interests us, says:
Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have
sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue.
The CESNUR Web site now includes a copy of the complete memo. However, the scholars
we mentioned seem to have forgotten about this sentence of the memo, which is certainly
not a secondary one. Yet this sentence, which does exist, does not appear in any of the
documents we quoted.
Indeed, Dr. Langone told us (Personal Communication) that in a deposition he was once
handed a copy of the memo that did not have the last paragraph. It apparently had been
eliminated through the photocopy process. (Being a member of the Task Force, Dr.
Langone had received an original copy of the memo, which had the missing paragraph.)
This therefore is the truth, and it is quite different from what we were told: APA, a
professional Association of great domestic and international importance, has never taken a
clear and official stand on theories of thought reform and mind control as applied to New
Religious Movements. It has taken a waiting stand. The reason is clearly stated in the
memo: sufficient scientifically validated research and hypotheses are lacking, so a final
answer cannot be given to this question.
The saddest part of this story is that APA quite properly asked ―mind control‖ theorists not
to say that the Association shared their opinions. However they did not then realize that
that small memo, that relatively unimportant note, could be manipulated by others and
presented as an official APA rejection of the existence of mental manipulation in New
Religious Movements. The latter have made of this note a flag to rally around, quoting only
part of a document, which  although of only relative importance  deserves to be quoted
in full. Anybody who is considered, and considers himself, an objective and acknowledged
expert in this field should be aware of this fact.
An Examination of the Relevant Documents
In case there are any doubts, let us examine this issue in more detail.
In an article, ―Liar! Liar!,‖ (published on the CESNUR Web site at
www.cesnur.org/gandow_eng.htm) Massimo Introvigne says:
In the early 1980s, some U.S. mental health professionals became
controversial figures for their involvement as expert witnesses in court cases
against new religious movements, during which they presented their anti-cult
theories of brainwashing, mind control, or ―coercive persuasion‖ as if they
were generally accepted concepts within the scientific community. In the
meantime, in 1983, the American Psychological Association (APA) had
accepted the proposal to form a task force called DIMPAC (Deceptive and
Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control).
This statement could lead one to think that the Task Force called DIMPAC was set up as a
sort of ―commission of enquiry‖ on certain ―controversial‖ psychologists and psychiatrists.

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 73
However, the documents we have show that this was not what happened (Kahn, A. S.,
Letter with attached Memorandum dated July 12th 1983 signed by the then Administrative
Officer of the BSERP). In fact, the 6-page Memorandum attached to the letter (where the
establishment of the Task Force is proposed) specifies the purposes of the Task Force and,
hence, the job APA appointed it do:
 Investigate the techniques of psychological coercion.
 Decide whether one can or must, or cannot or must not, impose restrictions on the
use of techniques and principles of psychological coercion used by psychologists and
nonpsychologists in a manner abusive of individual or constitutional rights.
 Establish the conditions under which use of such techniques is more or less
appropriate. ―The charge to the Task Force will be to define the parameters and
limits to which coercive psychological techniques may be used before invoking the
principle of the ‗need to protect the individual.‘ ―
Further on, the document says that the APA is especially interested in these techniques
being used to promote individual well-being. What particularly interests the Association is
the fact that
techniques of indoctrination, ―brainwashing‖ and ―coercive persuasion‖ have
not been subject to the same scrutiny as other psychological techniques ...
Such techniques are currently being used by religious cults (e.g., the
Unification Church, the Church of Scientology, etc.) as well as nonreligious
organizations (e.g., est, Lifespring, etc.).
The Memo then remarks on the importance of undertaking this enquiry in the light of the
increasing involvement of psychologists in disputes associated with cults, for example in the
courts, where psychologists were often called in as witnesses (two cases are mentioned
involving the Unification Church and the Church of Scientology). The memo then mentions
so-called ―training seminars,‖ such as est and Lifespring. Further on, the Memorandum
says:
It is quite clear that many of the religious organizations have been involved in
recruitment techniques which are the equivalent of psychological assessment.
It would appear that these techniques need to be well defined and, if certain
people are a high risk, that these people need to be warned with regard to
potential harm. The fundamental issue facing psychology is a determination of
whether or not certain people need to be protected from coercive
psychological techniques. It may be impossible to discuss this aspect of the
abuse of coercive psychological techniques without discussing legalistic
implications. A thorough discussion of coercive techniques and the possible
need for recommendations in order to protect the public would be in the best
interest of psychology.
The part regarding the outcome of the study performed by the Task Force also expresses
the hope that something may be published in the future concerning this issue.
This document, then, shows that the Task Force was set up, not to put an end to the ―anti-
cult‖ activities of some psychologist, but for reasons of public interest, in order to safeguard
the psychological welfare of individuals who might be subject to coercive psychological
techniques, either in NRM‘s or in other organizations.
An Extraordinary “Slip”?
Mr. Introvigne also says in ―Liar! Liar!‖: