Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 77
 On May 11th, 1987 BSERP (which had called the Task Force report ―good‖ at the end
of October) rejected it during the Meeting that had been scheduled to discuss
its final draft and to establish the criteria for completing it.
Any comment, at this point, would be truly unnecessary!
Legerdemain
In ―Liar! Liar!‖ Introvigne says:
When one reads the enclosures and considers the whole controversy, it
becomes clear that the issue not resolved by the 1987 Memorandum is the
much larger issue of unethical behavior and misrepresentations in persuasion
processes, a problem not exclusive to the field of new religious movements or
―cults.‖ Unethical behavior and false representation may occur quite
independently of any brainwashing, coercive persuasion, or mind control
practices, both in religion and in psychotherapy … It is on larger issues of this
kind, rather than on brainwashing as allegedly practiced by new religious
movements, that BSERP experts disagreed among themselves, and BSERP
was not in a position to reach a definitive conclusion.
Even after reading the enclosures and all the other documents several times over, we
cannot honestly share this interpretation of the expression of the Memo of May 11, 1987.
Recall that this document concluded: ―Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not
believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this
issue.‖
Today, this document seems to have achieved an extraordinary fame and some people have
interpreted it in quite creative ways. But if the Task Force, according to the Memorandum
attached to the letter of July 12th, 1983 (which is the document which set the Task Force up
and defined its mission), was supposed to investigate possible abuses of psychologically
coercive techniques among religious cults and training seminars, then it is quite clear what
the ―issue‖ to be examined was. When BSERP rejected the DIMPAC report because of its
methodological faults, its lack of scientific rigor, it added that it could not express any
opinion concerning the broader issue, which the Task Force was supposed to investigate,
since it did not have enough information.
Our interpretation of this matter, which had been ignored for ten years and is now the
subject of so much attention, seems to us to be much closer to the facts and to the
documents.
Although the scientific validity of the subject matter studied by DIMPAC has not changed,
i.e. techniques of ―coercive persuasion,‖ this does not necessarily mean that everything that
was ever written about it is free of defects. The rejection of one scientific report on a
phenomenon does not cancel the existence of such a phenomenon.
Prof. Zablocki has this to say about the matter:
In my opinion, the DIMPAC committee went too far in the other direction by
asking the APA to affirm that brainwashing in religious cults was a proven
psychological fact. It was for this that they were censured. It is not true that
the APA affirmed the contrary, that brainwashing was disproved. Instead, the
APA argued that it could not go along with EITHER SIDE in this matter. I
would say that neither side got what it wanted from the APA. As an
organization representing ALL psychologists in the USA, it took a proper
agnostic position that no final decision could be given at this time. (personal
e-mail communication)

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 78
The Division 36 Resolution
It is interesting to note that those who proclaim APA‘s ―rejection‖ of ―brainwashing‖ theories
have never, so far as we know, mentioned a later attempt to persuade APA to take a stand
on this issue. At its annual convention in 1990 a ―Resolution on Brainwashing Testimony‖
was submitted to APA Division 36 (then called Psychologists Interested in Religious Issues,
now called Psychology of Religion). After hearing from both sides on the issue, the directors
of Division 36 approved a resolution that clearly does not place APA on the side of either of
the parties who have taken different sides in court cases.
The Executive Committee of the Division of Psychologists Interested in
Religious Issues supports the conclusion that, at this time, there is no
consensus that sufficient psychological research exists to scientifically equate
undue non-physical persuasion (otherwise known as ―coercive persuasion,‖
―mind control,‖ or ―brainwashing‖) with techniques of influence as typically
practiced by one or more religious groups. Further, the Executive Committee
invites those with research on this topic to submit proposals to present their
work at Divisional programs. (PIRI Executive Committee Adopts Position on
Non-Physical Persuasion Winter, 1991)
In its subsequent issue, the Division 36 Newsletter published a letter by AFF President,
Herbert Rosedale, Esq., and AFF Executive Director, Dr. Michael Langone. Rosedale and
Langone say:
For hundreds of years social considerations have allowed testimony to be
admitted to invalidate a Will by showing undue influence by a person who
benefits from a bequest in the Will. In cases dealing with sexual abuse and
the manipulation of those with an impaired capacity to make independent
judgments, psychologists frequently testify that certain action, which on its
face appears to be voluntary and consensual, lacks certain necessary
elements of such consent.
The Division‘s draft resolution appears to have been a transparent attempt to
block expert testimony that may enhance a deceived or defrauded person‘s
capacity to obtain legal redress from groups practicing extreme forms of
sociopsychological influence.
After receiving correspondence from the undersigned and colleagues, the
Division‘s leadership implicitly recognized the above points by, in the official
resolution, acknowledging the existence of extreme influence and avoiding
any insinuation that expert testimony should not be allowed ...We applaud
the directors for correcting these serious errors. (Psychologists Interested in
Religious Issues. (Rosedale &Langone, 1991, 8-9)
In using the words, ―undue non-physical persuasion (otherwise known as `coercive
persuasion,‘ `mind control,‘ or `brainwashing‘)‖ the Division 36 resolution clearly
acknowledges the existence of the phenomenon that others claimed APA rejected. The
resolution also made clear that ―there is no consensus‖ regarding whether or not scientific
research demonstrates that certain religious groups practice ―brainwashing.‖
This resolution probably disturbs some cult critics as well as those who have touted APA‘s
―rejection‖ of ―brainwashing.‖ However, it is an accurate statement about the state of
affairs in the profession. The relationship of ―brainwashing‖ theories and New Religious
Movements is a subject on which scientists dispute, not one on which the ―book has been
closed.‖