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.‖

Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 17, 2000, Page 79
Conclusion
We have reason to believe that APA, today like ten years ago, still considers ―psychological
coercion‖ to be a phenomenon worth investigating, and not a notion rejected by the
scientific community.
Otherwise, why would people such as Margaret Singer, Michael Langone, and others
considered to be ―anti-cultists‖ contribute to APA Conventions and be respected in other
prestigious professional bodies as well? For example, Margaret Singer has published an
article on these issues in the Merck Manual, the ―Bible‖ of Medicine. The same scholar,
together with L. J. West, published in the Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, a
prestigious textbook of Psychiatry. Richard Ofshe wrote about thought reform in the
Encyclopedia of Sociology after ASA and APA withdrew their support for the Amicus brief in
1987. In 1996 Dr. Langone and colleagues presented a paper on their research with the
Group Psychological Abuse Scale to APA‘s Division 36.
If such examples do not reflect the respect that the scientific community feels towards these
scholars, how are we to interpret them?
In May 1997, the APA Monitor ran an interesting column, ―What Messages are Behind
Today’s Cults?‖ by Stanford‘s Dr. Philip Zimbardo, a former president of APA. Dr.
Zimbardo, who in 1989 (after the Task Force report had been rejected) appeared on an
APA program with Drs. Singer, Langone, and others, says:
Whatever any member of a cult has done, you and I could be recruited or
seduced into doing  under the right or wrong conditions. The majority of
normal, average, intelligent individuals can be led to engage in immoral,
illegal, irrational, aggressive and self destructive actions that are contrary to
their values or personality  when manipulated situational conditions exert
their power over individual dispositions.
These are the facts, and they could not be otherwise, since the American Psychological
Association, will never be able to avoid investigating the problem of manipulation inside
certain groups and NRMs. These may be seen as special manifestations of the same
processes of social influence that take place in daily life. Whether or not we use a theory
such as ―coercive persuasion‖ to describe such extreme forms of social influence, located
along a continuum of differing intensity, is an issue which can and must be discussed with
intellectual honesty in a professional association of psychologists.
Professor Zablocki has this to say about the position of APA and ASA on the issue of
brainwashing theories:
Many people have been misled about the true position of the APA and the ASA
with regard to brainwashing. Like so many other theories in the behavioral
sciences, the jury is still out on this one. The APA and the ASA acknowledge
that some scholars believe that brainwashing exists but others believe that it
does not exist. The ASA and the APA acknowledge that nobody is currently in
a position to make a Solomonic decision as to which group is right and which
group is wrong. Instead they urge scholars to do further research to throw
more light on this matter. I think this is a reasonable position to take.
(personal e-mail communication)
This is our position too. Absolute scientific truth does not exist. If scholars continue
researching, with intellectual honesty and scientific rigor, they will perhaps find a way to do
something useful to prevent damage to weaker individuals within certain pseudo-religious
movements, while at the same time safeguarding the freedom of conscience of every
human being and the right of everybody to practice and spread his religious faith.