Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 114
supports the view that attentional depletion and other related internal states (e.g., emotion)
exacerbate specific persuasive processes.
Early Analyses of Intense Indoctrination
Almost all early descriptions of intense indoctrination acknowledged that such indoctrination
involves an initial period of psychological and physical stress (e.g., Lifton, 1961 Sargant,
1957 Schein, Schneier, &Barker, 1961). However, these explanations varied regarding
why this stress alters values, behaviors, and senses of self. Some writers simply assumed
that a stress-induced state of hypnotic-like confusion was responsible for the resulting
changes, whereas other writers took a psychoanalytic perspective, arguing that stress and
exhaustion weaken ego strength and elevate dependency needs and guilt, thereby leading
the indoctrinee to identify with the indoctrinating agent (e.g., Moloney, 1955). Other writers
assumed that conditioning principles were responsible for changes wrought by
indoctrination. Sargant (1957), for example, referring to Pavlov‘s (1927) canine stress
research, argued that the stress of indoctrination led to a state of ultraparadoxical inhibition
in which a given evaluative response was replaced with its opposite reaction. In Pavlov‘s
research, this form of inhibition was inferred when well-conditioned dogs salivated
―inappropriately‖ to negative discriminatory stimuli following extreme stress. Sargant
suggested that an analogous process explained the dramatic changes in beliefs and
attitudes observed following stressful indoctrination.
Lifton (1961) focused on changes in sense of self in his classic discussion of Chinese
communist intense indoctrination techniques. Lifton emphasized how the various highly
coercive procedures used by the Chinese effected changes in identity and self-definition.
Thus, Lifton conceptualized indoctrination as a process that manipulated guilt, shame, and
anxiety to produce a ―death‖ of the original self and a ―rebirth‖ of a reeducated self. Lifton
focused on the act of confession as a key procedural element of indoctrination, viewing it as
a direct assault on the adequacy of the self-concept and a major source of anxiety and guilt
(see also Ofshe &Singer, 1986). Although these models are interesting historically, a model
outlined by Schein et al. (1961) is more relevant to the analysis I present below. Whereas
early models tended to emphasize a specific mechanism of change, Schein et al. (1961)
suggested that an eclectic variety of mediating mechanisms produced changes in beliefs,
values, and self-conceptions. In addition, Schein et al. (1961) explicitly acknowledged that
although indoctrination altered self-conception, this change, in turn, depended on initial
changes in beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors (e.g., p.195). In this respect, this
account took on a decidedly social psychological perspective. Accordingly, Schein et al.‘s
(1961) model was unique among early approaches in referring to mechanisms such as
cognitive dissonance, conformity, interpersonal communication, and cognitive and semantic
organization.
Schein et al. (1961) argued that the indoctrination process involved three stages:
unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. Unfreezing was envisioned as a weakening of the
stable equilibria that supported the individual‘s beliefs and attitudes, especially those
concerning the self and influencing agents. Emotional stressors such as fear, guilt, social
ostracism, and inner conflict as well as physical stressors such as inadequate diet, sleep
deprivation, and the use of physical restraints (handcuffs) were thought to contribute to
unfreezing. Changing involved altering the cognitive structure of the indoctrinee. This stage
referred to the ―mental operations‖ involved in changing attitudes, beliefs, and semantic
systems as well as self-conception. Controlled information, cognitive dissonance, social
influence from peers and authority figures, and social identification processes were deemed
crucial here, leading to a willingness to uncritically consider and understand the doctrine
and interpretations proffered by the group. Finally, refreezing involved stabilizing the
changes wrought by the indoctrination process. Schein et al. (1961) believed that this
involved integrating new beliefs and values into the overall personality. They argued that
supports the view that attentional depletion and other related internal states (e.g., emotion)
exacerbate specific persuasive processes.
Early Analyses of Intense Indoctrination
Almost all early descriptions of intense indoctrination acknowledged that such indoctrination
involves an initial period of psychological and physical stress (e.g., Lifton, 1961 Sargant,
1957 Schein, Schneier, &Barker, 1961). However, these explanations varied regarding
why this stress alters values, behaviors, and senses of self. Some writers simply assumed
that a stress-induced state of hypnotic-like confusion was responsible for the resulting
changes, whereas other writers took a psychoanalytic perspective, arguing that stress and
exhaustion weaken ego strength and elevate dependency needs and guilt, thereby leading
the indoctrinee to identify with the indoctrinating agent (e.g., Moloney, 1955). Other writers
assumed that conditioning principles were responsible for changes wrought by
indoctrination. Sargant (1957), for example, referring to Pavlov‘s (1927) canine stress
research, argued that the stress of indoctrination led to a state of ultraparadoxical inhibition
in which a given evaluative response was replaced with its opposite reaction. In Pavlov‘s
research, this form of inhibition was inferred when well-conditioned dogs salivated
―inappropriately‖ to negative discriminatory stimuli following extreme stress. Sargant
suggested that an analogous process explained the dramatic changes in beliefs and
attitudes observed following stressful indoctrination.
Lifton (1961) focused on changes in sense of self in his classic discussion of Chinese
communist intense indoctrination techniques. Lifton emphasized how the various highly
coercive procedures used by the Chinese effected changes in identity and self-definition.
Thus, Lifton conceptualized indoctrination as a process that manipulated guilt, shame, and
anxiety to produce a ―death‖ of the original self and a ―rebirth‖ of a reeducated self. Lifton
focused on the act of confession as a key procedural element of indoctrination, viewing it as
a direct assault on the adequacy of the self-concept and a major source of anxiety and guilt
(see also Ofshe &Singer, 1986). Although these models are interesting historically, a model
outlined by Schein et al. (1961) is more relevant to the analysis I present below. Whereas
early models tended to emphasize a specific mechanism of change, Schein et al. (1961)
suggested that an eclectic variety of mediating mechanisms produced changes in beliefs,
values, and self-conceptions. In addition, Schein et al. (1961) explicitly acknowledged that
although indoctrination altered self-conception, this change, in turn, depended on initial
changes in beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors (e.g., p.195). In this respect, this
account took on a decidedly social psychological perspective. Accordingly, Schein et al.‘s
(1961) model was unique among early approaches in referring to mechanisms such as
cognitive dissonance, conformity, interpersonal communication, and cognitive and semantic
organization.
Schein et al. (1961) argued that the indoctrination process involved three stages:
unfreezing, changing, and refreezing. Unfreezing was envisioned as a weakening of the
stable equilibria that supported the individual‘s beliefs and attitudes, especially those
concerning the self and influencing agents. Emotional stressors such as fear, guilt, social
ostracism, and inner conflict as well as physical stressors such as inadequate diet, sleep
deprivation, and the use of physical restraints (handcuffs) were thought to contribute to
unfreezing. Changing involved altering the cognitive structure of the indoctrinee. This stage
referred to the ―mental operations‖ involved in changing attitudes, beliefs, and semantic
systems as well as self-conception. Controlled information, cognitive dissonance, social
influence from peers and authority figures, and social identification processes were deemed
crucial here, leading to a willingness to uncritically consider and understand the doctrine
and interpretations proffered by the group. Finally, refreezing involved stabilizing the
changes wrought by the indoctrination process. Schein et al. (1961) believed that this
involved integrating new beliefs and values into the overall personality. They argued that
