Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 116
1988). During these initial contacts, the recruits may be showered with attention and praise
and are likely to be carefully ―squired‖ by enthusiastic group members. After these initial
contacts, strong efforts are made to physically separate the recruits from their normal
environment. This is often accomplished by moving recruits to a secluded setting. In cases
involving coercion, of course, abduction and arrest serve to locate the indoctrinee in an
indoctrinating context. Following Hassan‘s suggestion, I reserve the term coercive
persuasion for such forceful indoctrination contexts. The major distinguishing feature of
such coercive settings is that initial stress levels tend to be higher and more salient to
indoctrinees given the greater threats to their person and freedom. A surprising number of
other features, however, are common to both voluntary and coercive forms of intense
indoctrination, such as physical and social separation, changes in diet, sleep deprivation,
peer pressure, and emotional manipulations. Once recruits are separated from their normal
social context, the indoctrination process unfolds.
Stage 1. In the softening-up stage, the indoctrinee is typically isolated from friends and
family. Efforts are made to keep the indoctrinee confused, excited, tired, disoriented, and,
sometimes, abused and frightened. This period can be as brief as a few hours, although it
usually is longer. Stress levels are most pronounced in the more coercive instances of
intense indoctrination. Patty Hearst (1982), as an example, was held handcuffed in a dark
closet for more than four weeks she was graphically and repeatedly threatened with death
and exposed to various other forms of severe psychological and physical abuse during this
period of confinement.
Ms. Heart‘s experience corresponds in a disturbing way to isolation procedures used
originally by Stalin‘s NKVD in some of the first cases of systematic indoctrination ever
reported. According to an excellent description by Hinkle and Wolff (1956), the Soviet secret
police used particularly intense pressure to ―break‖ new prisoners. Soviet prisoners served
months in solitary confinement, during which they were not allowed contact with anyone
except the interrogator. Isolation was so complete that when prisoners passed each other
while being escorted through the halls, they had to turn their heads from each other and
look at the corridor wall. Lights were lit continually, prisoners were deprived of sleep, cells
had no windows, and interrogation, if it occurred at all at this point, took place at irregular
intervals. All of this made it difficult for the prisoners to maintain time orientation. If
prisoners asked what they were charged with, they either were ignored or were told that
the State made no mistakes, knew their crimes, and expected the prisoners to show their
sincerity by confessing to what the State already knew. In short, prisoners were given the
oftentimes impossible chore of figuring out why they were being ―rehabilitated.‖ In addition,
prisoners‘ early attempts at confessing and giving information were generally rejected as
inadequate or insincere. As a variation on this technique, Chinese communist procedures of
the 1940s and 1950s typically involved abusive social pressure from more ―advanced‖
prisoners (coupled with the use of manacles) in lieu of solitary confinement as a key means
of elevating stress.
These police procedures represent an extreme instance of softening up an indoctrinee. More
subtle procedures, however, can also be effective at generating the stress necessary to
prepare individuals for effective indoctrination. For example, Singer (1995), describing cult
indoctrination, referred to changes in diet, appearance, sleep, arousal, and social context as
effective stressors (see also Galanter, 1989). The general point is that some period of initial
stress apparently increases the effectiveness of an intense assault on an individual‘s
attitudes, beliefs, and values.
Stage 2. In the compliance stage, the recruit tentatively ―tries out‖ some of the behaviors
requested by the group, more or less going through the motions or paying lip service to
many of the demands made by the group. Often, the recruit views this as a period of
exploration to see what the group is like or what such compliant behavior nets him or her.
1988). During these initial contacts, the recruits may be showered with attention and praise
and are likely to be carefully ―squired‖ by enthusiastic group members. After these initial
contacts, strong efforts are made to physically separate the recruits from their normal
environment. This is often accomplished by moving recruits to a secluded setting. In cases
involving coercion, of course, abduction and arrest serve to locate the indoctrinee in an
indoctrinating context. Following Hassan‘s suggestion, I reserve the term coercive
persuasion for such forceful indoctrination contexts. The major distinguishing feature of
such coercive settings is that initial stress levels tend to be higher and more salient to
indoctrinees given the greater threats to their person and freedom. A surprising number of
other features, however, are common to both voluntary and coercive forms of intense
indoctrination, such as physical and social separation, changes in diet, sleep deprivation,
peer pressure, and emotional manipulations. Once recruits are separated from their normal
social context, the indoctrination process unfolds.
Stage 1. In the softening-up stage, the indoctrinee is typically isolated from friends and
family. Efforts are made to keep the indoctrinee confused, excited, tired, disoriented, and,
sometimes, abused and frightened. This period can be as brief as a few hours, although it
usually is longer. Stress levels are most pronounced in the more coercive instances of
intense indoctrination. Patty Hearst (1982), as an example, was held handcuffed in a dark
closet for more than four weeks she was graphically and repeatedly threatened with death
and exposed to various other forms of severe psychological and physical abuse during this
period of confinement.
Ms. Heart‘s experience corresponds in a disturbing way to isolation procedures used
originally by Stalin‘s NKVD in some of the first cases of systematic indoctrination ever
reported. According to an excellent description by Hinkle and Wolff (1956), the Soviet secret
police used particularly intense pressure to ―break‖ new prisoners. Soviet prisoners served
months in solitary confinement, during which they were not allowed contact with anyone
except the interrogator. Isolation was so complete that when prisoners passed each other
while being escorted through the halls, they had to turn their heads from each other and
look at the corridor wall. Lights were lit continually, prisoners were deprived of sleep, cells
had no windows, and interrogation, if it occurred at all at this point, took place at irregular
intervals. All of this made it difficult for the prisoners to maintain time orientation. If
prisoners asked what they were charged with, they either were ignored or were told that
the State made no mistakes, knew their crimes, and expected the prisoners to show their
sincerity by confessing to what the State already knew. In short, prisoners were given the
oftentimes impossible chore of figuring out why they were being ―rehabilitated.‖ In addition,
prisoners‘ early attempts at confessing and giving information were generally rejected as
inadequate or insincere. As a variation on this technique, Chinese communist procedures of
the 1940s and 1950s typically involved abusive social pressure from more ―advanced‖
prisoners (coupled with the use of manacles) in lieu of solitary confinement as a key means
of elevating stress.
These police procedures represent an extreme instance of softening up an indoctrinee. More
subtle procedures, however, can also be effective at generating the stress necessary to
prepare individuals for effective indoctrination. For example, Singer (1995), describing cult
indoctrination, referred to changes in diet, appearance, sleep, arousal, and social context as
effective stressors (see also Galanter, 1989). The general point is that some period of initial
stress apparently increases the effectiveness of an intense assault on an individual‘s
attitudes, beliefs, and values.
Stage 2. In the compliance stage, the recruit tentatively ―tries out‖ some of the behaviors
requested by the group, more or less going through the motions or paying lip service to
many of the demands made by the group. Often, the recruit views this as a period of
exploration to see what the group is like or what such compliant behavior nets him or her.
