Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 18, 2001, Page 118
behavior over time, and censorship of information. Although I have identified certain
procedures as contributing to the softening-up stage, this is not meant to imply that they
only have effects at this stage. As shown subsequently, it seems likely that certain of these
procedural events (e.g., physical stress) may contribute to reactions at various stages.
Indoctrination and Internal States
The procedures outlined in the previous paragraph are commonly thought to produce a
variety of strong internal reactions during intense indoctrination attempts (e.g., Hassan,
1988 Lifton, 1961 Singer, 1995). These states include guilt, fear (or anxiety), confusion,
dependency, depleted attentional capacity (attributable to sleep loss, malnutrition,
emotionality, and high rates of activity), disassociative states provoked by chanting or
meditation, and low self-esteem attributable to imposed self-criticism and requirements to
learn the often inscrutable doctrine of the group.
Mechanisms of Internalization
The reactions of indoctrinees during the softening-up and compliance stages of
indoctrination do not require elaborate commentary. Individuals react to stress, curiosity, or
social pressure in fairly predictable ways. Similarly, a number of well-known persuasion
processes can account for attitude and value change observed in the internalization stage.
Thus, various recent accounts of intense indoctrination identify mechanisms such as
conformity processes, desires for group acceptance, heuristic message processing, group
polarization, group think, stereotyping (of outgroup members), foot-in-the-door processes,
and cognitive dissonance mechanisms as important mediators of attitude and value change
in these manipulative settings (e.g., Pratkanis &Aronson, 1992 Singer, 1995). Although a
number of writers allude to such social psychological processes in their discussion of intense
indoctrination, a number of other issues remain intriguing or controversial. One set of issues
concerns the processes involved in the attitude consolidation phase. A second set of issues
concerns the likelihood that standard social influence processes have greater impact on
recruits because of the internal states typically generated during intense indoctrination. This
―enhanced impact‖ is a major focus of the current treatment. A key assumption here is that
the internal states produced by intense indoctrination impair attentional capacity, thereby
dramatically enhancing the effectiveness of various social psychological processes. It is my
contention that this interactive process is a major reason why intense indoctrination can be
viewed as a qualitatively unique form of social influence. By explicitly considering how such
interactive dynamics affect compliance, internalization, and consolidation, this analysis
complements and extends prior treatments of intense indoctrination. These various issues
are covered in the following sections.
Mechanisms of Consolidation
During the consolidation stage, the recruit comes to uncritically accept the various aspects
of group policy and doctrine. In this stage, attitudes are held with such tenacity that
contradictory evidence is generally explained away. Cognitive dissonance theory provides
one compelling explanation for such reactions. According to this view, the disciple‘s need to
justify the costly and often irrevocable behavioral commitments that escalate over the
course of intensive indoctrination leads to the development of extreme and resistant
attitudes. For example, several classic case studies of doomsday groups (Festinger, Riecken,
&Schachter, 1956 Hardyck &Braden, 1962) provide cogent analyses of how cognitive
dissonance mechanisms can contribute to group loyalty even in the face of extremely
dramatic disconfirmations of group doctrine and prophesy. A second (cognitive miser)
hypothesis I suggest regarding the development of attitude consolidation is that eventually,
group members find it quite effortful to continually agonize over whether the group‘s
ideology is correct or justified. Both the individual‘s limited attentional capacity (Kahneman,
1973) and attentional fatigue (Cohen, 1978) should discourage the individual from
behavior over time, and censorship of information. Although I have identified certain
procedures as contributing to the softening-up stage, this is not meant to imply that they
only have effects at this stage. As shown subsequently, it seems likely that certain of these
procedural events (e.g., physical stress) may contribute to reactions at various stages.
Indoctrination and Internal States
The procedures outlined in the previous paragraph are commonly thought to produce a
variety of strong internal reactions during intense indoctrination attempts (e.g., Hassan,
1988 Lifton, 1961 Singer, 1995). These states include guilt, fear (or anxiety), confusion,
dependency, depleted attentional capacity (attributable to sleep loss, malnutrition,
emotionality, and high rates of activity), disassociative states provoked by chanting or
meditation, and low self-esteem attributable to imposed self-criticism and requirements to
learn the often inscrutable doctrine of the group.
Mechanisms of Internalization
The reactions of indoctrinees during the softening-up and compliance stages of
indoctrination do not require elaborate commentary. Individuals react to stress, curiosity, or
social pressure in fairly predictable ways. Similarly, a number of well-known persuasion
processes can account for attitude and value change observed in the internalization stage.
Thus, various recent accounts of intense indoctrination identify mechanisms such as
conformity processes, desires for group acceptance, heuristic message processing, group
polarization, group think, stereotyping (of outgroup members), foot-in-the-door processes,
and cognitive dissonance mechanisms as important mediators of attitude and value change
in these manipulative settings (e.g., Pratkanis &Aronson, 1992 Singer, 1995). Although a
number of writers allude to such social psychological processes in their discussion of intense
indoctrination, a number of other issues remain intriguing or controversial. One set of issues
concerns the processes involved in the attitude consolidation phase. A second set of issues
concerns the likelihood that standard social influence processes have greater impact on
recruits because of the internal states typically generated during intense indoctrination. This
―enhanced impact‖ is a major focus of the current treatment. A key assumption here is that
the internal states produced by intense indoctrination impair attentional capacity, thereby
dramatically enhancing the effectiveness of various social psychological processes. It is my
contention that this interactive process is a major reason why intense indoctrination can be
viewed as a qualitatively unique form of social influence. By explicitly considering how such
interactive dynamics affect compliance, internalization, and consolidation, this analysis
complements and extends prior treatments of intense indoctrination. These various issues
are covered in the following sections.
Mechanisms of Consolidation
During the consolidation stage, the recruit comes to uncritically accept the various aspects
of group policy and doctrine. In this stage, attitudes are held with such tenacity that
contradictory evidence is generally explained away. Cognitive dissonance theory provides
one compelling explanation for such reactions. According to this view, the disciple‘s need to
justify the costly and often irrevocable behavioral commitments that escalate over the
course of intensive indoctrination leads to the development of extreme and resistant
attitudes. For example, several classic case studies of doomsday groups (Festinger, Riecken,
&Schachter, 1956 Hardyck &Braden, 1962) provide cogent analyses of how cognitive
dissonance mechanisms can contribute to group loyalty even in the face of extremely
dramatic disconfirmations of group doctrine and prophesy. A second (cognitive miser)
hypothesis I suggest regarding the development of attitude consolidation is that eventually,
group members find it quite effortful to continually agonize over whether the group‘s
ideology is correct or justified. Both the individual‘s limited attentional capacity (Kahneman,
1973) and attentional fatigue (Cohen, 1978) should discourage the individual from
