ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54208/0008 1
Cults and Persuasion: Submission as Preference Shifting
Luigi Corvaglia1
Abstract: The literature on mind manipulation is often spoilt by the specious use of the metaphor of “brainwashing”.
This is sometimes done under the guise of emphasising the irrationality of manipulation and showing that it
lies outside the realm of science. This paper will instead show how the findings of experimental psychology and
behavioural economics lead to the identification of a process of change in thinking and behaviour that can be
described in scientific terms. This process is achieved through a slow self-selection of recruits and an equally gradual
increase in requirements. The classic Milgram experiment is a suitable instrument for explaining this. The framing
effect identified by Tversky and Khaneman, which is so important in marketing, can bring about counterproductive
decisions in a context that makes them reasonable for those who make them. This is to show that there is nothing
magical or metaphysical about mind control, as long as it is understood as a process of conditioning that works
through progressive selection and leads to an increase in conformism in a closed environment. Instead, the idea
of rational choice, on which the defence of manipulative cults is based, is displaced from the scientific realm.
Keywords: Cults, Rational Choice Theory, Behavioural Economics, Tversky, Kahneman, Social Psychology,
Milgram, Persuasion, Brainwashing, Mind Control
1 The author wishes to acknowledge IJCAM co-editor Rod Dubrow-Marshall’s contribution in editing this paper.
Introduction
Mind manipulation is one of the most discussed
themes due to its ethical implications and practical
consequences from a legal point of view. The term
“brainwashing” was first used by Edward Hunter in
1951 to describe the actions of the Chinese, who seemed
to have infallible systems to induce changes in the way
people think and act, and it has entered with force into
popular culture but is not a scientifically accredited
concept. Since the 1970s, mind control has often been
linked to adherence to destructive “cults” that made the
headlines (Singer, 2003 Zimbardo, 1997 Zablocki,
2001), but some sociologists of religion (Barker, 1984
Richardson &Introvigne, 2001) consider the idea
“implausible” because no methodologically sound
research would support the thesis of brainwashing as
an infallible technique of behavior modification that
occurs without the consent of the person who has
agreed to modify the conduct of his or her life (Barker,
1984 Introvigne, 2006). These authors, therefore,
interpret adherence to what they call “New Religious
Movements” (NRM) as the result of the free choice of
individuals, even if it is still the result of persuasion.
The two rhetorical positions of mind control and
free choice have historically taken the form of two
opposing camps, each defined by its opponents with
a unifying and vaguely disparaging appellation: “anti-
cult movement” and “cult apologists,” respectively
(Introvigne, 1998 Cowan, 2002). This paper aims to
overcome this opposing reductionist schematism by
analyzing research on factors that appear to intervene
to modulate the gradient of free choice of individuals
subjected to persuasion.
Methodology
The literature on persuasion and influence in groups
both in laboratory experiments (Milgram, 1975 Asch,
1951) and real-life instances (Barker, 1984 Galanter et
al., 1979 Lalich, 2004 Zablocki, 1997) were identified
and reviewed using Google Scholar and other databases
(Unisalento Digital Library and SciHub). An integrated
research review approach (Russell, 2005) was adopted
to select and synthesize relevant articles. This review
led to an argument positing that salience in psychology
could be an elucidating concept for understanding the
continuum of influence and free choice, including in
groups defined as cults or NRMs.
The salience-procrastination connection
The review of research and theory undertaken indicates
that we all tend to postpone actions that we perceive as
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54208/0008/001
Cults and Persuasion: Submission as Preference Shifting
Luigi Corvaglia1
Abstract: The literature on mind manipulation is often spoilt by the specious use of the metaphor of “brainwashing”.
This is sometimes done under the guise of emphasising the irrationality of manipulation and showing that it
lies outside the realm of science. This paper will instead show how the findings of experimental psychology and
behavioural economics lead to the identification of a process of change in thinking and behaviour that can be
described in scientific terms. This process is achieved through a slow self-selection of recruits and an equally gradual
increase in requirements. The classic Milgram experiment is a suitable instrument for explaining this. The framing
effect identified by Tversky and Khaneman, which is so important in marketing, can bring about counterproductive
decisions in a context that makes them reasonable for those who make them. This is to show that there is nothing
magical or metaphysical about mind control, as long as it is understood as a process of conditioning that works
through progressive selection and leads to an increase in conformism in a closed environment. Instead, the idea
of rational choice, on which the defence of manipulative cults is based, is displaced from the scientific realm.
Keywords: Cults, Rational Choice Theory, Behavioural Economics, Tversky, Kahneman, Social Psychology,
Milgram, Persuasion, Brainwashing, Mind Control
1 The author wishes to acknowledge IJCAM co-editor Rod Dubrow-Marshall’s contribution in editing this paper.
Introduction
Mind manipulation is one of the most discussed
themes due to its ethical implications and practical
consequences from a legal point of view. The term
“brainwashing” was first used by Edward Hunter in
1951 to describe the actions of the Chinese, who seemed
to have infallible systems to induce changes in the way
people think and act, and it has entered with force into
popular culture but is not a scientifically accredited
concept. Since the 1970s, mind control has often been
linked to adherence to destructive “cults” that made the
headlines (Singer, 2003 Zimbardo, 1997 Zablocki,
2001), but some sociologists of religion (Barker, 1984
Richardson &Introvigne, 2001) consider the idea
“implausible” because no methodologically sound
research would support the thesis of brainwashing as
an infallible technique of behavior modification that
occurs without the consent of the person who has
agreed to modify the conduct of his or her life (Barker,
1984 Introvigne, 2006). These authors, therefore,
interpret adherence to what they call “New Religious
Movements” (NRM) as the result of the free choice of
individuals, even if it is still the result of persuasion.
The two rhetorical positions of mind control and
free choice have historically taken the form of two
opposing camps, each defined by its opponents with
a unifying and vaguely disparaging appellation: “anti-
cult movement” and “cult apologists,” respectively
(Introvigne, 1998 Cowan, 2002). This paper aims to
overcome this opposing reductionist schematism by
analyzing research on factors that appear to intervene
to modulate the gradient of free choice of individuals
subjected to persuasion.
Methodology
The literature on persuasion and influence in groups
both in laboratory experiments (Milgram, 1975 Asch,
1951) and real-life instances (Barker, 1984 Galanter et
al., 1979 Lalich, 2004 Zablocki, 1997) were identified
and reviewed using Google Scholar and other databases
(Unisalento Digital Library and SciHub). An integrated
research review approach (Russell, 2005) was adopted
to select and synthesize relevant articles. This review
led to an argument positing that salience in psychology
could be an elucidating concept for understanding the
continuum of influence and free choice, including in
groups defined as cults or NRMs.
The salience-procrastination connection
The review of research and theory undertaken indicates
that we all tend to postpone actions that we perceive as
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54208/0008/001
