International Journal of Coercion, Abuse, and Manipulation Volume 8 2025 4
30 in the seven-day workshop, 12 did not continue. Of
the 18 remaining in the twelve-day workshop, 9 did
not continue. Of the remaining nine, six were active
church members six months later. The example of the
Moonies illustrates a conversion process to different
degrees over time. Converts undertake a sequence
of small decisions concerning the acceptance of
authority. Ultimately, due to this sequence of decisions
of obedience rather than rebellion, converts develop
beliefs and values that differ from those they had at the
beginning of the process.
We can assume that this willingness to acquiesce to
authority is facilitated by self-selection. Since most with
doubts leave, the dissent necessary to resist the escalation
of the commitment to the group does not develop.
Thus creating isolation from external influences, such
as in Milgram’s laboratory, and conformity to the
ideas of others, as in Asch’s experiment. This is also
an example of preference shifting, where preferences
change depending on choices induced by previous
preferences, as Elster (1984) pointed out.
The theory of referent information influence (Turner,
1987 Hogg &Turner, 1987) explains this process of
conforming. People expect to agree with in-group
members and, through self-categorization, conform
to the norms that define the in-group as part of
their self-identity in the salient social comparative
frame of reference. Polarization is the shift toward
extreme positions and occurs when members distance
themselves from out-group members’ norms, beliefs,
and behaviors. This occurs because the group is situated
towards one extreme of the salient comparative context
or social frame of reference (Turner, 1989).
Researchers’ general lack of access to such contexts in
a cult means that changes in salience and meaning still
need to be better understood. Evidence is potentially
provided by Kahneman and Tversky (1979), who
found that humans often do not rationally choose the
strategy that maximizes the probability of winning in
the long run (the expected utility of economists) but are
interested in current wins and losses. As Elster (1984)
points out, this alters the rationality of the choices
because the principle of transitivity is lost. If one prefers
A to B and B to C, one should also prefer A to C, but
it does not always happen (so the farmer goes home
with a basket of rotten apples). Not only that, they fear
loss more than they are attracted by gain and react in
opposite ways if the same problem is posed negatively
or positively. This last phenomenon is known as the
framing or context effect. This means that our decisions
are influenced by how information is presented (as
Lifton [2012] and others have noted occurs in cults
with concepts such as “loaded language”).
Similar information can be more or less attractive,
and our choices differ depending on the highlighted
features (another way of defining salience in context).
One of the shortcuts in decision-making, known as
heuristics, that contributes to the framing effect is
the affect heuristic. This is a phenomenon whereby we
rely heavily upon our emotional state during decision-
making rather than taking the time to consider the
long-term consequences of a decision. This may be why
we favor information and options framed to elicit an
immediate emotional response. Marketing and political
propaganda make extensive use of this heuristic. In
marketing, framing is used to focus the content of the
message on the potential gains associated with using
the product or, better, on the potential losses resulting
from not buying it. Furthermore, the use of framing
strategies is often at the basis of the creation of news
stories containing biased information favoring certain
perspectives, points of view, or ideologies (Tankard,
2009), a process well documented in cults (Singer,
2003).
The importance of framing and emotional reasoning
in manipulation and propaganda is particularly
emphasized by Lakoff (2001), who focuses on language
as a tool that can change people’s worldviews and,
consequently, their decisions. He pays particular
attention to using metaphors as an element of narratives
that convey messages that can change an individual’s
perceptions and decisions through reframing.
These mechanisms play a role in a wide range of
persuasion types, including benign forms, but this
does not mean that there are no forms of undue or
coercive persuasion, as claimed by some (Introvigne
et al., 2018). What is arguably reprehensible in
conversion work in harmful cults is not the technique
used but its end. Sometimes, the end is fraudulent
and exploitative, as in damaging cults. Pursuing
a secret agenda to exploit those persuaded to
30 in the seven-day workshop, 12 did not continue. Of
the 18 remaining in the twelve-day workshop, 9 did
not continue. Of the remaining nine, six were active
church members six months later. The example of the
Moonies illustrates a conversion process to different
degrees over time. Converts undertake a sequence
of small decisions concerning the acceptance of
authority. Ultimately, due to this sequence of decisions
of obedience rather than rebellion, converts develop
beliefs and values that differ from those they had at the
beginning of the process.
We can assume that this willingness to acquiesce to
authority is facilitated by self-selection. Since most with
doubts leave, the dissent necessary to resist the escalation
of the commitment to the group does not develop.
Thus creating isolation from external influences, such
as in Milgram’s laboratory, and conformity to the
ideas of others, as in Asch’s experiment. This is also
an example of preference shifting, where preferences
change depending on choices induced by previous
preferences, as Elster (1984) pointed out.
The theory of referent information influence (Turner,
1987 Hogg &Turner, 1987) explains this process of
conforming. People expect to agree with in-group
members and, through self-categorization, conform
to the norms that define the in-group as part of
their self-identity in the salient social comparative
frame of reference. Polarization is the shift toward
extreme positions and occurs when members distance
themselves from out-group members’ norms, beliefs,
and behaviors. This occurs because the group is situated
towards one extreme of the salient comparative context
or social frame of reference (Turner, 1989).
Researchers’ general lack of access to such contexts in
a cult means that changes in salience and meaning still
need to be better understood. Evidence is potentially
provided by Kahneman and Tversky (1979), who
found that humans often do not rationally choose the
strategy that maximizes the probability of winning in
the long run (the expected utility of economists) but are
interested in current wins and losses. As Elster (1984)
points out, this alters the rationality of the choices
because the principle of transitivity is lost. If one prefers
A to B and B to C, one should also prefer A to C, but
it does not always happen (so the farmer goes home
with a basket of rotten apples). Not only that, they fear
loss more than they are attracted by gain and react in
opposite ways if the same problem is posed negatively
or positively. This last phenomenon is known as the
framing or context effect. This means that our decisions
are influenced by how information is presented (as
Lifton [2012] and others have noted occurs in cults
with concepts such as “loaded language”).
Similar information can be more or less attractive,
and our choices differ depending on the highlighted
features (another way of defining salience in context).
One of the shortcuts in decision-making, known as
heuristics, that contributes to the framing effect is
the affect heuristic. This is a phenomenon whereby we
rely heavily upon our emotional state during decision-
making rather than taking the time to consider the
long-term consequences of a decision. This may be why
we favor information and options framed to elicit an
immediate emotional response. Marketing and political
propaganda make extensive use of this heuristic. In
marketing, framing is used to focus the content of the
message on the potential gains associated with using
the product or, better, on the potential losses resulting
from not buying it. Furthermore, the use of framing
strategies is often at the basis of the creation of news
stories containing biased information favoring certain
perspectives, points of view, or ideologies (Tankard,
2009), a process well documented in cults (Singer,
2003).
The importance of framing and emotional reasoning
in manipulation and propaganda is particularly
emphasized by Lakoff (2001), who focuses on language
as a tool that can change people’s worldviews and,
consequently, their decisions. He pays particular
attention to using metaphors as an element of narratives
that convey messages that can change an individual’s
perceptions and decisions through reframing.
These mechanisms play a role in a wide range of
persuasion types, including benign forms, but this
does not mean that there are no forms of undue or
coercive persuasion, as claimed by some (Introvigne
et al., 2018). What is arguably reprehensible in
conversion work in harmful cults is not the technique
used but its end. Sometimes, the end is fraudulent
and exploitative, as in damaging cults. Pursuing
a secret agenda to exploit those persuaded to
