ISSN: 2710-4028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.54208/0008 5
make choices contrary to their interests can be defined
as “manipulation.” Humans are seemingly prone to
systematic errors that can lead to counterproductive
choices, and this can be seen as helpful to those who
intend to be maliciously persuasive (Singer, 2003).
Charismatic cult leaders can lead their followers into a
frame in which their irrational decisions make perfect
sense to them (Lalich, 2000).
Instead of The Manchurian Candidate, another
Hollywood production may better help illustrate the
emerging psychological model from this literature
analysis: The Truman Show (1998). In this movie, the
protagonist is not an other-directed automaton who
has been magically brainwashed but a deceived man
who lives in a world created especially for him, where
he is monitored, filmed, and broadcast 24 hours a day.
In this pleasant, warm town, Seahaven, Truman acts
based on the limited information he receives and makes
choices he considers to be free, such as never leaving
the town because of his fear of the outside world that
was induced in him.
The apparent paradox is that some sociologists and
religious scholars have routinely defended every type
of cult, even totalitarian cults, from the charge of
coercive persuasion (Barker, 1984 Bromley, 2001
Introvigne, 2022 Melton, 2000 Richardson, 1993
Shupe, 2004) and appear to show great faith in human
rationality instead. The main theory they refer to
is the Theory of Religious Economy (TER), which
applies the classic Rational Choice Theory to the
religious field. This reading (Stark, 2007) supposes that
the religious field is like a market of goods. The various
faiths would be products offered by religious firms in
competition, and the faithful would be consumers who
make choices based on their rational calculation. This
has great practical relevance to an analysis of influence
processes. Affirming rational choice implies denying
manipulation. It is the rhetoric of free choice. It follows
that the mass suicide of Jonestown, carried out by the
faithful of the political-spiritual cult of the Reverend
Jim Jones, which led to the deaths of almost a thousand
people in 1978, would have been accomplished by the
simultaneous cost-benefit calculation of more than
900 people who concluded that death maximized their
utility. It is strange that a conception that sees faith
as a marketable product does not consider the basic
marketing concepts mentioned above (such as the
affective heuristic and framing), does not contemplate
misleading or manipulative advertising and takes the
absolute honesty of each seller for granted.
In studies on bounded rationality, the idea of an
individual being able to make fully rational choices
has long ago been struck down, for example, by
Simon (1957). This reduced capacity is due to the
computational limits of the brain, which means
that our choices are always suboptimal. Kahneman
and Tversky (1979) showed beyond a doubt how
human choices systematically violate the principles
of economic rationality, not only for computational
deficits but also for real computational errors.
Working while using these computational deficits and
errors within organized and sealed frames allows for
manipulating the orientation of individual choices,
especially if a charismatic figure leads this process. A
charismatic leader can take your horse and give you a
basket of rotten apples, and you would be lucky, too,
because malicious, sociopathic leaders poison apples
and take more than your horse. This ruinous endpoint
is akin to Lifton’s (2012) dispensing of existence in
thought reform.
The model proposed here, and emanating from
the above review of research in this area, is also
supported by the classic observations of Cialdini
(2009) on commitment and consistency, which shows
how humans have a fundamental need to feel consistent
with their ideas and decisions. Once we have chosen
or taken a position, we will encounter personal and
interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with
that commitment. He writes:
Psychologists have long understood the power
of the principle of consistency in directing
human action... The urge to be (and appear
to be) consistent constitutes a very powerful
weapon of social influence, often leading us to
act in ways that are clearly contrary to our own
self-interest. (Cialdini, 2009, pp. 52)
Commitment is key to reinforcing consistent behavior
(Cialdini, 2009 Beatty et al., 1988). Once a position
has been taken, there is a natural tendency to behave
in ways that are stubbornly consistent with it. The
make choices contrary to their interests can be defined
as “manipulation.” Humans are seemingly prone to
systematic errors that can lead to counterproductive
choices, and this can be seen as helpful to those who
intend to be maliciously persuasive (Singer, 2003).
Charismatic cult leaders can lead their followers into a
frame in which their irrational decisions make perfect
sense to them (Lalich, 2000).
Instead of The Manchurian Candidate, another
Hollywood production may better help illustrate the
emerging psychological model from this literature
analysis: The Truman Show (1998). In this movie, the
protagonist is not an other-directed automaton who
has been magically brainwashed but a deceived man
who lives in a world created especially for him, where
he is monitored, filmed, and broadcast 24 hours a day.
In this pleasant, warm town, Seahaven, Truman acts
based on the limited information he receives and makes
choices he considers to be free, such as never leaving
the town because of his fear of the outside world that
was induced in him.
The apparent paradox is that some sociologists and
religious scholars have routinely defended every type
of cult, even totalitarian cults, from the charge of
coercive persuasion (Barker, 1984 Bromley, 2001
Introvigne, 2022 Melton, 2000 Richardson, 1993
Shupe, 2004) and appear to show great faith in human
rationality instead. The main theory they refer to
is the Theory of Religious Economy (TER), which
applies the classic Rational Choice Theory to the
religious field. This reading (Stark, 2007) supposes that
the religious field is like a market of goods. The various
faiths would be products offered by religious firms in
competition, and the faithful would be consumers who
make choices based on their rational calculation. This
has great practical relevance to an analysis of influence
processes. Affirming rational choice implies denying
manipulation. It is the rhetoric of free choice. It follows
that the mass suicide of Jonestown, carried out by the
faithful of the political-spiritual cult of the Reverend
Jim Jones, which led to the deaths of almost a thousand
people in 1978, would have been accomplished by the
simultaneous cost-benefit calculation of more than
900 people who concluded that death maximized their
utility. It is strange that a conception that sees faith
as a marketable product does not consider the basic
marketing concepts mentioned above (such as the
affective heuristic and framing), does not contemplate
misleading or manipulative advertising and takes the
absolute honesty of each seller for granted.
In studies on bounded rationality, the idea of an
individual being able to make fully rational choices
has long ago been struck down, for example, by
Simon (1957). This reduced capacity is due to the
computational limits of the brain, which means
that our choices are always suboptimal. Kahneman
and Tversky (1979) showed beyond a doubt how
human choices systematically violate the principles
of economic rationality, not only for computational
deficits but also for real computational errors.
Working while using these computational deficits and
errors within organized and sealed frames allows for
manipulating the orientation of individual choices,
especially if a charismatic figure leads this process. A
charismatic leader can take your horse and give you a
basket of rotten apples, and you would be lucky, too,
because malicious, sociopathic leaders poison apples
and take more than your horse. This ruinous endpoint
is akin to Lifton’s (2012) dispensing of existence in
thought reform.
The model proposed here, and emanating from
the above review of research in this area, is also
supported by the classic observations of Cialdini
(2009) on commitment and consistency, which shows
how humans have a fundamental need to feel consistent
with their ideas and decisions. Once we have chosen
or taken a position, we will encounter personal and
interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with
that commitment. He writes:
Psychologists have long understood the power
of the principle of consistency in directing
human action... The urge to be (and appear
to be) consistent constitutes a very powerful
weapon of social influence, often leading us to
act in ways that are clearly contrary to our own
self-interest. (Cialdini, 2009, pp. 52)
Commitment is key to reinforcing consistent behavior
(Cialdini, 2009 Beatty et al., 1988). Once a position
has been taken, there is a natural tendency to behave
in ways that are stubbornly consistent with it. The
