APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control
APA task force on cult persuasion methods, later rejected.
The APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods (or Techniques) of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC/DITPACT) was formed in 1983 at the request of the American Psychological Association. Margaret Singer, a leading theorist on cults and coercive persuasion, was asked to chair the task force with the aim of exposing cult methods and tactics. The task force's work and its subsequent rejection became a notable episode in the debate over the scientific status of brainwashing and coercive persuasion theories.
Quick Facts
- Formed
- 1983
- Chair
- Margaret Singer
- Final report completed
- November 1986
- Report rejected by
- APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP)
- Rejection date
- May 11, 1987
- External reviewers
- Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, Jeffrey D. Fisher
Facts from the source article.
Dismissal of the DIMPAC report
On May 11, 1987, the APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC final report, stating that it lacked the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur. The BSERP board requested that task-force members not distribute or publicize the report without indicating that the Board found it unacceptable, and cautioned them against using their past appointment to imply BSERP or APA support. Two external letters accompanied the rejection memo. Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi of the University of Haifa wrote that the report, lacking psychological theory, resorted to sensationalism in the style of certain tabloids, and that the term 'brainwashing' is not a recognized theoretical concept but a sensationalist explanation more suitable to cultists and revival preachers. He recommended against making the report public. Jeffrey D. Fisher stated that the report seemed unscientific in tone and biased, drawing conclusions that often did not mesh with the evidence, and that its reasoning was at times flawed to the point of being almost ridiculous, even appearing to use the deceptive techniques it was investigating. The BSERP memorandum concluded that it did not have sufficient information to take a position on the issue. Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe subsequently sued the APA in 1992 for defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy, and lost in 1994. Afterward, judges did not accept Singer as an expert witness in cases alleging brainwashing and mind control.
Amicus curiae brief
Before the task force submitted its final report, the APA and a group of scholars submitted an amicus curiae brief on February 10, 1987, in the case Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity before the California Supreme Court. The brief addressed issues of brainwashing and coercive persuasion related to the Unification Church and portrayed Singer's hypotheses as uninformed speculations based on skewed data. On March 24, 1987, the APA filed a motion to withdraw its signature from the brief, considering the conclusion premature given the ongoing DIMPAC task force work. The amicus continued because the co-signed scholars did not withdraw their signatures.
Margaret Singer v. APA (RICO lawsuit)
After the APA's Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology rejected the DIMPAC report, Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe filed a 1992 lawsuit against the APA and other scholars. They charged defamation, fraud, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy under the RICO act, but lost in 1994. The suit alleged that from 1986 to 1992, top executives at the APA and the American Sociological Association tried to ruin careers by improperly influencing witnesses in state court cases, filing false affidavits, obstructing justice in federal cases, deceiving federal judges, and committing wire and mail fraud. A Washington state law firm and twelve other scholars were also named. Singer and Ofshe claimed these actions harmed their reputations as forensic experts on coercive persuasion, blocking their testimony against cults, and specified collusion between some defendants and cult groups. The court summons described the BSERP's rejection of the DIMPAC report as a rejection of the scientific validity of coercive persuasion theory. The court dismissed the case, ruling the claims were a First Amendment dispute over an academic debate, and that the plaintiffs could not prove deceit. Judge James R. Lamden later ordered Singer and Ofshe to pay $80,000 in attorneys' fees under California's anti-SLAPP law, which penalizes harassment of First Amendment rights. Singer and Ofshe then announced plans to sue their own lawyer, Michael Flomenhaft, for malpractice.
More in Mind Control
Spotted an error? Know more?
Reader corrections go straight into our review queue. Suggest an edit · How this site is sourced