This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) Some of this article's listed sources may not be reliable. Please help improve this article by looking for better, more reliable sources. Unreliable citations may be challenged and removed. (July 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. Find sources: "APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (July 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. Please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article. (July 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Methods (or Techniques) of Persuasion and Control (DIMPAC/DITPACT) was formed at the request of the American Psychological Association (APA) in 1983. The APA asked Margaret Singer, a leading theorist in cults and coercive persuasion, to chair a task force to "expose cult methods and tactics". Some examples that led to the task force's creation were the Manson family murders, Patty Hearst kidnapping, and the Jonestown massacre.[1]

Members of the task force

As of 1986, the members of the task force were:[2]

Dismissal of the DIMPAC report

On May 11, 1987, the APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC report because "[i]n general, the report lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur."[3]

Along with the rejection memo came two letters from external advisers to the APA who reviewed the report (the APA did not make its internal review public):[3]

The memorandum concludes with "Finally, after much consideration, BSERP does not believe that we have sufficient information available to guide us in taking a position on this issue."[3]

Margaret Singer and her professional associate sociologist Richard Ofshe subsequently sued the APA in 1992 for defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy—and lost in 1994. Subsequently, judges did not accept Singer as an expert witness in cases alleging brainwashing and mind control.[4]

Impact of DIMPAC report dismissal

The task force completed its final report in November 1986. In May 1987, the APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology (BSERP) rejected the DIMPAC final report; stating that the report "lack[ed] the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur".[3] The BSERP board requested that the task-force members not distribute or publicize the report without indicating that the Board found the report unacceptable, and cautioned the members of the task force against using their past appointment to it to imply BSERP or APA support or approval of the positions advocated in the report.[3]

In August 1988, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed part of the case Kropinski v. World Plan Executive Council, based on the lack of scientific support for the theories presented by Margaret Singer during her testimony as an expert witness.[5]

In 1989, Robin George v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness appeared in the California Fourth District Court of Appeal. This resulted in a rejection of Singer's testimony on the basis that the brainwashing theory of false imprisonment constituted an attempt to premise tort liability on religious practices that the plaintiff believed to be objectionable, and that such premise appeared inconsistent with the First Amendment.[6][7][8]

In 1990, District Court Judge Lowell Jensen excluded Singer's testimony in United States v. Fishman. According to J. Gordon Melton, upon reading the arguments against Singer and Ofshe's theories on brainwashing and coercive tactics, the court denied their expert testimony.[9]

In 1991, the Patrick Ryan v. Maharishi Yogi case was filed in the US District Court in Washington, DC. Judge Oliver Gasch refused to allow Singer to testify, based on the premises that Singer and Ofshe's theory did not enjoy substantial scientific approval and was therefore not admissible as the basis of expert opinion.[10]

Amicus curiæ brief

Main article: Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for the Unification of World Christianity

Before the task force had submitted its final report, the APA together with a group of scholars submitted an amicus curiæ brief in a pending case, Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for the Unification of World Christianity before the California Supreme Court. The case was submitted on February 10, 1987, and involved issues of brainwashing and coercive persuasion related to the Unification Church. The brief portrayed Singer's hypotheses as uninformed speculations based on skewed data.[11]

On March 24, 1987, the APA filed a motion to withdraw its signature from this brief, as it considered the conclusion premature in view of the ongoing work of the DIMPAC task force.[12] The amicus as such continued because the co-signed scholars did not withdraw their signatures. These included: Jeffrey Hadden, Eileen Barker, David Bromley and J. Gordon Melton, Joseph Bettis, Durwood Foster, William R. Garret, Richard D. Kahone, Timothy Miller, John Young, James T. Richardson, Ray L. Hart, Benton Johnson, Franklin Littell, Newton Malony, Donald E. Miller, Mel Prosen, Thomas Robbins, and Huston Smith.[11]

Margaret Singer v. APA (RICO lawsuit)

When the APA's BSERP declined to accept the DIMPAC findings, Singer sued the APA and other scholars in 1992 for "defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy" under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and lost in 1994.[13] The lawsuit alleged that several top executives at the APA and ASA attempted to destroy careers, charging that from 1986 to 1992 they resorted to improper influence of witnesses in state court litigations, filed untrue affidavits, attempted to obstruct justice in federal litigations, deceived federal judges, and committed wire and mail fraud. The lawsuit also cited a Washington state law firm and twelve other scholars as defendants.[14] Ofshe and Singer said that these actions damaged their reputations as forensic experts in the fields of psychology and sociology in the area of coercive persuasion, preventing their testimony against cults, and specified acts of collusion between several of the defendants and cult groups.[15]

The court summons filed by Singer and Ofshe's lawyer described the rejection of the DIMPAC report by the APA's BSERP as a "rejection of the scientific validity of the theory of coercive persuasion".[16]

The court dismissed the case on the basis that the claims of defamation, frauds, aiding and abetting and conspiracy constituted a dispute over the application of the First Amendment to a public debate over academic and professional matters. The court stated that one could characterize the parties as the opposing camps in a long-standing debate over certain theories in the field of psychology, and that the plaintiffs could not establish deceit with reference to representations made to other parties in the lawsuit.[16]

In a further ruling, James R. Lamden ordered Ofshe and Singer to pay $80,000 in attorneys' fees under California's SLAPP suit law, which penalizes those who harass others for exercising their First Amendment rights. At that time Singer and Ofshe declared their intention to sue Michael Flomenhaft, the lawyer who represented them in the case, for malpractice.[17]

See also

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

References and footnotes

  1. ^ Robbins, Thomas (2017-07-12). In Gods We Trust: New Patterns of Religious Pluralism in America. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-51306-7.
  2. ^ Report of the APA Task Force on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control Archived 2008-06-02 at the Wayback Machine, November 1986., Margaret Singer, chair; Harold Goldstein, National Institute of Mental Health; Michael Langone, American Family Foundation; Jesse S. Miller; Maurice K. Temerlin, Clinical Psychology Consultants, Inc.; Louis Jolyon West, University of California Los Angeles.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h "CESNUR - APA Memo of 1987 with Enclosures". www.cesnur.org. Retrieved 2021-01-28.
  4. ^ Arweck, Elisabeth (2006). "Researching New Religious Movements: Responses and Redefinitions". Taylor & Francis. p. 70. doi:10.4324/9780203642375.
  5. ^ "Robert Kropinski v. World Plan Executive Council--us, et al., Appellants, 853 F.2d 948 (D.C. Cir. 1988)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2022-08-01.
  6. ^ Abrahamson, Alan (1989-08-31). "Krishnas Did Not Brainwash Cypress Girl, Court Rules". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2022-08-01.
  7. ^ Wilbert Lee Taylor, "Religion on Trial: George v. International Society of Krishna Consciousness," University of Baltimore Law Forum 15, no. 1 (1984): 16–29. See note 53.
  8. ^ "FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions". Findlaw. Retrieved 2022-08-01.
  9. ^ J. Gordon Melton, "Anti-cultists in the United States: An historical perspective," in New Religious Movements: Challenge and Response, edited b Bryan R. Wilson and Jamie Cresswell, 213–33. London and New York: Routledge, 1999. p. 227.
  10. ^ "'Factnet' Perversions, Criminality and Lies," FACTNet, xenu-directory.net, retrieved 1 August 2022.
  11. ^ a b "CESNUR - APA Brief in the Molko Case". www.cesnur.org. Retrieved 2022-08-01.
  12. ^ "CESNUR - APA Memo of July 12, 1989". www.cesnur.org. Retrieved 2022-08-01.
  13. ^ "Decision Against Margaret Singer (CESNUR)". www.cesnur.org. Retrieved 2022-08-01.
  14. ^ Coughlin, Ellen K. (2 September 1992). "Cal. Researchers Sue to Protect Roles as Expert Witnesses". www.chronicle.com. Retrieved 2022-08-01.
  15. ^ "Cultologists sue social science associations; Margaret Singer, Richard Ofshe, American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association". NCAHF Newsletter. 15 (6): 2. 1992-11-11. ISSN 0890-3417.
  16. ^ a b Introvigne, Massimo (1998). ""Liar, Liar": Brainwashing, CESNUR and APA". www.cesnur.org. Retrieved 2022-08-01.
  17. ^ Allen, Charlotte (December 1998). "Brainwashed! Scholars of Cults Accuse Each Other of Bad Faith". Lingua Franca. Archived from the original on 2008-10-13. Retrieved 2008-07-27. We are suing our lawyer, Michael Flomenhaft, for malpractice," says Singer. "There was no First Amendment issue in this case. We were saying that the APA and the ASA had been co-opted.

Further reading

Categories