Content uploaded by Philip G Zimbardo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Philip G Zimbardo on Sep 16, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
UNCLASSIFIED
1eCUmITY
CI.ASSIVrICATro0 OF
Til
P
1w
Mg r IAo.,DCA
REP
RT
DOCUME
TATION PAGE
BEFORE
COMPLETIOR
I.
AlPoRT
NUM
" .
GOVT
ACCSSION
14o.
1.
RECIPIENT.S
CATA.oo
NUMEC
Technical-1
4.
Tt,?,
(., $.6.rlsrg 5.
Trva
QF.rIIPOar
&rP-.L.
,ovEmRCO
"2 . .... . ..
------
2
I
: ORESISTING
SOCI.AL
INFLUCE
/'
T
echnical
_
sub
dersen
.w
Philip
timbarO)/
I.
tRFORMINO
ORGANIZATION
NAMM
ANO
AOONUS2
10.
0OOMAM
ELE1ENT,
PROjECT,
TASK
Professor Philip
G.
Zi:mbardo
AAEA 6
wOINK
UNIT
NUMUIAI
Department
of
Psychology,
Stanford
University NR
170-866
Stanford,
California
94305
Ii.
CONTPOLLIP40
OFPICIE
NAME
AN
0
A0011193
Office
of
Naval
Research
(Code
452)
/
Sepn,3.
a ]
Organizational
Effectiveness
Research
Progra6l
"-
-
Arlington,
Virginia
22217
-30-
14
MONItORING
AGENCY
NAME:
A3O5mSsei
eiftllE (o,
controfttnlg
Office)
Is, licUIlTY
CLASS.
(of
tis relpot)
Office
of
Naval
Research
UNCLASSIFIED
Stanford University,
Stanford,
CA
94305
is..
O9ECASSIF1CAT1O
VNGRAO1NG
Sell9CU
LE
It.
OISTniouriON
STATEMENT
(of
th
,Report)
Approved
for
public
release;
distribution
unlimited
OCT
:
IS.
SWIMPLEMEN'ANY
NOTES
It.
Igy
WOROS
(C4ntinui
on te,'rte
osld
it
IRleaewr'p
And
Ideltify
b
block
number)
SOCIAL INFLUENCE
COERCIVE
CONTROL
CULTS
MIND
CONTROL
PROPAGANDA
SOCIAL POWER
CMD
MIND
MANIPULATION
CONVERSION
RULE
CONTROL
BRAIN
WASHING
ATTITUDE CHANGE
ROLES
(see reverse
page)
'0.
A§STACT
(CmnIfnue
tw eevwv e ie II nceeay ad
idenity
b
b6lok
mimbor)
-/.asisting
social influences
becomes
important
when such
influences
can
be
appropriately
thought
of
as
"mind
control."
W'hen
information
is
systematically
hidden,
withheld
or
distorted
it
is
impossible
to
make
unbiased decisions. Under
these
circumstances,
people
may
be
subtly
led
to
believe
they
are
"freely"
choosing
to
act.
It is
precisely
this
kind
of
decision
that
persists
and
most affects
our
behavior since
we
come
to
believe
in
those
atritudes
and
actions
for
which
we have
generated
our
DO
1473
.o,
7,N
01
,tior
as'
ossoL.TI
UNCLASSIFIED
S/N
102o
LF
014-601
/SCk
JA
IT Y C L
A
Si PIC
A
I .
O
r Y41|
PA
G (heD
ot*
f. ,i 7
UNCLASS
IFIED
-
5gC
01?Y
CLASSIFICATlION
OW
"Mis
PAGOE5V O
Dee
SntE.ef)
19.
Keywords
(continued)
SITUATIONAL
FORCES
DISSONANT COMKITnXNTS
RESISTANCE
TO
PERSUASION VULNERABILITY
ro
INFLUENCE
COUNTERARGUING
COMPREHENSION
OF
COMMUNICATIONS
ATTRIBUTIONAL ERROR
VIGILANCE STRATEGIES
20.
Abstract
(continued)
-)own justifications.
The
thesis
of
this
essay
is
that
"mind
control"
exists
not
in
exotic
gimmicks,
but
rather
in the
most
mundane
aspects
of
experience.
Because
it
does,
it
is
possible
to
reduce
our
suscepti-
bility
to
unwanted coercive control
by
increasing
our
vigilance
a:
1
learning
to
utilize certain basic strategies
of
analysis.
In
this
paper,
we
present
resistance strategies
which
are
broadly
applicable
to
the
wide
array
of
mind-manipulation
attempts
that
surround
us
daily-in
a
"self-
help"
format
that
provides
for
ready
accessibility.
Findings
from
relevant
social-psychological
research, from
interviews
and
personal
experiences
with
con
men,
cultists,
super-salesmen
and
other
perpetrators
of
mind control
comprise
the
reservoir
of
information
from which we
have
dra
We
have
blended
pragmatic
advice
with
a
conceptual
analysis
of
the
bisac
issues
on
which
vulnerability
to
persuasion
rests--in
the
hope
that
in ividuals
who
find
they
must
make
decisions
on
the
basis
of
contrivid communications
will
be
better able
to
transform
them
into
thoughtrul,
meaningful
choices.
i ***** ******** ***
/ IN
/
.---
LNCLAS
S
I
FED
Sg
'JAIllTY(
CLAS$1ICATION
OF
T4k15
PAGVhr'ln
011€C1
Erffed)
On
resisting
social influenceI
Susan
Andersen and
Philip
ZinibardoI
Stanford UniversityI
LI A
ONIK
Technical
Report:
Z-79-01
September,
1979
On
Resisting Social
Influence
!
Susan
Andersen
and
Philip Zimbardo
Stanford
University
Abstract
Resisting
social
influences
becomes
important when
such
influences
can
be
appropriately
thought
of
as
"mind
control."
When
information
is
systematically
hidden,
withheld
or
distorted
it is
impossible
to
make
unbiased
decisions. Under
these
circumstances,
people
may
be
subtly
led
to
believe
they
are
"freely"
choosing
to
act.
It is
precisely
this
kind
of
decision
that
persists
and
most affects
our
behavior
since
we
come
to
believe
in
those
attitudes
and
actions
for
which
we
have
generated
our
own
justifications.
The
thesis
of
this
essay
is
that
"mind
control"
exists
not
in
exotic
gimmicks,
but
rather
in
the
most
mundane aspects
of
experience. Because
it
does,
it
is
possible
to
reduce
our
susceptibility
to
unwanted coercive
control
by
increasing
our
vigilance
and
by
learning
7how
to
utilize
particular
basic
strategies
of
analysis.
We
present
a
series
of
troublesome
situations followed
by
strategies
of
resistance
which
are
broadly
applicable
to
the
wide
array
of
mind-manipulation
attempts
that
surround
us
daily.
Our
sources
have
included surveys
of
relevant
social-psychological
research,
as
well
as
interviews
and
personal
experiences
with
con
men,
cultists,
super-salesmen
and
other
perpetrators
of
mind
control.
Pragmatic
advice
is
blended with
a
conceptual
analysis
of
the
basic
issues
on
wnich
vulne:ability
to
persuasion
rests--in
the
hope
that
individuals
who
find
they
must
make
decisions
on
the
basis
of
contrived communications
will
be
bettpr
ibte
tc
transtorm
them
into
thoughtful,
meaningful
choices.
I'
7-
--
-"M
A
middle-aged
man
in
a
dark
tweed
sportscoat
sat
with
some
buddies over
a
beer
and
boasted
of newly made
profits
from
his
small
clothing
store
downtown.
His
eyes
glimmered
as
he
recounted clever
hoaxes
that
would
ensnare
price-
conscious
customers. "They're
so
easy,"
Sam
blurted
out
with
a
laugh.
The
old
"hard
of
hearing"
script was
his
favorite.
It
went
like this.
Having
evoked
a
patron's
interest
in
some
brand
new
piece of
merchandise,
not
yet
even
price
tagged,
he
would call
out
to
his
partner Herbie
for
the
selling
price.
Loud
and
clear
from
the
back room Herbie
would
shout
"$86.50!"
just
as
Sam's
hearing
aid
suddenly
came
loose.
Tinkering
with
it
for
a
moment
to
remedy
the
problem,
he
would
examine
the
merchandise
curiously
and
say,
"Fifty dollars,
huh?
O.K.,
I
guess
that's the
price."
And
then
looking
the
customer
straight
in
the eye,
"But
no
free
alterations
for
that
kind
of
money."
Most paid
cash
on
the
spot
to
escape before
Herbie
could
discover
the
"error."
For
an
item worth
no
more
than
thirty
dollars,
they
left
with
some deal!
Other popular
scams
suit
people
of
all professions, appearances
and
back-
grounds.
In
the
pigeon
drop,
for
example,
an
elderly
woman
sitting
by
herself
in a
public place
is
led
to
believe
that
she
is
entitled
to
share
in
a
bonanza
of
money
found
in
an
envelope
on
the
floor--by
the
woman
sitting
next
to
her.
While
allegedly
waiting
out
the
claim
period
she
must
show
"good
faith"
by
putting
some
of
her
own
bank
savings
in
"escrow"
with
the
con
woman's
lawyer,
for
safe keeping.
When
they
disappear with
her money
she
is
left,
as
a
trusting
pigeon,
with
only
the
droppings--a
worthless
envelope.
When
the
results
of
unquestioningly adhering
to
situational
pressures
become severe and
enduring,
a
deceptive
dance
may
begin
to
look progressively
more
like
mind
control. Human
needs
are
capitalized
upon
for
someone
else's
ends.
Although
customers
in
the
first
scenario
pass
up
the
opportunity
to
be
honest,
they
are
exploited
on
the
basis
of
one
rairly
obviuus
desire:
to
get
something
for
a
little
less.
In
the
second
episode,
an
innocent
elderly
woman
ii
t .I
Andersen/Zimbardo
2
inadvertently
gets caught
up
in
the
well-designed
choreography
of
a
couple
of
professional
con
artists because
she
accepts
at
face
value
the
reality
they con-
veniently
provide.
In
the
end
she
is a
willing
participant
in
a
journey
with
a
predictably
unhappy ending.
No
doubt
the
lawyer
wore
a
dark
business
suit
to
support
the
credibility
of his
"profession."
In
our
analysis,
the
goal
of
mind
control
is
to
manipulate
thoughts,
j
feelings
and behavior
within
some
context
over
time. Of
course,
we
recognize
that
most
of
us
will
agree with
the
consequences
of
some
control
strategies
because
they
reflect ideals
that
are
intimately
a
part
of
our
lives.
These
we
describe
as
socialization
rather
than
programming,
as
education
rather
than
propaganda,
as
personal
development rather
than
brainwashing.
People
who
con-
vert
to
our
church
are
"saved"
from
damnation,
while
"defectors"
are
doomed
by
their
ignorance.
But
the
process
of
covert
coercive
control
is
what
is at
issue
here,
regardless
of
the
ends
to
which
it is
put.
Take
a
father's
concern
for
inculcating
a
sense
of
patriotism
in
his
son:
"I
am
very
pro-American.
I
have
a
small
son
and
have
hopes
that
when
he
grows
up
he
will
join
one
of
the
armed
forces.
To
ensure
this,
I
have
thought of
talking
to
him
while
he
is
sleeping--no
greac
speech,
but
a
little
patriotism
and
the
suggestion
that
an
army
career
would
be
good."
(Caplan,
1969,
p.65)
Deliberate
attempts
to
manipulate
someone else's behavior look
more
exploi-
tative
when
they are
covert because
the
"victim"
might
have
resisted
had
his
or
her
"informed
consent"
been
requested.
But
control
is
actually
most
effective
when
someone
is
subtly
led
to
believE
that
he
or
she has
"freely"
choreu
to
act.
Once
we
make
the
commitment,
we
generate
our
own
Justifications
even
when
truly
U
"uninformed"
of
the
important
details.
Our
choice
of
actions
is
only
as
reason-
able
as the
information
we have
available
to
us;
and
reliable
information
can
be
methodically
hidden
or withheld.
Take,
for
example,
the
case
of
government
Andersen/Zimbardo
officials
refusing
to
warn
the
public
about
the
risks
of
radiation
fallout
during
the
atomic
bomb
tests
in
Nevada
in
the
1950's.
Residents
chose
to
stay
in
the
area.
In
Oklahoma,
the
K%,
-McGee
plutonium
plant
was
recently
found
guilty
of
mis-
leading
employees
about
the
hazards
of
its
operation
--
after
a
long
struggle
to
expose
flagrant
safety
violations.
On
a
broader
level,
while
the
Western
press
was
bombarded
with
information
about
the
United
States'
restraint
in
Iran and
its
concerted
efforts
In
the
Middle
East,
there
has been
little
coverage
of
the
war
being
waged
by
American-supplied Indonesian
troops
on
the
island
of
Timor
which
has
left
as
many
as
100,000
people
dead.
Making decisions
about
both
public
and
personal
issues
has
become
considerably
more
complex
in
recent
years,
readily
allowing
those
"in
power"
in
our
social worlds
to
define reality
for
the
rest
of
us. By
controlling
the
information
to
which
we
are
exposed
they
conven-
iently
restrict
the
range
of
alternatives
from
which
we
seem
to
"freely"
choose.
What
this
points
out,
of
course,
is
that
we
are
always
being
controlled.
Politicians influence our
votes;
teachers
our thinking;
religious
leaders
our
morality.
Advertisers
emphasize
our
ability
to
make "rational"
decisions
between
products
they
have
apparently compared,
and
then
urge
us
to
buy
the
one
of
their
choosing
whether
we
need
it,
want
it
or
can
afford
it.
Our tastes
in
food,
dress,
art,
music,
friends
and
so
on
are
all
acquired
through
subtle
processes
of
social
influence.
The
quality
of
our
interactions
with
other
human
beings
fundamentally determines
our
experience.
The
exotic and
the
mundane
Formidable
quests
Lo
gain
control over
the
human
mind
have
often
employed
exotic
technology. Exquisite
torture devices,
electroshock
therapy,
mind
altering drugs,
hypnosis,
and
sensory deprivation
have
all
been
used
to
get
targeted
persons
to
do
the
bidding
of
various
agents
and
agencies
of
control.
Indeed,
these
methods
carry
enough
wallop
to
distort
and
sometimes
destroy
the
mind's
normal functioning.
But
they
are
not
adequate
for
the
task
of
reliably
F-
Andersen/Zimbardo
4
directing
behavior
through specific scenarios
as
designated
by
would-be
manipulators.
John
Marks'
expose
of
the
CIA's
secret
mind
control
program
(see
The
Search
for the
"Manchurian
Candidate")
suggests
that
no
foolproof way
of
"brain
I
washing"
another
person
has
ever
been
found.
After
a
decade
of
intensive,
I
costly
research
into
the
technology
of
such
control,
the
CIA's
MKULTRA
program
was
deemed
a
failure.
Covert
operations
could
claim
little
more
than
being
capable
of
turning
unsuspecting
victims
into
"vegetables."
Relying
on
technology
was
the
mistake. Effective
mind
control
exists
in
the
most mundane
aspects
of
human existence:
the
inner
pressures
to be
bonded
to
other
people,
the
power
of
group
norms
to
influence
behavior,
the
force
of
social rewards
(such
as
smiles,
praise,
a
gentle
touch).
We
influence
one
another,
intentionally
or
unintentionally,
using
the
most
basic principles
of
social
psychology,
motivation
and
social
learning.
It
is
people
in
convincing
social situations and
not
gadgets or
gimmicks
that
control
the
minds
of
other
people.
The
more
worried
we
are
about being
seen
as
ignorant,
uncultured,
untalented
or
boring,
and
the
more ambiguous
the
events
are
that
are
to
be
La
evaluated,
the
more
likely
we are
to
take
on
the
beliefs
of
those around
us
to
avoid
being
rejected
by
them.
Basic
training
in
compliance
What insures
the
success
of
undesirable
social influences,
whether
they
involve buying
new
products,
entering new
relationships,
or
simply
maintaining
the
status
quo
in
a
contrary
environment,
is
our
blindness
to
the
potency
that
situations
possess.
Etiquette
and
protocol
are
powerful inhibitors
of
uncon-
ventional
action.
When
people
around
us
behave
alike
and
as
they are
expected
to,
it
becomes
difficult
for
us
to
evaluate
their
actions
critically
or
to
deviate
from
what
is
expected
of
us
in
the
situation.
The
kinds
of
social
programming
we
are
all subjected
to
in
childhood circumscribes our perception
-
i i,
Andersen/Zimbardo
5
of
such
behavioral
possibilities
with
a
neat
cleave.
The
"good
child" learns
his
place
in
all
social
settings,
stays
put
in
her
seat,
is
polite, speaks
only
41
when
spoken
to,
is
cooperative,
does
not
make
trouble,
and
never
makes
a
scene.
I
As
children
we
are
rewarded
for
going
along
with
the
group
and
for
not
insisting
on
getting
our way.
It
is
the
wiser
course
of
action,
we
are
taught,
to
go
with
(or
around)
power,
not
to
challenge
it.
By
taking
social
roles
for
granted
in
a
context,
we
can
be
unwittingly
led
i
to
take
on
companion
roles
in
the
various
scenarios
being
enacted.
If
she
wants
j
to
play
"guest,"
we
become
"host";
if
he
is
quick
to
assume
responsibility,
we
passively surrender
some
of
our
own;
if
they
are
a
couple
in
conflict,
we
become
mediator.
And once
ensconced
in
some
social role,
our
behavioral
freedom
is I
compromised
in
subtle ways.
Interviewees answer
but
don't
ask
questions,
guests
I
don't
demand better
food,
prisoners
don't give
commands,
audiences
listen,
"true
believers"
believe,
rescuers
sacrifice,
tough guys
intimidate,
others
recoil
and
so
on.
Expectations
about
what
behaviors
are
appropriate
and
permis-
sible
within
the
structure
of
a
role
come
to
control
us
more completely
than
the
most
charismatic
of
persuaders.
As
a
nation
we
saw
in
the
Watergate
cover-up
how
the
"best
and
the
brightest"
caved
in
to
the
pressures
that
required
"team
players"
to
win
this
one
for the
President. Unquestioned protocol
persuaded
them
to
betray
their public
offices.
Those
who
occupy
social
roles
that
carry
prestige
and
credibility
in
our
eyes
can
work
wonders
with
us.
The
mosr
potent influences
are
eased
around
to
us
by
our
buddies
or
reputable
"experts"--rather
than
by those
who
we
think of
as
"enemies."
A
neighbor
tells
us
to
stop
by
for
a
chat
with
some
interesting people,
our
doctor
prescribes
a
new
antibiotic,
a
businessman
offers
us
exciting
financial
prospecLs,
brother
says
he's
impressed
with
a
new
pastor.
Hindsight
tells
us
that
Euch
testimonials have encouraged
us
to
take
the
first
step
along
most
of
the
paths
we've
chosen
for
ourselves,
good
and
bad
because
such
influences
are
basic
to
being
-- =- - -= -~ --=--s~
-~- - - -- ~ ~ = - -- -
Andersen/Zimbardo
6
engaged
in
the
social
life
of the
comuaity.
Saturation
and
detachment
Unlike
our
response
to
"overtly"
persuasive
communicators
who
may beseech
us to
buy
the
latest
gourmet
cookware,
to
jog
daily,
to
elect
particular pol--
ticians
or
give
to
certain
charities,
situations
with
"normal appearances"
(see
Goffman,
Relations
in
Public)
don't
seem
to
require
skepticism,
resistance
or
even
our
conscious
attention.
We
often
move
through
them
"on automatic"
and
are
thus
prone
to
being influenced
w.ithout
our
slightest knowledge.
To
counteract
this
possibility, we
could
refuse
to
play social
roles,
to
seek
social
rewards,
join
organixzed
groups
or notice
modeled
behaviors--but
only
if
we
are
also
prepared
to
withdraw
fron
society
entirely. Alternatively,
we
could
choose
to
detach
ourselves from
some
aspects
of
social life
emoionally,
but
this
usually
has
the
drawback
of
leaving
us
without social
support,
friends,
lovers
or
anything
in
which
to
believe.
Being
detached
enough
to
observe
and
analyze
is
intimately
tied
to
survival,
but
utter
detachment
can
lead
to
paranoia.
A
prisoner
we
know
of
at
a
federal
penitentiary,
for
example,
who was
held
in
solitary
confinement
for
several years,
told
us
he
"beat
the
system"
by turning
off
his
emotics
before
they
could
get
to
him.
Now
he
feels
nothing..
Neither
self,
humanity,
nor
compassion.
Of
course, continual
emotional "saturation"
is
problematic
too.
Remember
the
last time
you
got
so
lost
in
your
anger,
jcy or
sadness that
it
somehow
got
the
best
of
you.
Or
a
time
when
you
were
so
totally
enthralled
with
an
idea
or
situation
that
you
missed
a
"cue"
to
exit
that
you
wish
you
would have
seen.
But
you simply
didn't
recognize
it
or
think
about
it.
People
in
cults
are
trained
to
think
positively
and
"progra-atically"
about
what
they
do.
Viewing
one's
actions
from
a
variety
of
perspectives
is
not
done.
Orders are
followed
and
much
information
is
systematically
withheld.
To
take
some
specific examples,
prospective
Peoples Temple
and
Unification
Church
members
have
been
asked
to
"open
their
minds"
to
exciting
new
identities,
to
saturate
themselves
with
new
meanings,
a
sense
of
belonging,
and
to
refrain
from
being
judgmental.
Guru
Maharaj
Ji
suggests liberation
from
one's own
mind
in
these
terms:
Anderasen/Zimbardo
7
"So
mind
really
gets
to
you,
mind
really
affects
you,
in
very,
very
subtle
ways,
in
very,
very subtle manners.
And
what
is
the
reason,
that
I
come
out
and
I
scream
and
I
yell,
'Don't
listen
to
your
mind.'?
There
is
something
within,
inside
of
you
which
is
much
more
.jeautiful
than
your
mind,
which
is
much
more
precious,
which
is
much
more
beauti-
ful
than that
crazy
mind."
Perhaps
we
don't want
to
be
wholly
critical
and
alert
at
all
times, but
mindlessness
is
often promoted
as
a
way
of
encouraging
passive
acceptance
at
the
expense
of
vigilance
and
individual
discretion.
The
hook
is
that
when we
are
faced
with
complex
problems
we
often
yearn
for
simple answers
and
rules
of
thumb
for
how
best
to
proceed.
Imersing
ourselves
in
the
teachings
of
a
power-
ful leader,
in
the
say-so
of
the
dominant
partner
in
a
relationship,
or
in
the
total
ideology
of
any
highly
cohesive
group
can
be
comforting.
But
when
we
lose
our
desire
to
formulate
unique,
creative
ideas in
any
situation
we
begin
to
lose
our
sense
of
self
there.
Thorough,
unquestitned
saturation
can
hinder
our
ability
to
evaluate
our
actions
critically when
it
is
in
our
best
interests
to
do
go.
The
problem is
paradoxical.
Although,
detaching
ourselves from
social
life
to
avoid
"being taken"
is obviously
absurd,
the
more
we
open
up
to
other
people's
thoughts
the
more
likely
we
are
to
be
swayed
by
them;
and open,
passionate
involvement
is essential
to
some
of
the
richest forms
of
human
experience.
We
want
to
feel
strongly,
to
trust
completely,
to
act
on
impulse
and
feel
connected
to
others
in
the
community.
We
want
to be
"saturated"
with
living
and
to
feel
we
can
suspend,
for
periods
of time,
our
evaluative
faculties,
-',r
cautiousness.
Yet
we
must
be
able
to
pull
back
and
monitor
our
experiences,
reflect
upon
the
choices
we
have
made,
and
assess
the
"goodness"
of
our
involvements.
Oscillating
between
these
poles,
immersing and
distancing
again
at
"appropriate"
intervals
is
the
point.
The
question
is
"when?"
* * *** **
Andersen/Zimbardo
8
Is it
possible
to
recognize those social
influences
that
can
distort
our
integrity
and
freedom
of
choice
amid
the
many
benign
but
persuasive
pressures
that
surround
us
daily?
And can
we
then
act
to
avoid
or
counter
them?
We
believe
so.
In
the
most
skillfully
contrived
situations
there may
not
be
enough infor-
mation
for
us
to
infer
that
we
are
about
to
be
"taken."
Nevertheless,
it
is
possible
to
reduce
our susceptibility
to
such
unwanted
control
by
increasing
our
vigilance
and
by
utilizing
some basic
strategies
of
analysis
that
will
promote
clear
thinking.
At
the
prevention
stage,
it is
important
to
recognize
the
operation
of
effective
persuasion
tactics,
and
then
be
able
to
deal
with
them
effectively
enough
to
know
what
we
are getting
into.
Our
most
important
decision
at
this
stage
is
to
avoid
taking
that
first
step,
if
we
so
choose.
Once
in
the
secondary
stage--after
a
commitment
to
an
ongoing involvement
has
already
been
made
and
we're
in
over
our
heads--being
capable
of
recognizing
control
tactics
at
the
rystem
level
is
the
key
to
getting
out.
If
getting
out
is
unfeasible
or
undesirable,
we may
simply
want
to
be
able
to
maintain
our
integrity
and sense
of
self
in
the
system.
On
the
other
hand,
we
may
want
to
challenge
its
structure directly
from
within,
or
with extensive
systems
of
mind
control,
from
without.
The
strategies
that
follow
have
been drawn
from
a
diverse
body
of
information,
including:
extensive
personal
experience with
cults
and
cult members;
the
body
of
psychological research
on
persuasion
and
attitude
change,
social-cognitive
monitoring
and
social
cognition;
research
on
the
situational control
of
behavior,
on
social
learning principles
of
behavior
modification
and
self-control;
training
manuals
for
police
interrogators
(see
Psychology
Today, June,
1967),
and
sales
personnel;
and our
own
pnraonal acquaintances with effective
con artists
and
miscellaneous wheeler-dealers.
Developing
a
critical
eve
To
assert
the
freedom
to
choose options
that
are
not
apparent
in
any
situation,
we
must
be
simultaneously
commicted
co
our social worlds
and
suffi-
ciently
disengaged
from
them
to
maintain
a
Lricical
analysis.
For
this
reason,
Andersen/Zimbardo
9
developing
a
critical
eye
is
central
to
counteracting compelling social
pressures
whether
they
occur
one-on-one
or
within
a
social
system.
To
acquire
the
kind
of
sensitive
skepticism
and
critical
eye
needed
to
detect
undesirable influences when
they
arise,
we must
learn
to
be
vigilant
to
discontinuities
between
the
ideals
people espouse and
their
concrete
actions.
Separating
the
preacher from
the
practice,
the
promise
from
the
outcome,
the
perceived intention from
the
consequence
is
at the
crux
of
resistance because
it
is
too
easy
to
mistake
the
label
for
the
thing
labeled,
to
deal
in
symbols
and
concepts
Instead
of
people
and
their
behavior.
Many notable
politicians,
for
example,
gave their
support
to
pastor
Jim
Jones
without questioning
t7hy
he
was
surrounded
by
a
half
dozen
guards,
why
his
church
had
locked
doors,
and why
newcomers
were
searched
before
being
approved
by
the
Welcoming
Committee.
Peoples Temple members
admired
"Dad" because
he
cared
for
them
and
because
he
said
he
cared
most
of
all
about
the
children.
But
=
they
failed
to
critically appraise
or
to
even
acknowledge
the
reality
that
he
punished
them
severely
(at
times
with
electric shock)
and
subjected
them
to
public
ridicule
for
minor transgressions.
The
biggest lies
are
often
hidden
by
a
compelling
context
and are
discovered
later
on
the
basis of
discontinuities
that
in
hindsight
are
obvious.
The
unanti-
cipated
nightmare
of
the
slave labor
camp
Jim
Jones
created
in
Guyana
thrived
on
his
systematic
distortion
of
every detail
of
the
reality
of
Jonestown: there
was
mild
weather,
he
said,
an
abundance
of
food,
no
mosquitos,
easy
work
days,
no
sickness,
no
death.
The
discontinuities
were
there
to
be
perceived.
"The
moment
I
got
off
that
plane
I
knew
somethin'
was
wrong,"
said
Richard Clark, who
led
an
escape
party
out
of
Jonestown
through
the
jungle
the
morning
of
the
massacre.
It
was
the
opposite
of
what
had
been
promised--a
jungle
hell
where
people
worked
long
hours
on
menial
jobs
in
sweltering
heat,
often hungry
and
sick.
But
denial
en
masse
of
these
obvious
discrepancies
kept Jones'
system
of
total
mind
control
going
until
the
very
end.
According
to
Margaret
Singer's
extensive
studies
of
*
Andersen/Zimbardo
10
former
cult
members
(see
Psychology
Today,
January,
1979), those
who
left
cults
without
the
aid
of
deprogrammers
did
so
because
they
had
"grown
bitter
about
discrepancies
between
cult
words
and
practices."
Actually,
comparing
the
concealed
purpose
of
a communication
to
its
manifest
content
is
one
of
the
central
tasks
in
analyzing propaganda.
It is
not
unlike decoding
what
we
think
of
as
"Freudian
slips"
where
the
idea
is
to
distinguish between
the
"error"
that
conveys
the
speaker's
intention
and
his
admonition
that
it
was
"Just
an
error."
Too
often we
overlook
blatant
discrepancies
by
automatically
supplying
semantic
corrections
that
render
statements
or
situations
into
"good
form,"
thus
I
allowing
contexts
to
cover
over
discontinuities.
I
Because effective
manipulators
provide
as
coherent
a
situation
as
possible
in
which
to
gain
our
compliance, detecting discrepent
or
ulterior motives
is
difficult.
Although
becoming
obsessively
critical
or
suspicious
would
be
dysfunctional,
carefully appraising
the
credibility
of
a
message
source
and
the
quality
of an
appeal
makes
sense.
Most
persuaders
recognize
the
importance
of
standard
operating
procedures,
form
and
style
in
undercutting
our
ability
to
apprehend
"unexpected"
events
or
influences.
According
to
sociologist
Irving
Goffman,
they
conceal
their
intent
amid
"normal appearances." We
are
more likely
to
be
caught
off
guard
when
the
situations
we
are
in
appear normal.
Say
we're
Just
"having
fun"
with
friends,
or
being
"entertained"
or
"educated,"
or
are
simply
engaged
in
a
common social
interac-
tion.
We
usually
feel no need
to
attend
to
the
details
of
what
is
going
on,
of
who
is
influencing
whom
and
of what
is
impacting
upon our
behavior.
But
many
undesirable
saeial
pressures
prey
upon
our
adherence
to
simple, unquestioned
protocol
in
such
situations.
Information
from Rape
Preventio
.nters,
for example,
suggests
that
it
is especially important
for
women
to
be
aware
of
the
effects
of
"normal
appearances.
Entering
dangerous situations
with
potential
rapists
may
seem
"natural,"
tantamount
to
being polite
or
helpful,
when
you
have
been
trained
to
be
ladylike.
Answering
all
questions
put
to
you
with
a
friendly
gracious
smile
or
always
deferring
to
the
protection
and
judgment
of men,
even
when
they
are
strangers,
is
not
the
best
idea.
Andersen/Zimbardo
11
Nor
is
being
courteous
and
open
with
service personnel
at
the
expense
of
requesting
proper identification.
Being
able
to
disobey
simple
situational
rules
when
we
feel
we
should
is
important
for
men
as
well
as
for
women.
It
requires
assertiveness,
and
leastwise, a critical
evaluation
of the
situation.
*
Actively
monitor social interactions.
Establish
a
critical
distance
periodically
to
examine
situations
from
other perspectives.
Search
for
situational
pressures
in
your
physical
and
social
surroundings,
for
the
small
details
as
well
as
the
big
picture.
Practice
thinking
ahead,
anticipating
what
will
come
next, checking
for
discrepancies
and
noting
how
you
feel
about them.
*
Be
willing
to
disobey
simple
situational
rules
when
you
feel
you
should,
to
sound
false
alarms
occasionally
or
to
cause
a
scene.
Never
do
anything
you
don't
believe
Just
to
appear normal
or
to
get
someone
off
your
back.
Be
able
to
recognize
the
conditions under
which
you
are
most
vulnerable
to
accepting persuasive
appeals
(the
conditions
we
will describe
in
the
next
section).
Should
a
potent
persuasion
tactic
be
present
in
a
situation,
postpone
making
a
decision
on
the
matter,
if
possible, or
be
able
to
say
"no."
*
At
the
very
least,
try
to
get
more
information
so
that
you can carefully
consider
the
consequences
of
saying
"no"
to
something
that
could
turn
out
essentially
"good"
(Could
you
return
in
a
week
or
a
year and say
"yes"?)
or
of
saying
"yes"
to
something
that
could
turn our
essentially
"bad"
(Could
you
lose
your money,
pride
or
life?).
Obtain
and
utilize
all
available information
and
search
for
new,
reliable sources.
Resisting persuasion: confidence,
clarity
and
persistence
Effective persuaders
not
only
influence
people,
they
win friends
"in
the
bargain."
After
inte-.sive
interrogation
for
the
murder
of
two
socialities,
George Whitemore,
Jr.
"broke"
and
gave
a
61-page confession
of
guilt.
He
went
on
to
express
his
admiration
for
his
interrogator, a
detective,
whom
he
now
claimed
to
respect more
than
his
own
father. Subsequent
events
established
that
Whitmore
was
persuaded
to
confess
to
a
capital
crime
he
did
not commit.
Andersen/Zimbardo
12
The
best
persuaders
always
appear
to
be
Just
like
us.
They
understand
our
problems,
empathize
with
our
predicaments;
in
fact,
they
were
there
once
them-
2
selves.
They
speak
our
language,
share
our
needs,
and
know
the
inside
jokes.
When
someone
appears
to
share
our
concerns,
he
or
she
becomes
a
cohort,
an
ally,
someone
we
can
trust
and
give the
benefit of
the
doubt.
The
tactic
is
powerful
because
attitude change,
like
all
socialization,
is
most
effective when
it
goes
I
unnoticed.
The conversation
is
slowly
led
into
areas
where
our
disagreement
wculd
otherwise
be
obvious.
Credibility
leads
us
gently
over
each
successive
hurdle
as
we change
our
attitudes
through
small,
continuous
approximations.
In
the end,
we
perceive
that
we
have brought
it
about
on
our
own.
•
Check
for
signs
of
ingratiation,
for
an
overemphasis
on
mutual
interests,
and
for
requests for
just
one small
commitment
now-with
an
open-ended
contract
for
later.
How
deep
do
the
stated
similarities
go?
How
well
does
the
persuader
really
know
the
common
friend you
supposedly
share?
As trivial
as
it
may
seem,
a
major
persuasive
device
is
the
expression
L
of
confidence
in
the
beliefs
espoused
and
courses
of
action
recommended.
Research
shows that
powerful
people
express
confidence
and
self-assuredness
across
all
channels
of
communication--through
body
language,
through
words
and
paralinguis-
tically. Regardless
of
someone's
"real"
credibility,
what
we
end up
responding
to
is
how
competent, confident
and
stable
he
or
she
"appears"
to
be.
Someone
who
looks
us
straight
in
the
eye, stands
very
close
and speaks
forcefully
is
not
intimidated,
but
intimidating,
and
perfectly
in
control
of
the
encounter.
In
reaction,
those
who
get
persuaded
express
doubt;
they
do
so
as
much
by
what
they
say
as
by what
they
don't
say.
Minor hesitations
like
"uh,"
"ah,"
"er,"
J
or
a
pause
can
be
capitalized
upon
and
manipulated
because
they
convey
momentary.
lapses
of
thought,
momentary vulnerabilities.
The
way
we
carry ourselves
is
also
revealing.
In
fact,
training
manuals
for
sales
personnel
are
filled
with
tactics
for
i
-1
Andersen/Zimbardo
13
1
skillfully
manipulating
the
choices
people
come
to
make
in
bargaining
situations.
And
desired
results
are
obtained.
Millions
of
Americans
are
subjected
to
stress
l
and
intimidation
in
the
presence
of
those
whom
society
has
termed
"expert."
Automobile
mechanics,
for
example, often
make
thousands
of
dollars
each
year
for
labor
and
I
supplies
they
don't
deliver.
Last
year,
over
two
million
Americans
underwent
surgical
operations
that
they
did
not
need
(at
a
cost
of
over
four
billion
dollars). Because
I
it is
difficult
to
feel
efficacious
around
people
who
ostensibly
have
more
knowledge
I
than
we
do,
we
are
often
inhibited
from
asking
the
appropriate
questions,
from
thinking
critically
and
crefully
about
decisions
that
may
affect
our
lives.
*
Practice
"seeing
through"
programmed
responses
to
authority.
Pay
attention
to
the
social
roles
you
and
others
occupy
in
a
setting
and
the
subtle
indicators
of
those roles
that
you
may
be responding
to
(business
suit,
repairman's uniform,
etc.).
I
*
Be
aware
of
who
is
controlling
whom
in
social
situations,
to
what
end
and
at
what
cost.
*
To
the
extent
that it seems
possible,
refuse
to
accept
the initial premise
from
someone
that
he
or
she
is
more
powerful, more
competent,
more
in
control
than
you
are.
Perhaps accepting
this
premise
is
what
makes
it
so.
*
State
your
arguments
with
conviction
if
the
other
person
does
so.
*
Learn
to
retain
a
sense
of
self-worth
in
the
face
of
intimidating
circum-
stances
by
creating
an
"appearance
of
competence"
equal
to
that
which
an
effective
persuader
conveys
through
his
or
her
voice
and
actions. Carry
with
you
a
powerful, concrete
image,
replete with
tactile
sensations,
sights
and
sounds,
that
reminds
you
of
your
own
competence. Remember
a
time
when
some
person
or
group
of
people
thought
you
were
the
best thing
I
to
hit
the
planet,
a
violin
if
you
are
a
virtuoso,
a
photograph,
person
or
place,
anything
that makes
you
feel
exhilarated
and
alive,
that
you
will
not
reveal
to
others
but
will retain
as
an
inner
care
that
cannot
be
violated. Apparent competence
can
reduce
feelings
of
helplessness
in
Andersen/Zimbsrdo
14
stressful situations.
As
the
dialogue
or
set
of
actions unfolds,
the need
for
the
image
fades.
If
you
can
get
your
questions asked, your
bargaining
done, experiences
had,
you
will
have
more
control
over your
actions
and
the
choices
that
others
make
on
your behalf.
bind
control
typically involves coming
to
accept
a
new
reality.
The
errors
of
our
old
ways
of looking
at
the
world
are
exposed
as
such, and
a
new
reality
is
embedded
in
their
place.
By
confusing
us
with
elaborate
but
inadequate
justifications
for
recommended
actions,
persuaders can
catch
us
off
guard.
False
analogies,
semantic distortion
and
convenient
rhetorical
labels
can
facilitate
this
process
if
we
do
not
stop
to
question
them
and
think
about
them
creatively.
We
are
often
dissuaded
from
probing beyond surface
illusions
of
meaningfulness
by
letting
symbols
substitute
for
reality,
abstract
maps for
concrete territories. John Dean reminds
us
that
the
entire
Watergate
cover-up
was
shrouded in
cute
euphemisms, jargon
and
rhetoric.
Instead
of
referring
explicitly
to
the
money
involved
in
the
scandal,
they
spoke
only
of
the
"bites
of
the
apple." At
the
extreme,
it
is
easier
to
"waste
an
enemy" or
to
enage
in
"revolutionary
protest"
than
to
murder
other human
beings.
Inconsistent or ambiguous descriptions
with
confusing
terminology
can
lead
us
to
accept invalid conclusions
that
we
would
otherwise
resist.
Current
research
on
metacomprehension,
by
Stanford University's Ellen
Markman,
reveals
that
this
is
precisely
what
many
children
do.
They
are able
to
understand
the
simpler
component
parts
of
a
complex
message
so
they
overestimate
their
comprehension
of
it
as
a
whole
and
accept
it
as
adequate.
We
believe
this
can
also
be
true
of
adults.
*
Never
accept
vague
generalities
and inadequate
explanations
in
response
to
your
pleas,
questions
or
challenges.
*
Learn
to
recognize
when
a
message
is
actually
confused
or
ambiguous
(and
perhaps
intentionally
so)
so
that
you
can
avoid
attributing
your
confusion
to
your
"inherent"
inability
to
think
about
the
matter
clearly. Especially
.....
5-i I | : '~ : : : : I -I I i I i ... :I i I i : :
Andersen/Zimbardo
15
Z
if
someone
suggests
that
"you're
just
too
stupid
to
understand"
or
"women
get
too
emotional
to
think logically."
Interrogate
yourself
about
the
meaning
of
a
communication
to
see if
the
conclusions follow
from
the
arguments,
and
if
the
expectations
you
form while
listening
are
confirmed
or
disconfirmed.
Paraphrase
other
people's
thoughts
both aloud and
to
yourself
to
see
if you
are
understanding clearly.
Practice
generating
creative
arguments
and
counterarguments
as
you
listen
to
persuasive
messages
to
avoid slipping
into
"automatic"
processing.
*
Tentatively
assess
the
meaning
of
an
ambiguous
situation
or
communication
once
you
have
some
reliable
information
but
don't
forget
that
the
assessment
is
tentative.
Label
it
as
such
and wait
for
further
clarification.
*
Always
seek
outside
information
and
criticisms
before
joining
a
group
or
making
a
commitment
to
invest
time,
energy
or
money
in some
endeavor.
Train
yourself
and
your
children
to
notice
the
"tricks"
in
deceptive
in*'
on
packaging, such
aa
those
utilized
in
television commercials.
Stanford
U ..
,*sity's
Don
Roberts
haa
found
that
knowledge
of
make-believe constructions,
of
audio-
visual
distortion
techniques,
the
use
of
celebrities,
experts,
overgeneralizations
and so
on
can
build
the
kind
of
skepticism
in
children which
is
the
froint-line
of
all resistance efforts.
Cult
deprogrammer
Ted
Patrick
echoes
a
similar
sentiment
in
advocating
how
best
to
insulate
ourselves
from
mind
control:
"Knowledge
is
our
only
protection."
Susceptibility
to
control becomes greater
as
"compulsive" self-awareness
increases.
When
we
are
induced
to
focus
aztention
on
ourselves
by
being
made
to
feel
awkward,
deviant
or silly,
we
begin
to
worry
about
what
others
think
of
us,
and
can
thus
be
led
to
resolve
any
opinion
disparities
in
their favor.
At
the
extreme, Manson family
member
Leslie
Van
Houten described
Charles
Hanson
as
controlling
his followers
through
unrelenting
intimidation
and strict
isolation.
"I
was
always
frightened
of
not
being
accepted even
in
school,"
she
...
i--ii
i1r
ii
-
iiI
I
Andersen/Zimbardo
16
reported.
"But
Charlie
played
on
that;
he
saw
a
danger
in
my
humor
end
outgoing-
ness
....
He'd
try
to
make
me
feel
.
was
missing
something.
He
said
I
didn't
know
what
was
happening
and
that
I
was
really
stupid."
*
Be
sensitive
to
(and
avoid)
situations
and
people
that
put
you
on the
spot,
make
you
feel
different,
awkward
or
inadequate.
*
Try
to
focus
attention
on
what
you
are
doing
rather
than
on
thoughts
about
yourself.
Keep
an
especially
firm handle
on
generating
negative
internal
dialogues
about
yourself,
and
never
accept
a
chronically
negative
view
from
someone
else.
*
Maintain
some
non-socia.
interests
that
you
can
satisfy
while you are
alone--
like
painting,
carpentry,
working
on
cars,
reading
or writing.
If
you
can
develop
a
concrete
sense
of
self-worth,
a
sense
of
who
you
are,
what
you
are
interested
in
and where
your
competencies
lie,
quite
apart from
the
values,
interests
and
judgments
of
others,
you
may
feel
better
about ur-
J
self
in
their
presence,
as
well
as
in
their
absence.
*
Be
willing
to
look foolish
nov
and then,
a
to
accept
being
"differant"
as
being
"special" rather
than inferior.
Effective
persuasive
appeals
get
their
umph
by
reaching
beyond reason
to
emotions,
beyond
awareness
to
unspoken desires
.
fears,
beyond
trivial
attitudes
A
to
basic
concerns
about
self integrity
and survival.
Clever persuaders
are adept
It
at
detecting
what
we
want
from
a
situation,
what
cur
fears
and anxieties
are,
and
what areas
of
supposed
mutual
interest
will
best
gain our
attention.
Once
some-
one has
our
trust,
he
or
she
can
change
our
attitudes
by
inducing
an
emotion-
laden
conflict
that
requires
immediate resolution.
By
making
us
feel
fearful
or
anxious,
the
manipulator
is
in
a
position
to
ease
our
discomfort
by
providing
reasonable
explanations
and
soothing
solutions.
Much
advertising
is
based
on
this
principle.
So
are
many social
interactions.
a
__
_
__
_711
Andersen/Zimbardo
17
A
recent 60
Mutes
documentary
(1/28/79) reported
that
sellers
of
Industrial
Insurance
have
their
working
class
clients
nearly
paralyzed
with
fear
over
spiral-
ling medical
and
burial
costs.
But
relief
is
at
hand
as
the
salesperson
unfolds
the
insurance
policies
that
will
resolve
any
uncertainties
the
future
may
hold.
If
the
client
owns
other
policies,
they
go
unmentioned
or
are
dismissed
as
inadequate.
All
that
is
clear
is
the
imminence
of
death and
an
eight-inch
replica
of
a
satin-lined
mahogany
coffin
in
the
hands
of
a
credible-looking
business
man
who
adds
in
a
deep
clear
voice, "Wouldn't
you
prefer
your
loved
one
to
rest
in
a
beautiful
casket
like
this
than
to
be
buried
in
an
old
pine
box?"
A
crucial
issue
concerning
our
needs
and
vulnerabilities
is if, when
and
how
to
reveal them.
N',
matter
what
the
relationship,
avoid
getting sucked
into
unwanted
confessions
that
may
later
be
used
against
you.
Many
cults
and
mind
control
systems
utilize
public
confessions,
self-exposure
"games"
anu
the
like
to
catalogue
the
weaknesses
of
their
followers,
for
latur
erploitation.
Avoid making
decisions
when
under
stress,
particularly
in
the
pre-sence
of
the
person
who
has
triggered
the
emotional
reaction.
Tell
them
you'll
decide
manana.
*
As
you
feel
yourself
becoming
uncomfortably
aroused,
begin
taking
slower,
deeper
breaths
to
help
your
body relax.
Imagine
the
air
flowing
through
your
muscles
and
loosening
the
tension
in
your
shoulders,
the
back
of
your
neck,
your upper
arms,
and down
through your
chest,
abdomen
and lower
back.
Relax.
Knawing
feelings
of
guilt
can
also
provide
a
powerful
impetus
for
personal
change.
What
better
way
to
create
a
sense
of
self-disgust,
a
desire
to
confess,
to
do
penance
or
perhaps
even
to
experience
suffering?
Simply
being
in
the
presence
of
those
less
fortunate
can
often
do
the
trick,
particularly
if
we
are
somehow
made
to
feel
responsible
for
their
plight.
Professional
beggars
make
Anderaea/Zimbardo
18
it
their business
to
make
passersby
feel
guilty
for
being
well dressed
and
well
fed.
Organizations
that
support
themselves
through
donations often
thrive
upon
the
proceeds
collected
by
mildly
handicapped
solicitors.
More
broadly,
the
pivotal
contingency
in
Patty
Hearst's
psychological
transformation
at
the
hands
of
the
Symbionese
Liberation
Army
was
the
guilt
she
was
led
to
feel
over her
family's
privileged position,
the
disparicy
between
their
wealth
and
the
poverty
of
so
many,
and
her
life
of
noninvolvement
in
the
struggle
of
oppressed
peoples.
All
conflicts
were
slowly
relieved
with
each
step
she
took
in
the
direction
of
accepting
her
captors'
definition
of
reality.
Letting
someone
do
favors
for
you
can
also
make
you
feel
indebted
and
g'iity.
Diane
Loule,
who
escaped
Jonestown
with
Richard
Clark
the
morning
of
the
massacre,
recounted
for
us
her
experience
in
the
hospital
there.
She
was
suffering
from
a
severe
intestinal
virus,
feeling
duped
and
dissatisfied
when
Jim
Jones
came
to
her
bedside.
"How
are
your
living
conditions?"
he
asked.
She
shifted
uncomfortably
in
her
cot
trying
not
to
raise
her
eyes
to
him.
"Is
there
any
special
food
you
would
like?"
She
thought
of
her
stifling,
crowded
bungalow,
the
maggots
in
her
rice,
her
exhaustion,
the
broken
promises.
"No,"
she
said,
"everything
is
fine;
I'm
quite
comfortable."
To
us
she
said,
"I
knew
once
he
gave
me those
privileges
he'd
have me.
I
didn't want
to
owe
him
nothin'."
She
was
one
of
a
handful able
to
escape
the
mass
murder
and
suicide.
*
Be
aware
of
the
guilt
and
anxiety
reactions
you
typically
experience
so
that
you
can
circumvent
their
illicit use
by
skillful
manipulators. Learning
to
confront
your
frustrations
aad
fears
is
the
most
potent
way
to
prevent
their
being
exploited
unbeknownst
to
you.
Start
by
thinking
about
the
least
provoking
aspects
of
problematic situations
while
in
a
ite
of
total
relaxation,
and
work
up
to
more
difficult
ones
*
Don't
let
people
make
you
feel
indebted
to
them by
accepting
a
definition
of
a
situation
that
suggests
sacrifices
are
being
made
on
your
behalf.
Although
reciprocal
exploitation
and
need
fulfillment
are
part
of
every
Ande
rsen/Zimbardo
19
social
contract,
when
you
feel
Justified
in
doing
so,
be
prepared
to
acknowledge
the
sacrifices
of
others
with a sincere
thanks,
instead of
the
expected
repayment
in
kind.
When
the
opposition
is
about
to
yield, successful
persuaders
employ
tactics
of
ingratiation
to
build
the
bonds
of
liking
and
respect
that
will
extend
past
the
initial
sale.
Once
aware
that
their prey
is
bagged,
the
slickest operators
then
emphasize
the
victim's freedom
of
choice-after
tactfully
constraining
the
alternatives.
The
newly
persuaded
person
chooses
"freely"
while
the
context
the
influencer provides
bolsters
his
or
her
decision. Properly executed
persuasion
never
appears
to
be
"designed"
to
induce
change,
but
rather
ends
in
a
natural
resolution
of
mutually generated
concerns.
New
attitudes and
behaviors
that
are
accompanied
by
the
feeling
that
they
have
been chosen
without
extrinsic
justification
are
enduring
and
resistant
to
change.
Skillful
persuaders
may also
Z
us
our
freedom
in
order
to
control
our
behavior
with
the
help
of
the
reactance
principle.
Studies
by
psychologist
Jack
irehm
suggest
that
when
we perceive severe
limitations
on
our
behavioral
freedom
we
sometimes move
to
reassert
it
by
advocating
the
opposite
position--perhaps
just what
the
opposition wanted.
"So,
you're
gonna
let that
guy
(or
nation)
get
away
with
treating
you
in that
shameful
way!"
"No
salesman
could possibly
sell
more
of
this
product
in
such
hard
times!"
"Excuse
me
for
saying
so,
sir,
but
this
is
quite
aa
exclusive
line;
you
may
not
be
able
to
afford
it."
*
Remember
that
reacting against someone's
dogmatic
assertions
about
what
you
should
do
is
not
your
sole avenue
to
freedom
of
action.
Sometimes
it is
best
to
test
their
intentions
by
giving
them
the
impression you
will comply with
their
demands
and
then
observing
their
reactions.
If
they
start
pushing
in
the
opposite
direction
or
simply
look
befuddled,
you may
have
uncovered
a
hidden
agenda.
*
Be
wary
of
people
who
overemphasize
how free
you
are
to
choose
among
the
Andersen/Zimbardo
20
optious
they
have prescribed.
Electing
Anacin
over
Bayer
is
not
the
same
as
deciding
whether
you
want
an aspirin.
Nor
is
the
question,
"How
many
bombs
should
we
drop?
Two? Three?
Ten?"
the
same
as
"Should
we
drop
any
bombs?"
Test
the
limits
of
your
options
by
selecting
"none
of
the
above"
or
proposing
unexected
alternatives,
at
least
tentatively,
especially
when
you
create
them yourself
and
believe
they
are
better.
Resisting
systems:
voice,
exit
or
rebellion
When
social
persuasion
moves into
the
big
time,
one-on-one
confidence
games
are
not
economical.
The
behavior
of
large
numbers
of
people
must
be
managed efficiently.
For
this
reason,
persuaders
develop
systems
of
control
that
rely
on
basic
rules
and roles
of
socialization
and
that
impart
a
sense
of
belonging.
When
interaction
among
people
is
restricted
to
interchange
between
their
social
roles,
however,
it
becomes
easier
for
ethical,
moral
and
human
concerns
to
take
a
back
seat.
Because we
may
be
ostracised
from
organizations
that
mean
something
to
us,
perhaps
fired
from
our
jobs
for
not complying
with
the
requests
of
our
superiors,
sometimes
refusing
to
perform
actions
we
perceive
to
be
unethical
can
be
difficult. When John
Dean
refused
to
participate
in
the
Watergate
cover-up
after
he
himself
had
worked
to
initiate
it,
along with
his
cronies
and
the
President
of
the
United
States, he
had
to
part
ways
with
some
of
the
most cherished
assumptions
of
society:
he
questioned
the
morality
of
Presidential
orders.
According
to
Dean,
". ..
this
would
never
have
been
done
had
it
not
been
done
to
protect
a
president.
And
for
a
long
time
I
had
trouble
separating
the
man
from
the
office."
Nazi
war
criminal Adoplph
Eichmann's
account
of
his
actions during
World
War
II is
not
unrelated:
"I
was
just
doing
my
job
in
following
orders."
Nor
is
the
problem
faced by
subjects
in
Milgram's obedience
experiments
unrelated.
How ever
generalizable
the
subjects'
behavior
in
these
experiments
may
be,
normal
people apparently
inflicted
painful,
potentially
lethal
doses
of
electric
shock
to
a
stranger
at
the
insistence
of
a
credible
"scientist"
in
a
lea.'ning
experiment.
' l. . . .
.. . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .... ...i . .. . . .I ]i '
t
Andersen/Zimbardo
21
Tightly-structured
situations
are
dangerous
when
we
lose
sight
of
who
we
are,
when
we
forget
that
we
have
feelings
and
histories
other
than those
proSram-
med
by
the
imediate
setting and
the
roles we
are
led
to
play
in
it.
In
order
to
avoid
slipping
into
acts
that
violate
our
integrity,
we
must
be
"present"
in
our
societal
and
institutional
roles
as
distinctive
individuals.
Knowing when
to
escape
from
an
oppressive
or
dangerous
situation,
or
alternatively,
when
to
-
organize and
rebel
with
others, requires
that
we
learn
to
question
the
rules
I
others
lay
down
for us
and
that
we
are
alert
to
role-based
constraints
on
our
actions.
Extending
our field of
vision
to
include
frames
of
reference
other
than
those
prescribed
facilitates
our
making
thoughtful decisions
in
situations
]
that
don't encourage independent
thinking.
3
*
Test
for the
presence
of
stated and
unstated
rules
that
unnecessarily
restrict
freedom
of
speech, action
and
association.
By
subtly
violating
some
of
the
rules
and
roles
and
then
observing
the
consequences,
you
may
discover
how
much
latitude
is
allowed
for
idiosyncracy
in
the
system,
for
eccentric
or
creative
self-expression.
*
Resist
the
lure of
uniforms
and
other disguises
that
make
you
look
like
one
of
the
bunch.
I
*
Develop
a
sense
of
humor
about
yourself
to
minimize
utter
saturation
in
your
role
in
the
system,
to
retaiu
a
creative view
of
your
situation,
and
to
gain
some
experience
dealing
with
your
apparent weaknesses
without
undue anxiety.
*
Listen
to
criticisms of
your
most
cherished
beliefs and
institutions.
Know
them, but
don't
accept
them
uncritically. Allow
yourself
to
confront
the
issues
so
you
can
carefully gauge
their
merit,
and
perhaps
see
events
not
only
as
the
svtems
you
are
in expect
you
to
see
them, but
"as
they
are."
Retain
your
sens:
of
individual
integrity
in
the
system
by
calling others
by
name
and
referring
to
yourself
by
name.
If
people
are
typically
referred
to
by
title,
try
adding
their
first
or last
name
to
the
conventional
address,
Andersen/Zimbardo
22
abbreviating
it
casually,
or
somehow
reformulating
the
typical
approach
so
that
it
draws
upon
them
as
human
beings instead
of as
objects
that
merely
serve
instrumental
ends.
*
Make
an
effort
to
discover
the
person
behind
the
role,
to
respond
to
someone's
uniqueness,
rather
than
to
a
stereotyped
role
impression.
*
Disclose
personal
observations
abouc
your
surroundings
and about
experiences
you've
had
else.here
to
those
you
feel
might
share
your
views. Elicit
feelings and
ideas
from
them
so
that
together
you
can
disengage
the
"scripts"
that
specify
the
basic,
unquestioned
rules
of
the
setting.
*
Remember
that
ignoring
social
roles
is
not
easy
and
is
sometimes met
with
censure.
The more
ridigly
structured
our social
role
enactments,
the
less
ambiguity
we
must
face
in
the
social
world.
But
accepting
a
certain
amount
of
ambiguity
is
the
crux
of
spontaneity
and
flexibility. Treated
like
a
machine
it
is
much
too
easy
to
become
one.
S*
Take note
of
one
caution:
masterful
persuaders
always
want
us
to
reveal
our
true
selves,
our
true
needs
and
desires,
to
feel
at
home
with
them.
You
may
not
want
to
reveal
more
than
others reveal
to
you,
or
you
may
at
least
want
to
take
the
process
slowly. (Sound
familiar?)
When
a
group
of
people
becomes more
preoccupied
with
seeking
and
maintaining
unanimity
of thought
than with
carefully
weighing
the
pros
and cons
of
alternative
actions, raising
moral
issues
and
critically
appraising
decisions,
unanimous
resolutions
are
often reached prematurely.
And
as
part
of the
package,
members
may
be
led
to
support
these
decisions
for
better
or
for
worse. When tightly-knit
groups
are
insulated from
outside
sources
of
information
and
expertise
and
their
leaders
endorse
prospective
policies
before
members
have
a
chance
to
air
their
views,
decision-making
processes
deteriorate.
Studies
of
the
dynamics
cf
Presidential
cabinet
meetings
during
the
Johnson
and
Kennedy
administrati)ns
! f -- ¢, = - ,- i
TT
Andersen/Zimbardo
23
revealed just
this
pattern.
The
Bay
of
Pigs
fiasco
was
but
one
of the
blundering
outcomes.
Psychologist
Irving
Janis
termed
the
process
"Groupthink."
*
Actually,
being
invited
to
contribute
to
a
discussion
in
any group
makes
us
more
likely
to
go
along
wich
ult.mate
group
decisions,
even when
they
violate
our prior postures.
Participant learning
is
one
of
the
most
powerful
means
of
gaining
knowledge
and
changing
attitudes.
But
it is
the impression
that
we are
part
of
a
decision-making
process
that
binds
us
to
its
product;
and
impressions
are
readily
managed.
It
is
often
just
our
vote,
our
money
or
sweat
that
is
sought
to
carry
out
someone else's
decisions.
In
extreme
cases,
a
system
may
be
designed
to
create
vulnerability
and
dependence
by
slowly
and
insidiously
£
destroying
the
individual
member's knowledge
of
self.
When
we are
isolated
from
chose
we
care
about, from
our
sense
of
self-continuity,
we
begin
to
feel
amorphous
and
uprooted,
and
the
process renders
us
more
susceptible
to
the
hands
of
makers-over.
Isolating feelings
from
intellectual
concerns
serves
a
similar
function.
Persuaders bring
us
to
their
place
of
power, separate
the
good
or
aware
"us"
from
the
evil,
ignorant
"them,"
and then
proceed
to
limit
our
access
to
ideas
that
they
find
heretical,
traitorous
or
not
in
their
best
interests.
This
can
be true of
interpersonal relationships
Just
as
it
can
be
true
of
memberships
in
social institutions,
groups
or
organizations.
When
we
are
isolated
from
outside information
it
is
impossible
to
make
unbiased
decisions.
Police
interrogators
question suspects
at the
station,
not
at
their
homes.
Synanon
rehabilitates alcoholics
and
drug
addicts
(and
keeps
its
other
members
in
line) by
removing
them
from their
usual haunts
and
restricting
their
liberty.
Jim
Jones isolated
Peoples Temple members
in
the
jungle
of
a
strange
land.
When
we
come
to
believe
so
thoroughly
in
our
favorite concepts
that
we
begin
to
hate
those
who
don't
share
our
views,
to
develop
rehearsed
programmatic
responses
to
discrediting
arguments
and
to
acknowledge
only
ideas
stated
within
our
terminology,
it
may
be
time
to
start
making
our
belief
systems
1
A4
Andersen/Zimbardo
24
a
little
more
permeable.
Nothing
is
so
uiAple
as
the
labels
"good"
and
"evil"
suggest.
oreover,
they
foster utter
vulnerability
to
the
system
that
is
termed
*
Try
to
establish
whether
you
can
actually
have
an
impact
upon
decision-
making processes
in
a
relationship
or
group,
or
whether
you
are
simply
part
of
the
clean-up
crew
for
decisions
that
have
already
been
made.
Watch
7
for
premature
closure
or
initial
consensus
while
discussing
an
issue.
What
arbitrary
constraints
are
placed
on
the
alternativ.
s
to
be
considered?
Do
rigid
procedural devices
limit
discussion
and
suppress
unusual
suggestions?
S*
Refuse
to
accept
the
"e"-"they"
dichotomy
that
cuts
you
off
from
outsiders
and
suggests
you
should
think
of
them
in
terms
of
dehumanizing
labels
like
animals, sinners,
queers,
red
necks,
women's
libbers,
the
teaming
masses,
and
so
on.
*
Suspect
appeals
that
encourage
you
to
detach
your
feelings from
the
rest
of
your
being;
assert
the
harmony
of
mind-body,
intellect
and
emotion,
past
and
present.
*
Try
to
encourage
independent
thinking
among
group
members
(as
suggested
by
the
strategies
in
the
previous
section).
Solidify
channels
of
feedback
between members,
between
members
and
leaders
and
from
outside
evaluators
to
the
group.
*
Remember
that
the
minority
may
at
times
have
the
only
accurate
view
of
i
the
issues.
Any
worthwhile
group
should
tolerate
dissent
or
be
abandoned.
*
Allow yourself
to
question
commitments if
they
are
no
longer appropriate
for
you.
Consistency
in
the
face
of
contrary
evidence
is
usually
not
a
virtue
but
a
sign
of
rigidity,
delusion
or
prejudice.
Make
an
effort
to
admit
past
errors
and
to
acknowledge
old
beliefs
and
comitments
that
proved
limiting
for
you.
*
Continually
seek
outside
information,
reality
checks
and
critical
appraisals
I!,
of
wnat
you
are
doing.,i
Andersen/Zimbardo
2
Maintain outside
interests
and
sources
of social
support
and
re.ject
the
appeal
that
devotion
to
the cause
requires
severing
ties
to
outsiders.
Battered wives,
religious converts,
undercover
agents,
mafia
informants
and
inmates
of
prisons
and
mental
hospitals
all
suffer
from
impoverished
connections
to
outside
systems,
*
Family
and friends
should
leave
the
path back
home
open. Your unconditional
accessibility
to
those
who
have
strayed,
no
matter
what
they've
done
or
said,
may
be
their
only hope.
Disowning
children,
friends
or
relatives
when
you
disapprove
of
their
decisicni
is
much
less
effective
in
the
long
run
than
a
gentle
hand
and
some
warm
wvrds.
"Love-bombing"
is
the
favorite
tactic
of
most
cults,
because
it
works best among
the
love-deprived--those
we
have
not
given
love.
The
tighter
a
system
is,
the
more
likely
that
minor
challenges
will
be
met
with
retaliation.
In
prisons, mental
hospitals,
religious
or
political
cults,
military establishments, concentrations
camps
and
so
on,
people
have
virtually
total
control
over
the
existence
of
others
and
minor deviations
or
threats
to
that
power
are
intolerable.
Actually,
"perceived
threat"
is
what
all
political
relation-
ships
are
about.
When
our existence
is
threatened
and
we
think
we
have
a
chance
to
survive,
we'll
fight
for
it. If
we
then
come
to
threaten
the
very
structure
of
a
coercive
system,
it is
likely
to
retaliate
by
pursuing
the
tactic,
"divide
and
conquer,"
or
perhaps,
"promote."
By
giving
us
status
and
responsibility,
the
system
arranges
that
needs
no
longer
run
at
cross-purposes.
Ours
are
co-opted
for
its
sake
so
that
as
dissidents
we
will
not
revolt.
But
when
maintaining
the
status
quo
is
not
palatable,
the
main
question
is
whether
changing
the
system
is
feasible.
Those
who
survived
Jonestown
did
so by
escaping
its
grasp.
And
some
systems
have
time
on
their
side;
they
can
wait
out
the
opposition
and have
their
officers
paid
for
doing
so.
Supporters
of
the
status
quo
are
employed
while
those
-r
Andersen/Zimbardo
26
A
Iwho
oppose
do
so as
outsiders
part-time
and
struggle
to
make
ends
meet.
In any
1case,
it
is
often more
practical
to
challenge
systems
from
without--especially
by
forming
other
systems.
A
*
Don't
let
your
silence
pass
for
agreement
with
the
system.
While
talking
to
others,
subtly
imply
your
discontent
in
areas
where
you
think
they
might
agree.
Avoid
incriminating
yourself completely
in
the face
of
their
utter
resolve
by
intuiting
their
responses
as
you
speak
and
overstepping
only
those
rules
that
are
of
least
noncern
to
the
system.
*
Once
you
establish
a
group
of
allies
and
decide
that
you
cannot escape
the
system
or
that
you
are
committed
to
changing
it,
band
together
in
opposition
so
that
yours
will
be
a
position
to
be
acknowledged
rather
than
a
disposition
to
be
"treated."
A
consistent
minority,
firm
in
its
conviction
can
often
4
undo
a
majority.
*
Begin
by
assessing
the
power
base
of
those
who
hold the
reigns.
Seek
means
I
of
doing
without
or
of
fiuding
substitutes
for
the
resources
powerholders
threaten
to
withhold
from
you.
Do
you
really need
the
attenticn,
respect,
security, approval,
money
or
whatever
these
particular
people
have
to
offer?
Then,
by
determining
what
contributions
you
make
to
the
system
that
are!
important
to
its
functioning,
you and
your
allies
can
collect
a
significant
{
repository
of
such
resources
to
withhold
from
it
when
bargaining
time
arrives.
Citizens' action,
organized
labor,
the
women's movement,
and
so on,
base
much
of
their
strategies
on
such
decisions.
*
Appeal
to
the
same
human needs
that
the
powerholders
in
the
system
manipulate
in
others.
If
they
are
to
reconsider
their
position,
they
must
be
led
to
do
so
on
their
own
terms,
or
effective
coercion
must
prove
that their
terms
are
no
longer
tenable.
Learn
to
negotiate
with
powerholders
using your
resources.
Collective resistance
by
a
group
that
states
its
problems
concisely,
£pecifies
clear
and
concrete
goals,
resources
and
strategies
is
Andersen/ Zmbardo
27
4
infinitely
more
likely
to
be
successful
than
are
disorganized
revolts
and
spit-and-run
tactics.
*
Exit
those
situations
in
which
disobedience
is
likely
to
be futile
and
punishable,
if
you
can.
Escape
plans
must
be
carefully
thought through
in
concrete
terms,
not
wished
about
vaguely.
Try
not
to
go
alone.
Remember
that
the
revolutionaries
of
the
world
have been
the
ones
to
free
us
from
tyrannical
systems
of
control.
Public
exposes
are
essential
if
the
veil
of
secrecy
that
conceals
mind
control
practices
in
all
of
their
varied
forms
is
to
be
lifted. Jeannie
Mills,
defector
from the
Peoples
Temple
and co-founder
of
t.he
Human
Freedom
Center
in
Berkeley,
was
unable
to
get
people
to
believe
her
horrendous
tales
of
Jim
Jones'
brutality
and
deceit
until
she convinced several reporters
to
check
out
the
discontinuities
between
his
preaching
and
his
practice.
It
takes
a
firm
sense
of
social
commitent
to
es:ape
a
system
of
mind
control,
and
to
then
persist
in
challenging
it
from
without.
Although
buyers
do
well
to
beware:
"Every
exit
is
an
entry
somewhere
else."
(Tom
Stoppard,
Roeencrantz
and
Guildenstern
Are
Dead).
As
conscious citizens
we
must
demand
of
ourselves
ever
greater
diligence
in
seeking
out
and
utilizing
all
sources
of
Information
and
then
ensuring
that
this
information
is
made
available
to
others.
It
is
because we
can
exercise
our
ability
to
critically evaluate
ideas,
institutions
and
our
own behavior
that
we
can
perceive
options
beyond
those
provided
by
convenient
dogma
and
ostensibly
inescapable
circumstance.
In
this
way
are
we
"free"
to
make
meaningful
choices
and
to
not
be
controlled.
-..
. .. . - 2-- --
Andersea/Zimbardo
28
References
Adler,
W.
Rescuing
David from
the
Moonies.
Esquire,
June
6,
1978,
pp.23-30.
Anson,
R,
S.
The
Synanon
horrors.
New
Times,
November
27,
1978,
p.28ff.
Bandler,
R.,
&
Grinder,
J.
The
structure
of
magic.
2
vols.
Palo
Alto,
Calif.:
Science
and
Behavior
Books,
1975.
Becker,
E.
Escape
from
evil.
New
York:
The
Free
Press,
1975.
Bern,
D. J.
Beliefs,
attitudes,
and
human
affairs. Belmont,
Calif.:
Brooks/
Cole,
1970.
Brehm,
J.
W. A
theory
of
psychological
reactance. New
York:
Academic
Press,
1966.
Caplan,
G. A. A
psychiatrist's
casebook.
McCall's,
November,
1969,
p.
65.
Conway,
F.,
&
Siegelman,
J.
Soapping:
America's epidemic
of
sudden personality
chan&e.
Philadelphia: Lippincott,
1978.
Festinger,
L.,
&
Maccoby,
N.
On
resistance
to
persuasive
communication.
Journal
of
Abnormal
and
Social
Psychology,
1964,
68,
359-367.
Flacks,
R.
Conformity,
resistance,
and
self-determination:
The
individual
and
authority.
Boston:
Little,
Brown,
1973.
Franks,
J.
D.
Persuasion
and
healing.
Baltimore:
Johns
Hopkins
Press,
1961.
Freedman,
J.
L.,
&
Sears,
D.
D.
Warning,
distraction,
and
resistance
to
influence.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
1965,
1,
262-265.
Gusfield,
J. R.
(Ed.).
Protest,
reform,
and
revolt.
New
York:
Wiley,
1970.
Goffman,
E.
Relations
in
public:
Microstudies
of
the
public order.
New
York:
Harper
and
Row,
1971.
Haney,
C.,
&
Zimbardo,
P.
G.
The
socialization
into
criminality:
On
becoming
a
prisoner
and
a
guard.
In
J.
L.
Tapp
& F. J.
Levine
(Eds.),
Law,
Justice
and
the
individual
in
society:
Psychological
and
legal issues.
New
York:
Holt,
Rinehart
and
Winston,
1977,
198-223.
Hartman,
J. J.
Small
group
methods
of
personal
change.
In
M. R.
Rosenzweig
and
L.
W.
Porter
(Eds.),
Annual Review
of Psychology,
1979, Vol.
30.
Palo
Alto,
Calif.:
Annual
Reviews,
Inc.
1979.
Hinkle,
L.
E.,
&
Wolff,
H. G.
Communist
interrogation
and
indoctrination
of
"enemies
of
the
state."
American
Medical
Association
Archives
of
Neurology
and
Psychiatry,
1956,
76,
115-74.
Hirschman,
A. 0.
Exit,
voice and
loyalty: On
recovery
from
decline
in
firms,
organizations
and
states.
Cambridge:
Harvard University
Press,
1970.
Janis,
I. L.
Victims
of
Groupthink.
Boston:
Houghton-Mifflin,
1972.
Andersen/Zimbardo
29
Kadish,
M.
R.,
&
Kadish,
S. H.
Discretion
to
disobey:
A
study
of
lawful
departures
from legal
rules.
Stanford,
Calif.:
Stanford University
Press,
Lifton,
R. J.
Thought
reform
and
the
psychology
of
totalism. New
York:
London,
H.
Psychology
of
the
persuader. Morristown,
N.J.:
General
Learning
~Press,
1973.
Markman,
E.
Comprehension
monitorine.
Paper
given
at
the
Conference
on
Children's
Oral
Communication
Skills,
University
of
Wisconsin, October,
1978.
Marks,
J.
The
search
for
the
"Manchurian
Candidate":
The
CIA
and
mind
control.
New
York:
Times
Books,
1979.
McGuire,
W. J.
The
nature
of
attitudes
and
attitude
change.
In
G.
Lindzey
&
E.
Aronson
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
social
psychology,
Vol.
3.
Reading,
Mass.:
Addison-Wesley,
1968.
Milgram,
S.
Obedience
to
authority.
New
York:
Harper
and
Row,
1974.
Mills,
J.
Six
years
with
God:
Life
inside
Reverend
Jones'
Peoples
Temple.
New
York:
A & W
Publishers,
1979.
Patrick,
T.
Playboy
interview.
Playboy,
March
1979,
p.53ff.
Polsky,
N.
Hustlers,
beats,
and
others. Chicago:
Aldine,
1967.
Professional
Salesman's
Desk
Manual. Waterford,
Conn.:
National
Sales
Development
Institute,
Division
of
BBP,
1976.
Roberts,
D.
F.,
Gibson,
W.
A.,
Christenson,
P.,
Moser,
L.,
&
Goldberg,
M. E.
Innoculating
children
against
commercial
appeals.
Paper
presented
at
the
annual
meeting
of
the
American
Psychological
Association,
Toronto, August,
1978.
Roberts,
D.
F.,
&
Maccoby,
N.
Information processing
and
persuasion:
Counter-
arguing
behavior.
In
P.
Clark
(Ed.),
New
models
for
mass
communication
research.
Sage
Annual
Reviews
of
Communication
Research,
Vol.2. Beverly
Hills,
Calif.:
Sage,
1973.
Schein,
E.
H.,
Schneier,
I.,
&
Barker,
C.
H.
Coercive
persuasion.
New
York:
V
Norton,
1961.
Schiffer,
I.
Charisma:
A
psychoanalytic
look
at
mass
society.
Toronto:
University
of
Toronto
Press,
1973.
Schrag,
P.
Mind
control.
New
York:
Pantheon
Books, 1978.
Schwitzgebel,
R.
L.,
&
Schwitzgebel,
R. K.
(Fds.),
Psychotechnclogy:
Eie
zt
ro
iL
control
of
mind and
behavior.
New
York:
Holt, 1973.
Singer,
.T.
Coming
out
of
the
cults.
Psychology
Today,
January
1979.
Andersen/Zimbardo
30
Stoner,
C.,
&
Parke,
J.
All God's
children.
New
York:
Penguin,
1979.
Szasz,
T.
Patty
Hearst's
conversion: Some
call
it
brainwashing.
The
New
Republic,
1976,
174,
10-12.
Tedeschi,
J. T.
(Ed.),
The
social influence
processes.
Chicago:
Aldine, 1972.
Varela,
J.
Psychological
solutions
to
social
problems:
An
introduction
to
social
technology.
New
York:
Academic
Press, 1971.
Vohs,
J.
L.,
&
Garrett,
R. L.
Resistance
to
persuasion:
An
integrative
frame-
work.
Public
Opinion
Quarterly,
1968,
32,
445-452.
Wicklund,
R. A.
The
influence
of
self-awareness
on
human
behavior.
Scientific
American, March-April,
1979,
187-93.
Zimbardo,
P.
G.
The
psychology
of
police
confessions.
Psycholowy
Today,
June
1967,
1,
17-27.
Zimbardo,
P.
G.,
Ebbesen,
E.
B.,
&
Maslach,
C.
Influencing attitudes
and
changing
behavior.
2nd
edition.
Reading,
Mass.;
Addison-Wesley,
1977.
I
*1
iI
I
-1
-I
