Talk:Coercive persuasion

The use of coercive persuasion in police interrogations

Psychological coercion appears to occur commonly in the interrogations of suspects in some jurisdictions. The coercive nature of some police interrogations, possibly using deceptive and deceitful practices, may account for an indeterminate number of nonvoluntary confessions.

Dr. Richard Leo, a recognized authority on the subject of police interrogation practices, argues that despite the lack of statistics showing how often false confessions actually occur, certain techniques of investigation have a greater likelihood of producing a false confession than do other techniques. For example, techniques that maximize the suspect's involvement in the crime, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, and extended questioning can exert "extreme influence" on the person under interrogation. ("Extreme influence" in decision-making is a legitimate field of study recognized since 1908.)

Comments

Many phrases are word for word from this source [1].

Whoever copied this, seems to be trying to strengthen the argument. "Leo admitted under cross-examination the lack" becomes "Leo argues that despite the lack". Who's asserting what, here? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:35, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Rewritten

Rewritten because style was not very encyclopedic and text contained some errors, e.g. coercive persuasion does not include force - that's confusing it with coercion which can include force. I linked the subject with the contexts it is mainly used and added some references. --Irmgard 20:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove this part?

ho says coercive persuasion does not include force? If it doesn't that what is the term for situations such as Denton suffered? Uncle Ed 22:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Denton made clear, that he was tortured to force him to do something he did not want - there was no change of view on his part.

It is not original research, as I said already in talk:Mind control. Below you can see some of the references, where I found that those expressions are used together and at times interchangeably. It is definitely wrong to generally deny any relation between mind control and coercive persuasion etc. (You sure can find some author who does - ok, refer to him specifically, but don't make it a general statement).

Certain psychological themes which recur in these various historical contexts also arise in the study of cults. Cults can be identified by three characteristics:

1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;

2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;

3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie. Lifton

Mind control (also known as "brainwashing," "coercive persuasion," and "thought reform") refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s). Langone

Coercive persuasion and thought reform are alternate names for programs of social influence capable of producing substantial behavior and attitude change through the use of coercive tactics, persuasion, and/or interpersonal and group-based influence manipulations (Schein 1961; Lifton 1961). Such programs have also been labeled "brainwashing" (Hunter 1951), a term more often used in the media than in scientific literature. ::Offshe

The re-written is incorrect, as coercive persuasion is not related to mind-control theories. See new additions. I have removed some of the material that falls on WP:NOR territory. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that rather than re-inventing the wheel and thread too close to original research, we look for reputable sources and quote them. There are god sources on the subject. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research, as I said already in talk:Mind control. Below you can see some of the references, where I found that those expressions are used together and at times interchangeably. It is definitely wrong to generally deny any relation between mind control and coercive persuasion etc. (You sure can find some author who does - ok, refer to him specifically, but don't make it a general statement).

Certain psychological themes which recur in these various historical contexts also arise in the study of cults. Cults can be identified by three characteristics:

1. a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship as the general principles that may have originally sustained the group lose their power;

2. a process I call coercive persuasion or thought reform;

3. economic, sexual, and other exploitation of group members by the leader and the ruling coterie. Lifton

Mind control (also known as "brainwashing," "coercive persuasion," and "thought reform") refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s). Langone

Coercive persuasion and thought reform are alternate names for programs of social influence capable of producing substantial behavior and attitude change through the use of coercive tactics, persuasion, and/or interpersonal and group-based influence manipulations (Schein 1961; Lifton 1961). Such programs have also been labeled "brainwashing" (Hunter 1951), a term more often used in the media than in scientific literature. ::Offshe

TERMS USED TO IDENTIFY THE PHENOMENON

* THOUGHT STRUGGLE

* BRAINWASHING (HSE-NAO)

* THOUGHT REFORM (SSU-HSIANG KAI-TSAU)

* DEBILITY, DREAD AND DEPENDENCE SYNDROME (DDD)

* COERCIVE PERSUASION

* MIND CONTROL

* SYSTEMATIC MANIPULATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE

* COORDINATED PROGRAMS OF COERCIVE INFLUENCE AND BEHAVIORAL CONTROL

* EXPLOITING PERSUASION [2]

Yes, thas is my point exavtly, Lifton, Langone, Singer and other authors associated with the counter-cult and anti-cult use these terms interchangeably. I have no problems in stating that. But that does not mean that these terms are considered the same in wider perspectives not associated with cults. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 01:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These refer to mind control theories by anti-cult proponents and need to be labeled as such for NPOV. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 01:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics mentioned in describing coercive persuasion can include everyday methods like hard sale tactics or environmental control like described by Robert Lifton Margaret Singer or Steven Hassan.

Any one to NPOV the above? Otherwise I will delete. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see no need to NPOV here. The points you criticize are all in the linked places attributed to specific persons who do have an article in Wikipedia, with an extensive biography, so there is no need for any labels. BTW, labeling someone anti-cult proponent etc. is a POV statement, when used in an article, as it reduces the persons and their statements to one specific aspect (which is the main aspect in view of the respective article writer, but this is a POV).

As far as I found, a great part of references on coercive persuasion are somehow linked to the cult issue - this is a context where coercive persuasion is discussed (with pros and cons, of course). So far there is not the least evidence that coercive persuasion in the context of cults is a merely footnote issue and it is mainly used in other contexts.

Of course, you are free to expand the article with info, not connected to cults - so far, there is not much. Another point which comes often up is coercive persuasion in the context of confessions. This sure should be expanded, but I'm not a law expert. --Irmgard 16:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I already did expand the article and intent to expand further. The study of coercive persuasion predates any reference to the study of cults. In regard to the sentence in question, I do not see the relation to this subject, that is coercive persuassion and not the thories of Mind control as proposed by as Hassan and Singer. Concerning Lifton, his work forms the basis of many of the theories of anti-cult proponents, but he is often misquoted. For example, in the amicus curiae brief by SSR quoting Lifton andf Schein concluded that "coercive persuasion in a strong and unequivocal sense cannot be distinguished from mainstream religions and other conventional social influences by any criterion other than the presence of incarceration and physical maltreatment". ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars that dispute anti-cult theories

There are many more scholars than James Gene that reject the theories of recruitment and control by "cults". Shall we list them all? That is not a good idea, but as it stands now the article reads as if there us a 50-50 split, when actually the anti-cult theories are only espoused by a small minority of scholars. That is factually incorrect. Any ideas on how to correct this? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different points confused here:

is coercive persuasion conceptually linked to brainwashing in the cult context?
do cults actually use coercive persuasion resp. brainwashing?

The first point is evident in the texts of Langone and Ungerleider and also of Fingarette (and neither Ungerleider nor Fingarette are what you label as cult proponents). The second point is stated by Langone and denied by Ungerleider (and left open by Fingarette, so we have a third option) in their texts. I have added Fingarette, though that's not the main point of his article (good reading, BTW), so I put him to external links. So far I have not yet seen any reference which explicitely states that coercive persuasion has nothing to do with cults - such a statement would, of course, belong here.

But the Gene statement, referring to the second point, is here a replica to a statement which has not been made in the first sentence. You can be convinced that brainwashing, mind control, and coercive persuasion etc. are all about the same (first point:yes)-- there exists even a similar quote of Introvigne -- and you can at the same time be convinced that they are all nonsense and that there is no religious movement which has ever used such a thing (second point:no). Instead of repeating all the pros and cons of the cults and brainwashing context here, iit's better, to omit Gene and what follows and refer with a link to the Mind control#Cults and mind control controversies where the subject is discussed in full. --Irmgard 16:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Gene is specifically addressing cowercive persuassion, as there are many other scholarts that share that POV. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know, there are - but those I have seen state that cults do not use coercive persuasion (and brainwashing and mind control etc.) and not that the concept of coercive persuasion is not related to brainwashing etc. That's the reference I have not yet seen. --Irmgard 17:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do not understand your point. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You stated above "... coercive persuasion is not related to mind-control theories" - what is the reference for that? --Irmgard 17:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got it. But Novit says "for legal purposes" and that's not "for all purposes" - Fingarette comes to a similar conclusion regarding legal aspects, but he adds: "And a final but important disclaimer: nothing I have said implies or is meant to imply the soundness or unsoundness of the claims pro or con as to the existence of "persuasive coercion" in particular sects. " --Irmgard 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with your asserton that Lifton is not related to the anti-cult movement. Lifton was a close associate of Louis Jolyon West (expert witness in Patricia Hearst's case) and a frequent speaker at anti-cult conventions, held by such groups as the former Cult Awareness Network. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 17:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reference regarding Singer and coercive persuasion: Introvigne: "Dr. Margaret Singer, the most vocal proponent of the anti-cult coercive persuasion theories,..." [3]. So even Introvigne makes that link - and it should be added. --Irmgard 17:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! That is Introvigne talking about the anti-cult movement and their propositions for such theories. But here we are talking about coercive persuassion in relation to "everyday methods like hard sale tactics or environmental control". I do not know that Singer ever wrote about these aspects. Lifton did. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree at least on one thing, Irmgard, that these discussions are highly politicized and as such to attempt having an NPOV article is quite difficult. My proposal is to stick to sources and avoid stating any type of conclusions as these are not verifiable. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but stick exactly to sources - and to the subject. The extended SSSR remark, e.g., about using force or not has nothing to do with the subject - no one claims that coercive persuasion does use force, neither in the legal field nor in the cults field. And the quote from Novit refers to the legal use of the coercive persuasion argument when referring to religions (on which Fingarette agrees) - that does not mean that it is generally not ok to use coercive persuasion in the cult context. And regarding Singer: there are two sources given, where she talks about coercive persuasion and coercive psychological systems, and in one she mentions here thought reform points in the same context. So Singer using the term is precisely referenced and she is also quoted by many others (pro and con) on the subject - there is no objective reason not to mention her. But if you prefer, I can do so in a paragraph of her own, giving her more weight than so far. BTW I'll be abroad for two or three days and don't know how much time I have to be online. --Irmgard 00:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy your trip. We can resume editing on your return. No rush. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 01:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DIMPAC

All: Please see the new DIMPAC article and the summary that we placed in Margaret Singer. Shall we do the same here? The purpose was to avoid having to maintain the DIMPAC material so many different articles. Tanaats 00:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The topic of this article seems to be the same as Mind control. Why have two articles on the same thing? BayShrimp (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from that article: "Mind control (also known as brainwashing, coercive persuasion,... -BayShrimp (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]