The issue of brainwashing. 1: Evidence over Ideology

Luigi Corvaglia

The body of authors surrounding CESNUR claims that ‘science has denied the existence of brainwashing’. This claim has, curiously, made it necessary to redraw the boundaries of science itself, excluding all contributions from the psychology of persuasion, behavioral economics, social psychology, and neuroscience (Hovland, Janis, Kelley, 1953; Turner, 1991, Cialdini, 1984; Petti and Cacioppo, 1986, Hogg, 2010, Sharot, 2018)  in order to shape its contours so that they align strictly with the ecosystem of authors affiliated with CESNUR itself. 

To cast doubt on the legitimacy of the claim to be the sole bearers of scientific truth—which in itself would already be curious, given that science does not proclaim definitive truths but always falsifiable interpretations—it is enough to consider that asserting, as these authors do, that joining a spiritual movement is a free choice amounts to adhering to rational choice theory, which science itself has rejected (Simon, 1957, Kahneman, and Tversky,1972, 1974, Kahneman, 2011, Damasio, 1994, Cazzaniga, 2011, Elster, 1984) . This would not be concerning if science were situated outside the field of what they define as such.

In fact, there is one circumstance in which CESNUR seems willing to take into account data from outside his own fenced-off field—namely, when they  believe that such data confirm their own positions. Specifically, this is the case of the constantly repeated claim that the American Psychological Association (APA) rejected the concept of brainwashing. The story is more nuanced. In 1983, the APA established a task force known as DIMPAC (Deceptive and Indirect Methods of Persuasion and Control), chaired by Margaret Singer, to evaluate the scientific status of these concepts.

In 1987, the APA’s Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology reviewed the DIMPAC report and declined to accept it, stating that it lacked the methodological rigor required for official APA endorsement. APA did not issue any blanket declaration that “brainwashing” is unscientific. Rather, it declined to endorse a specific report, expressed caution about the available evidence. Scientific research has continued to address and accumulate data on mind control after 1987, largely indifferent to the proclamations of CESNUR^[1]. Philip Zimbardo’s contribution is relevant for two reasons. First, he later became president of the APA —the very organization that is claimed to have rejected the concept—in 2002. Second, his official publication record shows repeated, explicit post-1986 use of mind control terminology^[2]. 

The concept remains institutionally legible in professional discourse. An official American Psychiatric Association annual meeting syllabus for 2022 included a session titled “Brainwashing: A Haunting Past and Troubling Future for Psychiatry and Society,” framed around the history and future of coercive persuasion research. By 2024, the National Library of Medicine MeSH vocabulary officially added “Brainwashing” as a descriptor, providing a definition explicitly attributed to the APA Dictionary of Psychology: “a broad class of intense and often coercive tactics intended to produce profound changes in attitudes, beliefs, and emotions” The MeSH entry explicitly notes that such tactics have historically targeted prisoners of war and members of religious cults. The institutional inclusion of the term within the biomedical indexing system of the National Library of Medicine directly contradicts the claim that the scientific establishment has abandoned or discredited the concept altogether.

Petty and Cacioppo’s Elaboration Likelihood Model demonstrated that persuasion does not always occur through fully rational and deliberative processing. Their distinction between “central” and “peripheral” routes of persuasion showed that attitudes and behaviors may also be shaped through heuristic cues, emotional framing, social pressure, source credibility, and other contextual factors operating outside reflective reasoning.

Indeed, the development of behavioral economics after the 1980s moved precisely in the direction of studying how choices may be subtly guided or manipulated. Thaler and Sunstein’s theory of the “nudge” defined choice architecture as an “aspect of choice architecture that alters people’s behaviour un a predictable way without forbiddung any options or significantly changing their economic incentives” (Thaler and Sunstein, 2008). Far from denying the existence of psychological influence, the success of nudge theory rests on the assumption that human beings are predictably susceptible to contextual framing and cognitive steering. Sunstein later acknowledged, in his reflections on manipulation and libertarian paternalism, that influence may become ethically problematic precisely when it bypasses reflective deliberation and exploits cognitive vulnerabilities (Sunstein, 2025).

Similarly, neuroscientific research on persuasion has continued to expand after 1987. Sharot (2018)’s work demonstrated that simply presenting factual information is often insufficient to change entrenched beliefs because individuals interpret information through emotional and identity-based filters. As Sharot notes, the naïve assumption that “if the facts are really clear cut, then you’re going to change your mind” tends to be false. Such findings are directly relevant to coercive persuasion research because they demonstrate how belief systems may become resistant to contradictory evidence once emotionally reinforced.

In the DSM-5-TR (APA, 2022) —the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association—the entry for Other Specified Dissociative Disorder (p. 348) includes the explicit specification “Identity disturbance due to prolonged and intense coercive persuasion.” The examples listed include “brainwashing,” “thought reform,” torture, long-term political imprisonment, and recruitment by “sects/cults or by terror organizations.”

All this vast body of data  seriously challenge the curious claim that science has somehow established the nonexistence of manipulation, and that only authors orbiting within the CESNUR ecosystem are legitimate bearers of scientific truth. The evidence reviewed here does demonstrate that research on social influence, persuasion, cognitive biases, decision-making, behavioral economics, and neuroscience has progressively expanded our understanding of the mechanisms through which beliefs, preferences, and identities may be shaped under conditions of asymmetric influence. Contemporary scholarship has largely abandoned simplistic dichotomies between "free choice" and "brainwashing," replacing them with more sophisticated models that recognize influence as a continuum, operating through identifiable psychological, social, and neurocognitive processes. To ignore this extensive interdisciplinary literature while simultaneously claiming to represent "science" is therefore not a defense of scientific rigor but a narrowing of scientific discourse itself. A genuinely scientific approach requires engaging with the full range of empirical evidence, including findings that challenge one's theoretical commitments. From this perspective, the categorical denial of coercive persuasion appears less as the conclusion of scientific inquiry than as the expression of a prior ideological commitment masquerading as scientific consensus.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR). American Psychiatric Association Publishing.

American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Brainwashing. In APA Dictionary of Psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/brainwashing

Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. William Morrow.

Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. G. P. Putnam's Sons.

Elster, J. (1984). Ulysses and the sirens: Studies in rationality and irrationality (Rev. ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Gazzaniga, M. S. (2011). Who's in charge? Free will and the science of the brain. Ecco.

Hogg, M. A. (2010). Influence and leadership. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1166–1207). Wiley.

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. Yale University Press.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454.

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

National Library of Medicine. (2024). Brainwashing. In Medical Subject Headings (MeSH). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag.

Sharot, T. (2018). The influential mind: What the brain reveals about our power to change others. Henry Holt.

Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. Wiley.

Sunstein, C. R. (2025). Manipulation: What it is, why it's bad, and how to prevent it. Oxford University Press.

Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.

Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Open University Press.

Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Zimbardo, P. G. (2002). The psychology of mind control. In B. K. Alexander, R. W. Ribbens, & M. D. Dumm (Eds.), Cults and new religious movements: A report of the American Psychiatric Association 

Notes

[1] For eaxample:

• Taylor, Kathleen. 2004. Brainwashing: The Science of Thought Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986.

• Singer, Margaret T., and Richard Ofshe. 1990. “Thought Reform Programs and the Production of Psychiatric Casualties.” Psychiatric Annals 20(4):188–93. https://doi.org/10.3928/0048-5713-19900401-06.

• Lifton, Robert J. 1991. “Cult Formation.” Cultic Studies Journal 8(1):1–6.

• Lifton, Robert J. 1991. “Cult Formation.” Cultic Studies Journal 8(1):1–6.

• Lifton, Robert J. 1999. Destroying the World to Save It: Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence, and the New Global Terrorism. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

• Aronoff, Jody B., Steven Jay Lynn, and Peter Malinoski. 2000. “Are Cultic Environments Psychologically Harmful?” Clinical Psychology Review 20(1):91–111.

• Zimbardo, Philip G. 2002. “Mind Control: Psychological Reality or Mindless Rhetoric?” Monitor on Psychology 33(10). Retrieved May 19, 2026 (https://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/pc).

• Shulman, Kenneth I., Charles Cohen, Carol J. Hull, Nathan Herrmann, and Norman A. Szmukler. 2007. “Assessment of Testamentary Capacity and Vulnerability to Undue Influence.” American Journal of Psychiatry 164(5):722–27.

• Coates, Dominica D. 2012. “Cult Commitment from the Perspective of Former Members: Direct Rewards of Membership versus Dependency-Inducing Practices.” Deviant Behavior 33(3):168–84.

• Holoyda, Brian, and William Newman. 2016. “Between Belief and Delusion: Cult Members and the Insanity Plea.” Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 44(1):53–62.

• Hassan, Steven A., and Madelyn J. Shah. 2019. “The Anatomy of Undue Influence Used by Terrorist Cults and Traffickers to Induce Helplessness and Trauma, so Creating False Identities.” Ethics, Medicine and Public Health 8:97–109.

• Stein, Alexandra. 2023. Terror, Love and Brainwashing: Attachment in Cults and Totalitarian Systems. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

• Dimsdale, Joel E. 2021. Dark Persuasion: A History of Brainwashing from Pavlov to Social Media. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

• Doychak, Katherine, and Chitra Raghavan. 2023. “Trauma-Coerced Attachment: Developing DSM-5’s Dissociative Disorder ‘Identity Disturbance Due to Prolonged and Intense Coercive Persuasion.’” European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation 7(3):100323.

• Almendros, Carmen, José Antonio Carrobles, Álvaro Rodríguez-Carballeira, and Manuel Gámez-Guadix. 2009. “Reasons for Leaving: Psychological Abuse and Distress Reported by Former Members of Cultic Groups.” Cultic Studies Review 8(2):111–38.

• Almendros, Carmen, Manuel Gámez-Guadix, Álvaro Rodríguez-Carballeira, and José Antonio Carrobles. 2011. “Assessment of Psychological Abuse in Manipulative Groups.” International Journal of Cultic Studies 2:61–76.

• Baldwin, Susan B., Andrea E. Fehrenbacher, and David P. Eisenman. 2015. “Psychological Coercion in Human Trafficking: An Application of Biderman’s Framework.” Qualitative Health Research 25(9):1171–81.

• Rodríguez-Carballeira, Álvaro, Olga Saldaña, Carmen Almendros, José Martín-Peña, and Jordi Escartín. 2015. “Group Psychological Abuse: Taxonomy and Severity of Its Components.” The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context 7(1):31–39.

• Turner, John C. 1991. Social Influence. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

• Hogg, Michael A. 2010. “Influence and Leadership.” Pp. [page numbers] in The SAGE Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by M. Wetherell and C. T. Mohanty. London: Sage.

• Haslam, S. Alexander, Stephen D. Reicher, and Michael J. Platow. 2011. The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power. New York: Psychology Press.

• Saldaña, Olga, Álvaro Rodríguez-Carballeira, Carmen Almendros, and Jordi Escartín. 2017. “Development and Validation of the Psychological Abuse Experienced in Groups Scale.” The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context 9(2):57–64.

• Hamberger, L. Kevin, Stephanie E. Larsen, and Amy Lehrner. 2017. “Coercive Control in Intimate Partner Violence.” Aggression and Violent Behavior 37:1–11.

• Doychak, Katherine, and Chitra Raghavan. 2020. “‘No Voice or Vote’: Trauma-Coerced Attachment in Victims of Sex Trafficking.” Journal of Human Trafficking 6(3):339–57.

• Lohmann, Sophie, Sean Cowlishaw, Leah Ney, Michele O’Donnell, Kim Felmingham, et al. 2023. “The Trauma and Mental Health Impacts of Coercive Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.

• Kassing, Kristina, and Amy Collins. 2023. “‘Slowly, over Time, You Completely Lose Yourself’: Conceptualizing Coercive Control Trauma in Intimate Partner Relationships.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

• Lalich, Janja. 2004. Bounded Choice: True Believers and Charismatic Cults. Berkeley: University of California Press.

• Sharot, Tali. 2018. The Influential Mind: What the Brain Reveals About Our Power to Change Others. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

• Sunstein, Cass R. 2025. Manipulation: What It Is, Why It’s Bad, What to Do About It. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• Barnhill, A. (2014). What is manipulation? In C. Coons & M. Weber (Eds.), Manipulation: Theory and practice (pp. 51–72). Oxford University Press.

• Baron, M. (2014). The mens rea and moral status of manipulation. In C. Coons & M. Weber (Eds.), Manipulation: Theory and practice (pp. 98–120). Oxford University Press.

• Coons, C., & Weber, M. (Eds.). (2014). Manipulation: Theory and practice. Oxford University Press.

• Gorin, M. (2014). Towards a theory of interpersonal manipulation. In C. Coons & M. Weber (Eds.), Manipulation: Theory and practice (pp. 73–97). Oxford University Press.

• Noggle, R. (2020). Pressure, trickery, and a unified account of manipulation. American Philosophical Quarterly, 57(3), 241–252.

• Noggle, R. (2024). Manipulation: Its nature, mechanisms, and moral status. Oxford University Press.

• Persson, P. (2018). Attention manipulation and information overload. Behavioural Public Policy, 2(1), 78–106.

• Wilkinson, T. M. (2013). Nudging and manipulation. Political Studies, 61(2), 341–355.

• Wood, A. W. (2014). Coercion, manipulation, exploitation. In C. Coons & M. Weber (Eds.), Manipulation: Theory and practice (pp. 17–50). Oxford University Press.

[2] His bibliography includes The Psychology of Mind Control: Readings (Philip Zimbardo & Richard McDermott, 1990), The Psychology of Mind Control: Readings in Persuasion, Influence, Indoctrination, and Conversion (Zimbardo & Brian Knutson, 1991), and “Understanding mind control: Exotic and mundane mental manipulations” (Zimbardo & Susan M. Andersen, 1993, in Recovery from Cults). These are not casual journalistic references, but edited academic volumes and a scholarly book chapter. Philip Zimbardo’s official bibliography includes the APA Monitor article “What messages are behind today’s cults?” (Zimbardo, 1997) and his presidential column “Mind control: Psychological reality or mindless rhetoric?” (Zimbardo, 2002). The American Psychological Association’s own Monitor on Psychology records confirm the 2002 title and its publication under his byline as APA president.