Nice Essay

Nowadays, these are some experts argue that attitudes and behaviour, which one comes first? This topic is very important for people who are studying in Marketing, because they can easy to target the market, when they understand it. This essay will discuss this debate critically with reference to the literature in this area of consumer behaviours. Furthermore, it will give which side of the debate I agree with and explain why.

Attitudes are defined as an overall evaluation. Attitudes can vary from person to person; two people when asked what their attitudes are will give two different answers. However attitude properties stay the same. These properties include valence, extremity, resistance, persistence, and confidence. Attitudes depend on two basic factors: beliefs and feelings. As such, understanding why consumers hold certain attitudes needs examining the underlying beliefs and feelings consumers have about the attitude object.

These are some major writers’ definition of the attitude. According to Sharp (cited in Franzen 1999)“Attitude stands for a general and lasting (consistent over time) positive, neutral or negative evaluation of a person, object, institution or event. The possibilities for changing attitudes are somewhat limited. Attitudes are relatively stable: they do change but very slowly.”East (1997) also gives a similar but slightly different definition to what an attitude is“What we feel about a concept, which may be a brand, category, person, an ideology or any other entity about which we can think and to which we can attach feeling. Attitudes are thus about the evaluation that we given to a specific concept; they are not like mood, which is a generalized state of being with no clear focus, and they are not thought structures with no feelings attached.”(East 1997),Marketers have often used attitude first theory from the work of several psychologists and writers (LaPiere, Ajzen & Fishbein) theories that used attitudinal research to predict behaviour.

One such was LaPiere who conducted research on hotel managers’ attitudes towards Chinese guests in 1934. He found that American hotel managers’ generally had an unfavourable opinion and response towards Chinese guests. His study involved a Chinese couple who asked for a room in an American hotel, and he concluded that American hotel managers had negative attitudes toward Chinese guests; therefore hotel managers’ behaviour was because of their attitude (LaPiere, 1934) In addition to LaPiere’s research, marketers use Ajzen and Fishbein’s theory of reasoned action, and Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour to explain why attitude precedes behaviour.

According to Fishbein & Ajzen (1975) “the Theory of Reasoned Action” that intentions often predict behaviour quite accurately does not in itself provide much information about the reasons for the behaviour. It would improve our ability to predict behaviour. Intentions are a function of two basic determinants, one personal in nature and the other reflecting social influence. The theory applied itself to the prediction of intentions, as opposed to behaviour. The theory “incorporates evaluations and beliefs about the consequences of the behaviour and also subjective norm; the beliefs about others expectations and the motivation to comply with those expectations.” (Baker 1995)Later, Ajzen published the “Theory of Planned Behaviour” (Ajzen, 1991), which was an updated version of the Theory of Reasoned Action. This theory includes Attitude toward the behaviour, the subjective norm and perceived behavioural control. Fundamentally, perceived behavioural control is assessed by asking people how much control they have over performing a particular behaviour. This theory shows two important features. Firstly, the theory believes perceived behavioural control has motivational implications for intentions. People who believe that they have neither the resources nor the opportunities to perform certain behaviour are unlikely to form strong behavioural intentions to engage in it. Even if they hold favourable attitudes toward the behaviour and believe that important others would agree with their performing the behaviour. Secondly, it is the possibility of a direct link between perceived behavioural control and behaviour. In many examples, the performance of behaviour depends not only on motivation to do so but also on enough control over the behaviour in question. Thus perceived behavioural control can help predict goal attainment independent of behaviour intention to the extent that it reflects actual control with some degree of accuracy. In fact, perceived behavioural control can influence behaviour indirectly, via intentions, and it can also be used to predict behaviour directly, because it may be considered a partial substitute for a measure of actual control.

For both theories Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planned Behaviour, they are generating the bias (projective) towards something. If customers have a bed attitude of the product, they will not to buy the product. However, in fact, some people they do not like some products, they still buy it. For example, people who dislike cheese may still buy it for cooking. People who like cheese may not buy it, because they are diets. (East 1997)For marketers the two theories show that consumers exercise certain attitudes, intentions and exercise some level of control which dictates what their behaviour will be. For example, your attitude towards the Body Shop is positive, and that you intend on buying some of the products in the near future, this implies you will control your attitude towards Body Shop and your behaviour will reflect this favourable attitude towards the Body Shop in that you will buy their products over other products which you might have a negative attitude towards.

Marketers also use Fazio’s Attitude Accessibility Theory to justify the attitude first theory.

Fazio’s Attitude Accessibility Theory (Fazio, Powell, & Williams 1989) was developed 1986 and in this theory it is according to Baker (1995) that“Strongly held attitudes are more likely to be accessible in memory. Once received from memory, this attitude guides the processing of further information about the attitude object; in other words, the process of selective perception.”LaPiere, Fishbein and Ajzen, and Fazio all confirm that attitudes precedes behaviour illustrating the need for marketers to measure consumer attitudes towards products as it necessary for them to know that in order to predict future buying behaviour.

However, this is not the end of the debate. To complicate matters another group of people believe that behaviour precedes attitude, and that it is necessary for marketers to measure this rather than attitudes when predicting future buying behaviour by consumers.

Behaviour is not as simple to define as attitude. But basically “Consumer behaviour is defined as the behaviour that consumers display is seeking, purchasing, using, evaluation and disposing of products and services that they expect will satisfy their personal needs.” (Schiffman et al. 2001). The main characteristics of behaviour are that it is enduring, habitual, and constant/unchanging over a long period time. That is what consumers have bought in the past, they will buy in the future. For example, if I have bought Nescafe Instant Coffee ™ many times in the past I will continue buying it in the future even though there are many other instant coffee brands.

Much like the attitude first section of the debate, behaviourists and marketers leaning to the behaviour first debate, point to Pavlov’s Classical Conditioning Theory and Festinger’s Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.

According to Sharp (2003) Pavlov describe one type of associative learning in which is no contingency between response and reinforce. Pavlov applied meat paste with a bell until the dogs’ salivated. Afterwards, when the bell was rung, the dogs would start to salivate. However, when the paste was removed and the bell was rung without the paste, the dogs still salivated, because the dogs were conditioned to get the meat paste with the bell. Therefore, it is called a conditioned response. The dogs learned to associate the bell ringing with food. “This experiment paired a stimulus that does not normally produce a response, which a stimulus that is known to product a response.” This is important to marketers because people associate their responses to certain stimuli (known as a cue) and marketers can use these cues to influence consumer buying behaviour. For example, Coca Cola is trying to associate itself with thirst, so when consumers are thirsty the remember Coca Cola and buy it. It is important for marketers to know that using repetitive advertising in mass-marketing communication channels for their products leads to consumers being conditioned to their products and influence their buying behaviour.

The second theory that behaviour before attitude advocates use is Festinger’s Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.

According to the Cognitive Dissonance theory (Festinger 1957) it deals with pairs of cognitions. Festinger says that”Any knowledge, opinion, or belief about the environment, about oneself, or about one’s behaviour…………..They may simply have nothing to do with one another. That is, under such circumstances where one cognitive element implies nothing at all concerning some other element, these two elements (cognitions) are irrelevant to one another”If two cognitions are in fact relevant to one another, then they are consonant or dissonant cognitions. Consonant cognitions come about when the knowledge follow from another and dissonant cognitions occur when the obverse of one element follows from the other. The existence of dissonant cognitions makes an uncomfortable feeling. This feeling will motivate the individual to decrease or to eliminate the dissonance. In addition Festinger (1957) states “The presence of dissonance gives rise to pressures to reduce or eliminate the dissonance. The strength of the pressures to reduce the dissonance is a function of the magnitude of the dissonance”. The number of dissonant beliefs, and the importance associated with every belief are two factors that affect the greatness of the dissonance. (Leckenby n.d)An example used by Festinger (1957) a habitual smoker who learns that smoking is bad for health will experience dissonance, because the knowledge that smoking is a bad behaviour for health, but he still continues to smoke. He can reduce the dissonance by changing his behaviour, and stop smoking, which would be consonant with the cognition that smoking is a bad behaviour for health. Alternatively, the smoker could reduce dissonance by changing his knowledge about the effect of smoking on health and believe that smoking does not have a bed result on health (eliminating the dissonant cognition). He might look for positive effects of smoking and believe that smoking reduces tension and keeps him from putting weight. (Adding consonant cognitions) Or he might believe that the risk to health from smoking is not serious. If compared with the danger of automobile accidents (Reducing the importance of the dissonance cognition). In addition, he might think the smoking is a very important part of his life (Increasing the importance of consonant cognitions).

According to Kotler et al (2001) “Behavioural segmentation divides buyer into groups based on their knowledge of the product, their attitude towards it, the way they use it and their responses to it.” Nowadays, many marketers believe that behaviour variables are the best starting point for building market segments. It is very important to use of behaviour in assessing the target market.

But, according to Skinner (1938, 1953) cited in East (1997) a behaviourist’s thought and feeling are effects but not causes. For example, like ripples on the surface of a pond, they show the movements of fish, but do not move the fish. It this case, we can use attitude information only as an indicator of behaviour, to predict by not to explain. Such narrow behaviourism is usually rejected today. One reason is that difficult to describe action without think of the thought and feeling that lie behind it. Words become insults or praise only through an understanding of the reasons of the person expresses them. The behaviourist position is not subtle enough to deal with this complexity of people behaviour. Opposed to behaviourism is the view that thought and feeling can create change in action directly. This is cognitivism, in its strongest form, experience is explained and used to change attitudes and knowledge, which will control behaviour. From a cognitive perspective, behaviour may be modified by communication, which changes attitudes and knowledge, and this process may help explain how some advertising and word-of –month communications affect consumer choices.

In contradiction to Skinner, a paper by Dall’ Olmo Riley, Ehrenberg, Castleberry, Barwise and Barnard in 1997 showed empirically that consumer buying behaviour was influenced by past buying behaviour.

As we have seen there are major writers have different opinions. Some of them believe that behaviour from measures of attitude. Some of them do not agree with it. However, compare both of sides, I personally agree with behaviour precedes attitude. Any product that faces a repertoire market should focus on mass marketing to achieve brand salience in the minds of their consumers, naturally the more mass marketing done, the better salience is achieved. It is very important as we want people to have brand salience for the product we are marketing. For example, Coca Cola does mass marketing in order for their product to be consumed by more people more frequently, because Coca Cola is in a repertoire market. When people want to have a soft drink, almost of them would think buy Coca Cola. Other example is hamburger. When people would like to eat a hamburger, they might think go to McDonald. It is because people already have these buying behaviour patterns. As a result, segmenting the market not according to the attitude of the consumer but use they are past buying behaviour patterns.

Reference:Ajzen, I., 1991 The theory of planned behaviour: Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision ProcessesAjzen, I & Fishbein, M., 1980, Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behaviour, Prentice Hall, Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.

Baker, M.J, 1995, 3rd Ed, Marketing: Theory and Practise, McMillan Press Ltd, London, England.

Dall’ Olmo Riley, F., Ehrenberg, A.S.C., Castleberry, S.B., Barwise ,T.P., & Barnard, N.R., 1997, The variability of attitudinal repeat-rates, International Journal of Research of Marketing, December.

East, R.,1997, Consumer Behaviour: Advances and Applications in Marketing, Prentice Hall, Hertfordshire, UK.

Fazio, R.H., Powell, M.C., & Williams, C.J., 1989, The Role of Attitude accessibility-to-behaviour Process, Journal of Consumer Research, DecemberFestinger, L., 1957, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, USAFishbein, M.,& Ajzen, I., 1975, Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co, Reading, Mass.

LaPiere, R.T., 1934, Attitudes vs. Actions, Social ForcesSharp, B., 2003, The Lecture Notes, Buyer & Consumer Behaviour University of South Australia. Adelaide.

Schiffman, L., Bednall, D., Cowley, E., O’Cass, A., Watson, J & Kanuk, L., 2001, 2nd Ed, Consumer Behaviour, Prentice Hall. NSW.

Contents

DescriptionPage number

Title page1

Contents2

Personal Commentary3

Abstract4

Introduction: A brief outline of some of the main debates5-8

In the recovered/false memory debate.

The nature of forgetting an abuse memory: The concepts of 9-15

delayed recall and meta-awareness are covered

in this section.

Experimental evidence and the lab: Can studies based around 16-23

such methods be applicable to the to a therapy setting?

Several key experiments are described, with

emphasis placed on their applicability toward

a therapy setting.

Summery:Conclusions and further discussion of the debate23-26

References27-30

Personal commentary

When I first starting reading around the subject of recovered/false memories I started to gain a comprehensive view, or what I thought was a clear view of the debate at hand. Initially thinking that all recovered memories were false and that therapeutic community was full of poorly trained ‘professionals’ whose sole goal in life was to make money. How wrong could I be! After further reading I learnt that the debate is more complex than that which could ever be taught in a lecture course. Finally understanding some of the points involved I delved into the literature reading profusely for three or so months. Finally after several revisions I came up with two of what I believe main debates within the debate on recovered memories. I hope I have done it justice and sincerely hope you do to.

On a final note I would like to thank those who have helped me through this learning experience. I would like to thank my tutor Phil, whose laid-back approach and listening ear prevented some of the main stressors from this dissertation from becoming panic attacks. Special thanks goes to James Ost whose commentary and supply of articles was invaluable. Thanks as well to Jonathan Schooler of the University of Pittsburgh for his supply of invaluable articles. All in all this has been a good experience and one I hope build on. Enjoy!

Abstract.

This paper gives a general introduction into some of the key debates in psychology with the review two key debates concerning false/recovered memories of abuse. These are 1/ what processes other than repression can account for the forgetting of sexual abuse memories; and 2/ Can evidence for the creation of false memories in therapy be generalised to that setting.

1/ Case based analysis suggests that recovered memories have not been forgotten in a sense of repression. Instead it is argued recovered memories are perceived to have been forgotten due to a change in the individuals understanding of that memory. Enlightenment caused by this change therefore may be confused with a belief that the abuse memory has just been uncovered (Meta-awareness and discovery misattribution (Schooler, in press).

2/ Memory recovery techniques have been blamed for inducing false memories of abuse into the memories of those who have not been abuse. Several key experiments are reviewed, with the methods involved in each constructively criticised.

Conclusions and further debates are discussed with an emphasis on further cooperation between clinical and experimental psychologists to improve techniques used in therapy.

For over a decade now debate has surrounded the recovery of repressed or forgotten memories of childhood sexual abuse, with the emergence of what some believe to be a new syndrome called, ‘false memory syndrome’ (FMS). This involves the creation of an inaccurate or false memory of childhood sexual abuse, by an individual who has no history of such abuse. This paper will cover several of the key debates from this area. The first concerns the nature of the recovered memory and what processes are believed to contribute to the forgetting of a traumatic memory, as repression is an unsubstantiated theory what other processes may be involved in the forgetting of an abuse memory. The second concerns the debate as to the methods used by experimental psychologists to back up their claims that false memories can be implanted into an individuals, during therapy.

Introduction to the debate of recovered/false memories

” A horrible picture came into my mind but this time it did not go away…a whole reel of pictures started running through my head…I was terrified”

Extract form an interview with CV, an individual with recovered memories of sexual abuse, in Schooler (in press).

Individuals who recover memories of childhood sexual abuse find them to be very real, intense and disturbing. Having to come to terms with and re-evaluating ones own life history is a very long and traumatic process.

Recovery of an abuse memory can come about in a variety of settings, usually involving a specific cue to sexual abuse. These cues may emerge in therapy; a conversation; watching a film; reading a survivor self help book (such as The courage to heal; Bass and Davis, 1992); getting married; having children; or getting into a sexual relationship. Each case is different, with the amount of recovery varying form person to person. Initial recall of these memories is usually restricted and not always complete. Taking the form of flash backs, nightmares and strong emotional responses to cues (this is a non-exhaustive list), these may occur apart or together. Recovery techniques are used through therapy to help improve the cues associated with the repressed/forgotten memory, thus allowing better access to that memory by the individual. Thus allowing the individual to gain insight into the abuse memory and to cope with what has occurred in their past.

Why all the fuss concerning the recovery of memories?

As with any recall of a memory some inaccuracies are expected in the recalled memory. This is seen as more of a problem with recovered memories, as they have not been accessed for usually long periods of time (sometimes decades). Thus the memory may have deteriorated. This leads to further problems if suggestible techniques are used during further recovery, as a general bias toward the belief of a sexual abuse history by many therapists (Poole et al, 1995) may influence the reconstruction of the recovered memory. The source of any recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse is childhood. Childhood memories have also been shown to hold inaccuracies (Goodman, Quas, Faunce, Riddlesberg & Kuhn, 1994), as such recovered memories of abuse may have been inaccurate at the initial encoding stage, as well as at retrieval some years later and so increasing the ability of suggestive techniques to alter ones memories of an event.

Some clinical psychologists believe that much of the literature on false memory syndrome (Lindsay & Read, 1994; Hyman, Husband & Billings 1995; Loftus & Coan, reported in Loftus 1993) show misunderstandings as to why many therapists use memory recovery techniques. This does not, however, mean that such assumptions and conclusions gained by the experimental community are inaccurate.

The use of these memory recovery techniques to improve existing memories (recovered memories) or to recover memories of childhood sexual abuse is believed by many to be the main cause of false memories. These recovery techniques are thought to increase the suggestibility placed on a patient’s memory whilst in therapy (Lindsay & Read, 199?), thus causing the recall of a false memory. Growing evidence suggests that there is a phenomenon that resembles and may be deemed to be that of a false memory syndrome. This evidence comes from both retractors (those who believe that their recovered memories of abuse are false, Ost et al, in press), case analysis of recovered memories involving claims that are seemingly impossible (e.g. being ritually abused in satanic cults; Pendergrast, 1997). An example of which is discussed in Pendergrast (1997, p. 12-13), he reports the case of Michelle who recovered memories of satanic sexual abuse as a child whilst in therapy. Her memories involved being “held naked in a cage full of snakes” with her abusers at one point “surgically attaching horns to her head and a tail to her spine”. Although such things are not impossible her claims fall apart when examined more closely using medical records and interviewing other siblings. With the bulk of evidence used by those who advocate the existence of a false memory syndrome coming from experimental work into influences on memory. The nature of such work concerns primarily the effect of suggestion on memory, in particular that which may be present in a therapeutic context (e.g. Hyman, Husband & Billings 1995; Loftus & Coan, reported in Loftus 1993). Experimental evidence suggests that the use of memory recovery techniques during therapy may influence the content of any memory that is recovered during that period. Such evidence has been used to suggest that entirely fictitious memories (false memories) of being sexually abused in childhood may be recovered as a result of therapy (Lindsay & Read, 199?). Clinical psychologist on the other hand refute such claims, arguing that the methods used by experimental psychologists to gain insight into the effects on memory in therapy can not be generalised to the therapeutic setting. Thus any conclusions gained from the use of these methods are not accurate (Pezdek & Roe, 1994).

I will now look at the nature of forgetting a traumatic memory of childhood sexual abuse. Showing that there are other reasons other than that of repression that can accommodate for such forgetting. I will then move on to look at some of the main evidence for the occurrence of false memory syndrome and the concerns some have about its applicability to therapy.

Can memories of sexual abuse be ‘lost’ to the conscious mind as those who recovery memories and therapists claim?

Most memories of sexual abuse are not forgotten, indeed as Harvey & Herman (1994) state, “The most common characterization of an adult survivor is someone who has reached adulthood with some if not all memories of abuse intact”. Can traumatic memories therefore be forgotten? Summers and Pope (1994) conducted a survey of psychotherapists looking at their own experiences of being abused. Of those who returned the questionnaires 23.9% indicated that they had been abused: of which 40% reported a period of forgetting some if not all the abuse. Reports of recovered memories which have external evidence (see Schooler, 1994; Schooler, in press for examples) also show that traumatic memories of sexual abuse can be forgotten, as they would not have been recovered had they not been forgotten.

What processes, therefore, can cause the forgetting of a traumatic memory? This section looks three different accounts as to how forgetting of this nature may occur from a lack of specific recall cues (i.e. just forgetting, Schooler, 1994); delayed recall (Harvey & Herman, 1994) and the construction of a new understanding of old memories (Schooler, in press; Shobe & Schooler, in press).

What process or processes other than that of repression lead to the forgetting of childhood sexual abuse?

One of the main misconceptions surrounding recovered memories is that such memories have been repressed (Banks & Pezdek 1994; Schooler 1994; Schooler, in press; Shobe & Schooler, in press). Many in psychotherapy believe in the idea of repression. A recent survey by Andrews et al (1995 reported in Scotford, 1999) found that 97% of the sample (Psychotherapists) believed in repression. Those in the experimental community have attacked such a belief, pointing out that there is no direct evidence supporting the notion of repression (Loftus, 1993). Such blind faith in repression is challenged “by a century of research devoted to understanding memorial processes and the mechanisms which trigger forgetting” (Toglia, 1995).

If those in the experimental community are correct and repression is but an improvable theoretical concept, then there must be other reasons to account for such forgetting prior to the recovery of abuse memories.

Just Forgetting or Delayed recall

Some have argued (Schooler, 1994) that the forgetting of traumatic

experience is just that, forgetting. The forgetting of such memories could be an indicator that the correct retrieval cues have either not been encountered or not encoded, as such a cue dependent memory. At the time of encoding lack of rehearsal due to the individual not, ‘wanting to think about it’ would reduce the likelihood of any cues associated with the memory having a low saliency to the target memory, thus reducing the likelihood of retrieval. As such when the memory is to be accessed a general lack of such cues would result the failure to retrieve. In many cases the recovery of a traumatic memory is accompanied by very specific cues associated with sexual abuse, thus showing that the cue is triggering the actual abuse memory and not an association. The lack of prior knowledge of a recovered memory may indicate this. Because of the lack of cues associated with the abuse memory some time may pass before these cues are activated. Harvey and Herman (1994) argue for a multitude of reasons why an individual may forget his or hers abuse, including both amnesia and delayed recall. Concluding that the most common form of forgetting is that of delayed recall. Harvey and Herman (1994), argue that delayed recall “differs from that of normal forgetting not in the temporary absence of that memory form ones conscious but in the painful re-experiencing of the trauma when the memory is recovered” (Harvey & Herman, 1994). This would seem to fit most recovered memory cases. Another process, which may act at the same time as that of recall is, delayed understanding (Harvey & Herman, 1994; Schooler, In press). This occurs when the original memory of abuse is not thought of as abusive, but on later interpretation may be seen as abusive. What we have to realise is that at the time of encoding the abusive memory the individual is still a child, as such an understanding of what is occurring at the time may not be seen as abuse. Such a re-understanding of their abuse memory may lead some individuals to wrongly concluding that the memory was completely lost to them, were in fact it was just forgotten. This argument is explained in more depth in the next section.

Meta-awareness and discovery misattribution.

Recent research by Schooler (in press) has suggested other explanations for the perceived forgetting of abuse memories. Schooler (in press) highlights several possible reasons why one may not be able to access an abuse memory. His reasoning is based on two facets; these are the dissociation between experiential consciousness (being aware of what we are thinking) and meta-awareness (not being explicitly aware of what we are consciously thinking); as well as the concept of discovery misattribution.

Schooler (in press) describes a good example of meta-awareness in everyday life, that of daydreaming. When reading an important paper for example for course work. You suddenly realise that for the last few minutes, although reading the text you have not been attending to it. Instead you have been daydreaming about something completely different. As such you are consciously daydreaming but not conscious of the fact you were daydreaming (i.e. not meta-aware of the fact). This is usually accompanied by a sudden realization or “jolt of meta-awareness” of what you are doing, i.e. daydreaming. Retrospective analysis allows you to conclude that you were daydreaming. This example is one of the most common types of meta-awareness. Other more striking examples are those when we become aware of personally important events, such as that of a relative dying or of a trauma (e.g. being sexually abused in childhood). These sudden realisations force the individual to look at their emotional state and interpretations of such events (Schooler, in press). Such retrospective analysis does not always occur straight after the event. Recovery of a sexual abuse memory may be like this, with the memory of abuse being in the conscious mind, however awareness and understanding of the abuse memory not be. When one realises the memory is present one interprets the memory and because of its retrospective significance to the individual the view of the memory is changed. Schooler (in press) argues that if the newly acquired interpretation is profoundly different to that which was previously held, then the sense of discovery may be confused with a belief that the memory itself has been discovered. Where in fact the memory has always been accessible but the awareness and implications of that memory have either not been accessible, or has been profoundly different to the new interpretation. So the nature of forgetting a sexual abuse memory is such that the memory is not forgotten, but the interpretations and significance of the memory are. The notion of discovery misattribution adds to this concept and enhances its applicability to the forgetting of sexual abuse memories. Discovery misattribution is the idea that one may not remember prior recovery of a memory. Thus if the memory is seen as important and the individual can not remember any recall then the assumption would be that the memory had been forgotten. Misattribution can also occur when the memory is recovered, the initial surprise when recovering a traumatic memory may be interpreted by the individual as being that the memory had not been accessed before (Schooler, in press)

In short ” memory discoveries (recovery) result from an abrupt change in an individual’s meta-awareness of their abuse” (Schooler, in press). This may involve either the construction of a new meta-awareness or the accessing of an old forgotten meta-awareness associated with the abuse memory. The intensity of such a discovery of an old or new meta-awareness may lead individuals to wrongly conclude that the memory itself is being accessed for the first time, where in fact the individuals interpretation of that memory may have been either re-accessed, re-evaluated or developed for the first time (Schooler, in press).

If repression is not the main reason for the forgetting of traumatic memories, as many in psychotherapy believe, then the complexities of forgetting may be the alternative. Arguments put forward by Schooler (in press) seem to fit the current knowledge and case analysis of recovered memories more accurately than those put forward by Harvey and Herman (1994). Although not incorrect in their assumptions Harvey and Herman’s (1994) use of delayed recall does not account for cases such as that of TW, WB and DN (Schooler, in press), where the memories of their abuse have been recalled before. Schooler (in press) described each case; TW described her abuse to her mother whilst on holiday; WB confided in her boyfriend and DN actually took her case to court. Each of these individuals had recovery experiences, but each had shown that their memory was intact at several points in their lives, which they did not remember. Schooler (in press) points out that it is quite likely “that shifts in individuals’ meta-awareness of these experience over time may have fundamentally contributed to the discovery (recovery) experience”. Stating that in several of the examples shifts in understanding of the memory may have caused the recovery experience. The concept of re-evaluation of ones memories is commonly held to be true. As we develop through time so our beliefs and knowledge do to. If an individual recovers a memory of sexual abuse that has not been thought of in a long time, then their current beliefs will guide any interpretations and feeling associated with that memory. As Harvey and Herman (1994) point out when a memory is recovered the individual “rethink(s) the past, blending new memories into earlier ones, new assessments with alternative ones, gradually constructing a meaningful and largely verifiable personal history.”

So are recovered memories caused by repression? Without any experimental data to back up such claims mainstream psychology will no doubt always seem sceptical of such an argument. What can be said is that such memories are forgotten somehow, research along the lines of Schooler (in press) may hold the key to a wider acceptance of the processes that lead to the forgetting of traumatic memories.

Experimental evidence and the lab: Can studies based around such methods be applicable to the to a therapy setting?

Debate between experimental and clinical psychologists concerns the type of evidence used by each side to proliferate their argument (Shobe & Schooler, in press). Such is the difference in training between the experimental and clinical psychologists that several different data types are used. For those from an experimental background hypothesis testing is preferred with manipulation of variables to try and induce memory distortion (e.g. Roediger and McDermott 1995) or to create false memories (e.g. Hyman, Husband & Billings 1995; Loftus & Coan, described in Loftus 1993). Clinical psychologists and psychotherapists, on the other hand use primarily case analysis (examples of such methodology can be found in Harvey & Herman, 1994 and Schooler, in press), and personal experiences in the clinic (Pezdek & Roe, 1994) to back up their claims that recovered memories and the techniques used to recover them are valid. Experimentally based evidence has primarily been used to backup claims that false memories can be implanted into a patient/participant (Loftus and Coan, 1993, reported in Loftus, 1993; Hyman et al 1995). Evidence from those who have retracted claims of sexual abuse has also been used (Ost, Costall & Bull, in press), along with anecdotal reports of exaggerated claims resulting from recovered memories (see Pendergrast, 1997)

One of the main criticisms levied at the evidence for false memory syndrome is that there is not direct evidence showing that therapy can cause false memories (Pezdek & Roe, 1994). It may be the case that there is no evidence showing an individual gaining false memories of sexual in therapy, however, there is a lot of evidence that suggests techniques employed in the therapy situation can lead to the recovery of a false memory. Much of this particular work has been done with both the implantation of traumatic (Loftus & Coan; described in Loftus 1993) and normal childhood memories (Hyman et al, 1995).

Loftus (1993) described an experiment in which D. Coan and herself (1993) attempted to induce a false memory of being lost in a shopping mall as a child. Family members of the participants (mainly adolescents) were used to relay the false memory, “playing a game of ‘do you remember when…’” Loftus and Coan (1993; described in Loftus, 1993) found that the participants introduced the false memory into their own life narrative. Subsequent retrieval of the false memory resulted in the individual remembering associated thoughts and feelings. Pope (1996) argues that such findings may in fact be “…artefact…”(Pope, 1996), or created by the way the data was collected. Suggesting that both the participant’s parents and siblings may have forgotten that the ‘false’ event may have actually taken place. However Loftus (1993) asserts that the mother of one of the participants (Chris) could not remember such an event taking place. Pope (1996), Pezdek, Finger and Hodge (1996) reason, that being lost is a common childhood experience thus such a memory may either be true or an alteration of a common childhood occurrence (i.e. an existing script of such an event may be present). Arguing that similar scripts are not present for sexual abuse).

Pezdek et al (1996) attempted to introduce a memory without any pre-existing script. Using a similar ‘plausible’ false event of being lost in a shopping mall (i.e. one would possess a script for), and a traumatic non-plausible false memory event of having a rectal enema (i.e. one that a script would not be present for) into their participants. Pezdek et al (1996) found that participants where more likely to remember the plausible event, with none of the participants remembering the non-plausible traumatic event. This suggests that the results gained by Loftus and Coan (1993, reported in Loftus, 1993) do not really show anything relevant to so-called false memories of childhood sexual abuse. However there are counter criticisms to these claims, the first is that scripts for sexual abuse are readily available through the mass media, as well as survivor groups and literature. The courage to heal (Bass & Davis, 1992) is one of the more controversial sources of survivor literature and is reported to have aided the recovery of many abuse memories (or as some claim false memories, Pendergrast, 1997). The second being that Pezdek et al (1996) did not apply much pressure to their participants, which may be present either overtly or covertly in the therapy situation. Loftus and Coan (1993, reported in Loftus, 1993) reported a higher rate of recall than that of Pezdek et al (1996) of false memories, using larger amount of social pressure on their participants. Therefore claims that the Loftus and Coan (1993, reported in Loftus, 1993) experiment did not accurately represent the types of traumatic memories recovered in therapy are validated. However on closer inspection it can be seen how the methods used to critique the shopping mall study may fail to do so.

Another problem with the critique of this study is the common misquotation of Loftus and Coan (1993, reported in Loftus, 1993) claims that the false memory used in their experiment was “traumatic” (Pope, 1996). Stating that Loftus and Coan’s (1993, reported Loftus, 1993) generalisations of their findings to that of traumatic memories of abuse recovered in therapy are therefore inaccurate (Pope, 1996). Loftus (1993) in fact described the false memories used as being “mildly traumatic”, questioning whether a more traumatic memory could be implanted. However it would be unethical to attempt to create false memory of childhood sexual abuse. As such reports from those who retract their claims of sexual abuse seem to be the only direct evidence for a false memory syndrome. However, use of such individual’s testimonies is problematic, which will be discussed later on in this section.

Replications of the methods used by Loftus and Coan (1993, reported in Loftus, 1993) have attempted to introduce similar false memories. Hyman et al (1995) used college students in their study and found significant results showing that a false memory could be induced. Their procedure consisted of sending questionnaires to the participant’s parents to find actual occurrences in childhood, which the participants would possibly have memories of. In a subsequent interview with the participants these memories where relayed with one of a randomly chosen false memory. These where being naughty at a wedding; letting the handbrake off in their parent’s car and crashing it; and being in a store when the fire extinguishers went off even though there was no fire. After three interviews about all the memories used in the study, 25.5% of participants were found to have integrated the false event into their own life narrative. These results seemingly supported those findings of Loftus and Coan (reported in Loftus, 1993). However because the memories used in these studies are not seen as traumatic as those recovered in therapy it would be hard to totally relate such findings to the recovery of sexual abuse memories in therapy. What Hyman et al (1995) and Loftus and Coan (reported in Loftus, 1993) successfully demonstrated is that the use of repeated interviewing or retrieval techniques when looking for (or in this case inducing) a presumed memory in therapy may cause individuals to be persuaded of it’s authenticity, thus integrating it into their own memories over time. What was also demonstrated was how an individual elaborates on such an initial memory over time, introducing onto the memory his or her own personal feelings and actions they may have carried out during the false event. This therefore can be likened to a recovered memory gaining in saliency with repeated retrieval in therapy. Hyman et al (1995) stated that some of their participants used already existing memories (scripts) in the creation of the false memory, thus supporting this idea that the recovery of sexual abuse memories may involve using existing scripts at some level.

Criticism of the Hyman et al (1995) and Loftus and Coan’s (reported in Loftus 1993) studies also include the nature of the memories used in the experiments and the perceived location by the participants of where the memories came from. In both experiments the implanted memories came allegedly form family members, thus increasing the perceived reliability of the false memories. As such it could be argued that the memories that where implanted in the Hyman et al (1995) and Loftus and Coan (reported in Loftus 1993) studies where from a more influential authority on the participants background, Something that a therapist cannot claim to be. However, it can be argued that; 1) the family members in the studies represent a trusted source of information, that which the therapist brings to the therapy situation alternatively; 2) The source of the memory i.e. the family member is seen as someone who knows the life history of the participant, something that a therapist can not lay claim to. However, there is reason to believe that the “therapist does not stay in ignorant of what has occurred in their patients past” (Ost, personal communication, 9th January 2001). Pope (1996) suggests another problem, in that such results demonstrate the ability of family members to alter a relative’s memory of past events. This has connotations toward the idea of sources of influence in cases of retraction (see later).

Evidence from retractors: its implications for the false memory syndrome debate.

Another source of evidence for the existence of a false memory syndrome are cases of those who recover memories of abuse but have since retracted such claims, believing them to be false (’retractors’). Many psychotherapists would suggest such people are denying the abuse they have suffered. This may be true in some cases; however, some retractors have many siblings, which in many cases state they have not been sexually abused.

Such claims are what initially started the whole debate off, however have such vital resources been used? They have in terms of evidence from lawful decisions, in that a ruling that a practitioner has unlawfully induced a false memory due to malpractice from a court may bolster claims that a ‘false memories syndrome’ does exist. However such an important insight into the reasons why individuals would firstly make a claim and then subsequently retract their claims has bee over looked by many in psychology. According to Ost, et al (in press) such is the view of retractors (in psychology) that it is believed that “their experiences do not qualify as reliable evidence because retractors themselves may be highly suggestible or unreliable witnesses” (Ost, Costall & Bull, in press), this may indeed be the case. However some research has suggested this may not be the case, Ost et al (in press) looked at the reasons retractors gave for the retraction of their claims of sexual abuse. Research of this kind would allow an understanding of the processes involved for an individual’s conclusion that their recovered memory may indeed be false. Ost et al (in press) found their sample of retractors perceived more pressure to recover memories of sexual abuse (from therapists and peers) than they did to retract such claims (presumably from family and friends). If Pope’s (1996) arguments are correct then the use of family members in experiments to implant false memories (Loftus & Coan, 1993, reported in Loftus, 1993; Hyman et al, 1995) suggests that the same influence reported in these studies as showing retrieval of false memories presented by these family members, may influence those who recover memories of abuse to retract their. However such reasoning may be inaccurate in the majority of retractor cases. One of the main reasons being that when an individual recovers a memory of being sexually abused they usually sever all contact from the alleged perpetrator and all those who defend them, thus taking on the role of a ’survivor’ (an individual who has recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse; Pendergrast, 1997). This therefore would mean that any pressure from both their alleged perpetrator and others would be minimal. Results from the Ost et al (in press) support such an assumption. Other reasons for the retraction of child sexual abuse claims concerned the retractors perception of their recovered memory, 68.5% claimed that their recovered memory didn’t feel like a real memory. One participant reported not being able to recall their recovered memory separately from that of their memory of their therapy sessions. Others found “logical inconsistencies” with their memories, leading them along with other reasons to conclude that their recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse to be false memories.

This would therefore suggest that the recovered false memory is different from that of a ‘real’ recovered memory of abuse. However it would be difficult to show any discernable differences between perceptions of a ‘real’ recovered memory and that of a false memory. This would be due to differing perceptions of such memories from those who know their recovered memory is indeed false (retractors) and those who don’t (still believing it to be real). Ost (personal communication, 9th January 2001) recognises such problems, in that a study of this nature relies upon self-reports which are taken in from a retrospective viewpoint. As Ost states “we cannot use these findings to bolster our belief that their (individuals with recovered memories) abuse ‘memories’ either true or false…there is simply no reliable way of knowing” (Ost personal communiqué, 9th January 2001).

Summery

In conclusion, the concept held by many in psychotherapy (Andrews et al, 1995 reported in Scotford, 1999) that recovered memories are caused by repression’ cannot be refuted by the experimental community, however they can neither be supported. The idea that something isn’t true because there is no evidence for it is bad science. What has been shown in this paper is that there are alternative reasons for the forgetting of sexual abuse (Schooler, in press) and as such those who believe that recovered memories are not valid are incorrect in their analysis (Loftus, 1993). What does seem to be evident though, is that many experimental and clinical psychologists alike do not refute claims that some recovered memories of abuse are founded in reality (Scotford, 1999). What are of concern are those memories, which are recovered under highly suggestible situations, thus increasing the possibilities for the creation of a false memory. False memories have far reaching implications to for the individual; their family; friends and alleged perpetrator, as do real recovered memories of abuse.

The existence of ‘false memory syndrome’ is born out in the

experimental literature (Loftus & Coan, 1993, reported in Loftus, 1993; Hyman et al, 1995) and cases of retractors (Ost et al, in press) highlighted in this paper. Claims that lab based analysis is not generalisable to a therapy situation “seem to be this all to convenient” (Ost, personal communication, 9th January 2001). Lab based research does have it’s draw backs, the use of an artificial location and use of dissimilar traumatic memories to name but a few. These are mainly due to ethical problems preventing the use of false memories of abuse, and real life situations. To conclude that such research is not applicable to the therapy situation doesn’t do justice to the work and efforts of those involved. The ease at which some studies have shown false memories to be implanted shows that there may be a point where ones techniques of memory recovery may cross the line. Preconceptions by many in psychotherapy about sexual abuse, further proliferates the need for caution when using such techniques. Pezdek and Roe (1994) state that such techniques should only be used when the patients themselves have found an initial memory of abuse. However the presentation of an initial memory of abuse to a therapist may be unreliable it self, as false memories can arise without therapy at all (Scotford, 1999). All you have to do is look at some of the survivor literature such as The courage to heal (Bass & Davis, 1992) which are rife with suggestion, such as

“If you don’t remember your abuse you are not alone. Many women don’t have memories (of abuse)…this doesn’t mean they weren’t abused”.

(Bass & Davis, 1992, quoted in Pendergrast, 1997)

Such literature is indeed open to interpretation, one may surmise that the memory is so deeply repressed that such specific cues are needed to bring it into ones consciousness.

Unfortunately the therapist is caught in a ‘catch 22′, if on one side the experimental literature is to be believed then any form of memory work may lead the patient to recover false memories. However on the other side the patient needs to be helped to resolve lingering trauma. “Patients with genuine abuse memories have the right to expect proper treatment. Equally those with no abuse history have the right to scientifically based therapy that doesn’t lead to a false memory” (Scotford, 1999). Arguably psychotherapy as a profession needs to rethink certain key issues surrounding it’s practices and supportive evidence for such practices.

This applies to experimental research; a trend has developed for those in the profession to implicate their results with this current debate such as that done by Roediger and McDermott (1995) (For commentary on their arguments see Freyd & Gleaves, 1996), implicating miss-associations in word recall to the creation of false memories in therapy. Such nuisance research brings down the credibility of genuinely related research and the profession as a whole.

However, for the first time in the short history of this debate a ‘middle’ ground seem to be just over the horizon. Many are looking at the methodologies used with some from an experimental background using techniques such as case analysis to look directly at recovered memories of abuse (Schooler 1994; Schooler, in press), as well as at cases of false memories (Ost el al, in press). What does seem to be true is that this debate is far from over; a middle ground is still over the horizon. How far? We can’t tell. But what are supported are the concepts of false memories and genuine recovered memories of abuse. What those concerned with this debate must realise is that the prevention of child sexual abuse will be a long process, however, the prevention false memories of child sexual abuse

References

Banks, W. P. & Pezdek, K. (1994). Editorial: The recovered memory/false memory debate. Consciousness and Cognition, 3, 265-268.

Bass, E. & Davis, L. (1992). The courage to heal: A guide for women survivors of child sexual abuse (2nd Eds.). New York: Harper & Row.

Brown, R. & Kulik, J. (1977). Flashbulb memories. Cognition, 5, 73-99.

Cohler, B.J. (1994). Memory recovery and the use of the past: A commentary on the Lindsay & Read from psychoanalytic perspectives. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 365-375.

Freyd, J. & Gleaves, D. (1996). “Remembering words not presented in lists”: Relevance to the current recovered/false memory controversy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Memory & Cognition, 22, 811-813.

Goodman, G. S., Quask, J. A., Batterman-Faunce, J. M., Ridlesberger, M. M. & Kuhn, J. (1994). Predictors of accurate and inaccurate memories of traumatic events experienced in childhood. Consciousness and Cognition, 3, 269-294.

Harvey, M. R. & Herman, J. L. (1994). Amnesia, partial amnesia, and delayed recall among adult survivors of childhood trauma. Consciousness and Cognition, 3, 295-306.

Hyman, I., Husband, T. & Billings, F. (1995). False memories of childhood experiences. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 181-197.

Lindsay, D. & Read, J. (1994). Psychotherapy and memories of childhood sexual abuse: A cognitive perspective. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8, 281-338

Loftus, E.F. (1993). The Reality of Repressed Memories. American Psychologist, 48, 518-537.

Ost, J., Costall, A. & Bull, R. (in press). A perfect symmetry? A study of retractors’ experiences of making and then repudiating claims of early sexual abuse. Psychology, Crime & Law.

Pendergrast, M. (1997). Victims of memory: Incest accusations & shattered lives. London: Harper Collins

Pezdek, K., Finger, K. & Hodge, D. (1997). Planting false childhood memories: The role of event plausibility. Psychological Science, 8, 437-441.

Poole, D., Lindsay, S., Memon, A. & Bull, R. (1995). Psychotherapy and Recovered Memories of Childhood Abuse: U.S. and British Practitioners’ Opinions, practitioners, and experiences. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 63, 426-438.

Pezdek, K. & Roe, C. (1994). Memory for childhood events: How suggestible it? Consciousness and Cognition, 3, 374-387

Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (1995). Creating false memories: Remembering words not presented in lists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory, and Cognition, 21, 803-814.

Shobe, J. K. & Schooler, J. W. (in press). Discovering fact and fiction: Case based analysis of authentic and fabricated discovered memories of abuse. In G. Davis & T. Dalgleish (Eds.), (in press). Recovered memories: Seeking the middle ground. England: Wiley & Sons.

Schooler, J. W. (1994). Seeking the Core: The Issues and Evidence surrounding Recovered Accounts of Sexual Trauma. Consciousness and Cognition, 3, 452-469.

Schooler, J. W. (in press). Discovering memories of abuse in light of meta-awareness. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma.

Scotford, R. (1999). False memories- a peripheral issue? In C. Feltham (Eds.) (1999) ‘Controversies in psychotherapy and counselling.’ London: Sage Publications.

Summers, S. F. & Pope, K. S. (1994). The experience of “Forgetting” childhood abuse: A national survey of psychologists. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3, 636-639.

Toglia, M. P. (1995). Repressed memories: The way we were? Consciousness and Cognition, 4, 111-115.

ntroduction

Background

In May of 1977, Daniel Levinson constructed a model of the season’s of a mans life. His developmental theory consists of universal stages or phases that extends from the infancy state to the elderly state. Most development theories, such as Freud’s psychosexual development theory or Piaget’s cognitive development theory, end in the adolescent stage of life. Levinson’s stage theory is important because it goes beyond most theories assuming that development continues throughout adult life.

Levinson based his model on biographical interviews of 40 American men. These 40 men were between 35 to 45 years in age and they worked as either biology professors, novelists, business executives or industrial laborers. The biographical interviews lasted one or two hours and ranged from six to ten interviews for each subject. The questions asked focused on the subject’s life accounts in their post adolescent years. The interviews focused on topics such as the men’s background (education, religion, political beliefs) and major events or turning points in their lives.

Levinson’s concept of life structure (the men’s socio-cultural world, their participation in their world and various aspects of themselves) is the major component in Levinson’s theory. The life structure for each person evolves through the developmental stages as people’s age.

Two key concepts in Levinson’s model are the stable period and the transitional period in a person’s development. The stable period is the time when a person makes crucial choices in life, builds a life structure around the choices and seeks goals within the structure. The transitional period is the end of a person’s stage and the beginning of a new stage.

Levinson’s model contains five main stages. They are the pre-adulthood stage (age 0 - 22), the early adulthood stage (age 17 - 45), the middle adult stage (age 40 - 65), the late adulthood stage (age 60 - 85) and the late late adult stage (age 80 plus). Levinson states ‘the shift from one era to the next is a massive development step and require transitional period of several years.’(Levinson, 1977) This would explain why there is an overlap in each of these stages.

Levinson’s first adult stage in his model is called the Early Adult Transition Period. This phase is similar to Erikson’s psychological theory in that both concern the young adult’s identity crisis or role confusion. It is during this phase that the young adult first gains independence (financial or otherwise) and leaves the home. This is a transitional stage because it marks the end of adolescence and the beginning of adulthood.

The second stage would be a stable period because it marks the time where the adult must pick a role, establish goals and build a life structure. This stage provides the young adult with any roles and choices for their future. Levinson believes that it is during this time that the young person dreams of his future success in a career, family life and status. Levinson also believes that the presence of a mentor or older teacher is a great influence in guiding the person through the obstacles in their career paths.

The third stage, which can be divided into two parts, is called the Age 30 transition. The first part of this phase deals with when the young adult reflects on their career and past successes and also plans for future success and status in their career as well as making plans in starting a family and settling down. In Levinson’s own words, the Age 30 transition ‘provides an opportunity to work on the flaws and limitations of the first adult life structure and to create the basis for a new and more satisfactory structure with which to complete the era of early adulthood.’ (Levinson, 1977) This Age 30 transition parallels Erikson’s autonomy versus shame and doubt stage which Erikson applies to toddlers. The second part of the Age 30 transition period is the settling down stage. It is in this stage that the person feels a need to establish a role in society, whether in their career or their family life, which ever is the most central part of their life structure.

The fourth phase of Levinson’s model is called Becoming One’s Own Man or BOOM phase. In this stage, the man feels constrained by the authority figures in their world. The individual wants more independence, authority and to be true to their own voice. With this larger amount of authority, there comes a greater amount of responsibility and burden. This is also a time of conflict as the person struggles with the notion of becoming an established adult and leaving behind the flaws of the early adult they once were. Levinson uses the phrase ‘breaking out’ to describe the adult’s radical change in life structure. The conflict in this stage is the beginning of the major transitional period in life called the mid-life transition.

In the Mid-life transition, which Levinson believes to last from age 40 to 45, the adult faces a crucial point in their development. Much soul searching and reflecting is done during this phase. The adults question their past life structures and accomplishments and reevaluate their goals. There are very few adults, according to Levinson, that find this mid-life stage difficult. The painful process of the mid-life transition stage results in a drastically different life structure with new goals within it. Even if an adult chooses not to change their life structure, they must still reappraise their life and recommit themselves on different terms to their old choices. This troubling transitional phase does, according to Levinson, have beneficial results. Levinson believes that ‘the life structure that emerges in the middle 40s varies greatly in its satisfactoriness…’(Levinson, 1977). Levinson also states that for some, the outcome of this transition provides the person with fulfillment and a better direction.

Levinson’s model emphasizes that development of life structures is a continuous life process. In the stages which follow the mid-life transition are not focused on, but Levinson does state that the mid-life transition is not the last opportunity for growth and change. He believes there are later transitional periods in late adulthood as well. He states that ‘as long as life continues, no period marks the end of the opportunities, and the burdens of further development.’ (McAdams and Levinson, 1977)

Purpose

Levinson’s model is called the season’s of a mans life. This wording alone predicts the gender bias found in his theory. His theory was based on biographical material solely from men. This blatant bias would certainly affect the model’s applicability towards women.

Argument

‘ It is surprising that Levinson’s model, established in 1978, would contain such an outright bias considering the time period. Some obvious faults in his theory as it relates to women are the differences in men’s and women’s career and family goals. the men who were interviewed for Levinson’s study would have been raised in the 1950s and 60s. Women and men who grew up during this time were gender typed to a much greater extent than the males and females are today. These big differences would indicate different education, goals, values and statuses. It is very unlikely that Levinson’s theory would apply to a woman’s development considering the different roles, goals and life structures between these men and women. Perhaps, with a amore equal treatment of men and women today, Levinson’s model of the season’, of the life of man would be more applicable to both sexes.

However, even with the majority of women who join the work force today, the lives of these women still differ drastically with the men of the labor force and a universal model of development for men and women would still await further research as Levinson stated.

This is not to say that women do not enter a development stage pattern that Levinson proposes because research has shown that women do enter these phases, however, at different times than men and also the effects of these transitions affect women differently than men. It would be unlikely for a woman’s life to develop parallel to a man’s life because the choices, obstacles and goals men and women face , differ drastically from one another. For example, when entering the adult world, many women ( during the 50s and 60s ) were not faced with the many different opportunities and roles which faced men. For many women, even those who were educated and worked, family was the major responsibility and their main role was the mother. Even in today’s society, with equal opportunity and career mothers, a woman’s career is interrupted with pregnancy and the first months of motherhood (many choose to take years off from work to raise their children (Orstein and Isabella, 1990) ). The fact remains, although women have established themselves in the work force as equals to men and are able to have both families and careers, women’s lives are different than men’s.

these differences mean that the phases of life development, according to Levinson’s model, will differ with men and women. The age 30 transition, for example, may occur for women at a somewhat later age than for men because women’s are described taking a slow burn to the top. ( This is not to say women’s careers are less successful, but rather take a longer time to reach success. This is probably due to the interruption of pregnancy and motherhood. (Orstein and Isabella, 1990) ) The differences between the lives and development patterns between men and women and how this affects Levinson’s model will be examined further, but first here’s a look at some recent research regarding women’s current goals, changes and life structures.

The Divorce rate in North America has never been higher. One would think that the effects of divorce would be most devastating to a woman whose main goals relate to her family and marriage. A recent study by Krisanne Bursik (1991) researches the ego development for women after marital separation or divorce. Bursik found that ‘divorce demands personal reorganization and adjustment to new roles and life-styles.’ (Bursik, 1991) She also found that women who find divorce to be more disequilibrating, experienced the most change in ego development. Barsik’s study involved a longitudinal research of 104 women who lived in the greater Boston area. The women reported their feelings of disequilibrium after their divorce or separation. A year later, their ego development scores were compared with their scores from the previous year. Contrary to what one may think about the effects of divorce on women, this study shows that for many women a painful time in life can produce strong, positive changes in their personal growth (Bursik, 1991) I feel that for many women, a divorce or marital separation is in some way equivalent to Levinson’s mid-life transition which he applied to men.

Another study, by Paul Wink and Ravenna Helson (1993), focuses on the personality change in women after pregnancy and motherhood, compared to the change in their husbands. The women in this study were all educated and graduating from college in the late 50s. It is a linear study including ages 21, 27, 43 and 52.

The husbands of these women were also evaluated at the same time intervals. the first period studied was early parental time. All of the women had a t least one child and only a few continued in pursuing a professional career. The second period studied was post parental and in this stage, more than 70% of the women were now in the labor force. The results showed that at the time of early parental stage, the women were less goal oriented, more facilitative in their interpersonal relationships and in more need of emotional support from others. The men were all full time employed in this stage.

The next stage, the post parental time, almost all of the women were working in the paid labor force at least part time while 35% of their partners had retired or were planning on retiring within years. At this stage, the men were no longer the goal oriented ones and the women were no longer the most facilitative in interpersonal relations. They now had higher levels of self-confidence than their partners. The women’s goals no longer focused on their marriage, but now included their concern with their own assertiveness and their ability to make money (Wink and Helson, 1993). I feel that this later career development is comparable to Levinson’s entering the adult world stage in that the women (though much later in age) now face with many more choices in roles and career direction. The women who enter this phase are beginning a new way of living and also changing their existing life structure. The women and their male partner are not living in the same development stage and this is because their lives are so different.

A study by Ravena Helson and Brent Roberts (1992) suggests that the personality of a woman’s husband was a significant factor in predicting the work history of that woman. Their research focused on the graduates of the Mills college for women (classes of 1958 and 1960) and their total sample consisted of 63 women and their husbands. A longitudinal analysis was conducted to conclude whether a woman’s college goals, their husbands personality and the duration of their marriage affected the woman’s choice to work in the paid work force or as a volunteer. They found that a husband’s personality was the main influence on a woman choosing volunteer work. Also interesting was that the duration of marriage was a factor that influenced the women’s amount of paid work (Helson and Roberts, 1992). This research verifies that women’s choices are not as broad and unlimiting as a young man who enters Levinson’s ‘Entering the Adult World’ phase. A woman’s role and choices were much more predetermined and narrow and this fact alone offers evidence that North American women lead different lives that North American men at the time Levinson’s model originated.

Yet another example of the difference between men and women’s lives (especially during the 50s, 60s, and 70s) is career choices and development of women’s careers. Ornstein and Isabella (1990) found that women find success in their careers at a later time in their lives than men do. Their study consisted of a sample of 422 women who had reached the top level of management in their telecommunications firm. The research was conducted in a questionnaire method. Their research showed that women develop in distinctive patterns, according to Levinson’s model, however, their research indicates that the stages for women do not parallel those of men. They believe that the reason for this is because of the differences found between men and women in their career stages. Ornstein and Isabella explain that women’s careers are often interrupted because of pregnancy and motherhood. They also explain the differences in career stages as a result of the different socialization experiences for men and women. Men are taught that their working career must continue throughout their lifetime and that their sense of identity is the result of their career achievement. Women, however, are raised with conflicting messages, for example, the heavy task of balancing both career and motherhood. The researchers concluded from their study that women at different ages have different goals and values regarding their careers (this is keeping with Levinson’s age related model). However, though the ages between women do correspond, the age group of women does not compare to that of men for the reason that many of the women’s careers do not develop at the same pace as men’s (Ornstein and Isabella, 1990).

Job stress and the differences of stress concerning men and women were the topics of the next study by Rosalind C. Barnett et al. (1993). In this article, research supports the conclusion that there is no gender difference regarding psychological distress (career related). The sample, for this study, consisted of 300 dual-earner couples, all of which were full time employed, well educated and lived in Massachusetts. Their evidence supports the theory that career women endure in their career (Barnett et al., 1993). While the previous articles established that women develop their careers at a different pace than men, this article confirms that career women do encounter the same burdens of the work force that inflict men. This would lead one to assume that women also face the ‘Becoming ones own man’ stage that Levinson believes men encounter. (The BOOM phase suggested that men become unsatisfied in the lack of dependence and constraint they feel in their careers.)

Apart from career stages, women also differ in their Mid-life Transition phase compared to men. In the article by Paul Wink and Ravenna Helson (1993), they believe that mid-life transitions …, of their work become more humanistic in their approach to life and for women to become more career oriented and focus on personal achievement (Wink and Helson, 1993). This difference in the mid-life phase is most likely attributed to the different pace of development concerning careers and personal growth.

This look at the recent studies concerning women and their different life structures, roles and choices, compared to men, offers a better understanding of the inapplicability of Levinson’s model of development stages towards women.

Levinson’s first stage in adulthood development is the ‘Early Adult transition’ period. This transition is from the end of adolescence to the beginning of adulthood. It is most likely that men and women enter this stage at approximately the same time.

The next stage, called ‘Entering the Adult World’ is, on the other hand, different for men and women. As stated in the previously mentioned research many women, educated and career oriented or not (mostly in the 50s, 60s, and 70s), were not offered the broad number of choices that a man at the same age was offered. Women who joined the work force were expected to quit their jobs when they became married or pregnant. Even today, though we have come so far in equal opportunity for men and women, there are still differences between men and women’s roles and responsibilities. The women who were raised more in traditional ways, however, reached the stage where more opportunities were was presented to them, at a much later age than their husbands. This stage for these women came after their husbands retired or planned to retire. Levinson’s stage model does relate to these women because they do eventually reach the stage in which they choose a career role and focus on their own personal achievement (and not just the achievement of their children or their spouse). It is now time for the women to focus on their abilities in their career and for the men to focus on their personal interests.

The above studies showed that the men who enter retirement become more humanistic in their approaches towards their lives. In more modern times, women may enter their career of choice and still become a wife and mother. While their husbands do share in the work concerning the household and child rearing responsibilities, it is the women whose career is put on hold during the last months of pregnancy and the first months of motherhood. Many mothers take much more time off from their careers than the few months of maternal leave that is offered to them. Though women have made great strides in balancing both motherhood and career, it is obviously a challenging task and one that differs from their husband’s. For these women, their career may take a ’slow burn’ to the top. In other words, these working mothers do eventually reach the top ladder rung of success in their field, but because of the interruption in their rise to the top due to child raising, their success is usually slower than their husband’s.

In regard to Levinson’s model of development, the ‘Becoming One’s Own Man’ (or woman) stage may take longer to reach for women than for men. This would also mean that the ‘Age 30 Transition,’ which involves dissatisfaction with their careers and their lack of seniority, may affect women longer, and later than men.

The studies mentioned earlier indicate that there are different stages of career development for men and women. Levinson’s development model is an age-related model, however, he does relate the ages of the men to the stages of their career that they should currently be in. Levinson’s model is not applicable to women in this regard, because women’s ages and their careers do not equal men’s age and their place in their career. If there must be a universal model for human mid-life development, it must include this factor in their theory.

The final difference that will be discussed about the development for men and women in Levinson’s model is the ‘Mid-Life Transition’. While it has been established that this phase is equally troubling for both men and women, it has also been shown that women choose different possibilities in dealing with this transition period. For many women, the beginning of the 40s is also the time when their children are grown up and leave the nest. For these women, opportunities and choices, in the work field, present themselves. However, men are well into their careers and in several years will consider retirement. This obvious difference in their career development is also an indicator of future differences to come as the men and women enter the later part of adulthood. Though Levinson does not offer much detail in the further course of adult development in the later stages of life, he does state that transitions and changes in life structures continue throughout a person’s life.

The before mentioned studies have shown that for women who have just entered the work force at an older age, their focus will be on their personal achievements in their career field. This is a transition for women who have worked at home for the majority of their early adult years. For the men, on the other hand, their transition is to focus on their marriage, children and personal interests. The following years in these stages, for both men and women, will be on different levels of development for the woman and her husband

Conclusion

Levinson’s development model is based on research strictly from men. This bias in his sample illustrates the shortcomings his model contains when related to women. For Levinson to think that a model based on the development patterns of a man can apply to a woman would be to assume that the lives of men and women are the same. Research shows that this is not the case. There is a great deal of differences in the lives of women, compared to men, including career and family goals and the options offered to men and women. While the difference in education and careers are most obvious in the lives of women who were raised in the 40s and 50s, it is still a current issue for the more modern woman. Levinson’s age-related development model is based on the stages of a man’s career and since men and women develop their careers at a different pace, women’s development stages do not coincide with Levinson’s model.

In sum, a developmental model, if it is to apply to both genders must include the difference between man and women and the contrasts between their career development. There is still an embarrassing lack of research on women’s development. Further studies must develop in order to assess how much different men and women, in present modern day, really are in regard to their careers. A common trend occurring among married couples, is to postpone having children until the woman’s career has evolved (early 30s). Research into this pattern of later motherhood will prove necessary in order to understand the similarities and dissimilarities of the careers of men to women. The contrast in careers for men and women is an important place to start in developing a model of development for people because career development and the life structure, goal and personal development, are closely. I guess when Levinson decided to name his study ‘The Mid-Life Transition: A Period in Adult Psychosocial Development’, he really should have called it ‘The Mid-Life Transition: A Period in Men’s Psychosocial Development’ to avoid any misinterpretations.

References

Barnett, Rosalind C. et al . ‘Gender and the Relationship Between Job Experiences and Psychological Distress: A Study of Dual-Earner Couples” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 5, vol. 64 1993, 793-803

Bursik, Krisanne. ‘An Adaptation to Divorce and Ego Development in Adult Women’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2, vol. 60 1991, 300-306

Helson, Ravenna and Brent Roberts. ‘The Personality of Young Adult Couples and Wives’ Work Patterns’ Journal of Personality 3, vol. 60 Sept. 1992, 575-595

Levinson, Daniel J. ‘The Mid-LIfe Transition: A Period in Adult Psychosocial Development.’ Psychiatry, vol. 40 May 1977, 99-112

Ornstein, Suzyn and Lynn Isabella. ‘Age vs. Stage Models of Career Attitudes of Women: A Partial Replication and Extension.’ Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 36 1990, 1-19

Wink, Paul and Ravenna Helson. ‘Personality Change in Women and Their Partners’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3, vol. 60 Sept. 1992, 597-604

Contents Abstract Page 3 Autism Pages 4-7 The Measles Mumps and Rubella (MMR) Vaccine Pages 8-10 Evidence Supporting the Link Between MMR and Autism Pages 11-12 Evidence Abolishing the Link Between MMR and Autism Pages 13-19 Conclusions Pages 20-21 References Pages 22-23 Acknowledgements Page 24 Abstract Considerable concern has been generated as a result of the publication of a paper in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues, who postulated an association between autism and childhood immunisation with the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The passing years have seen a number of media campaigns initiated by the government in an effort to calm the hysterical press and confused families, and to once again restore faith in the MMR vaccine. This paper sets out the facts about autism and measles, mumps and rubella and goes on to critically review the primary evidence surrounding the ‘MMR Debate’. This paper is written with health professionals and parents in mind. Autism ‘Autism’ is word the world is slowly becoming accustomed to hearing. But how many of us can truly say that we know and understand what is meant by the phrase ‘autism’? This section of the report discusses the history, impairments, prevalence and diagnostic criteria of autism. First Accounts Autism was first described by Leo Kanner in 1943 and then again by Asperger in 1944. Both independently used the term ‘autism’ to label a disorder that they described in children whose behaviour followed a category of features (Bishop 1989). At this point, however, there was no attempt to specify defined diagnostic criteria (Bishop 1989). Kanner described two main features in the children he diagnosed to be autistic namely ‘autistic aloneness’ and ‘desire for sameness’. Autistic aloneness refers to the child’s inability to relate to others while ‘desire for sameness’ describes the autistic child’s aversion to change (Smith et al. 2001). In 1978 Rutter suggested that the diagnosis of autism should adopt a structured criterion so as to avoid such chaos as that which reigned for some years after Kanner’s early report (Bishop 1989). While these criterion devised by Rutter have not been without their critics they are widely adopted and form the foundation for the DSM-III and the DSM-III-R (Bishop 1989). The term ‘autism’ is now increasingly being replaced by the concept of a spectrum of autistic disorders, so as to take account of the numerous levels and manifestations of this disorder (Scottish executive 2002). Triad of Impairments Ever since Leo Kanner first described the autistic behaviour pattern, workers in the field have tried to define its essence. This essence has come to be known as the ‘triad of impairments’ affecting social interaction, social communication and imagination (Health Education Board for Scotland 2001). Social Interaction Although most autistic children enjoy certain forms of active physical contact and show attachment on a simple level to parents or carers the child can often appear aloof and indifferent towards others. Often the child will make very little eye contact and initiates interaction only when the help of another is required. It has been suggested that the problem underlying social impairment is lack of the ability to recognise that other people have thoughts and feelings; the absence or impairment of a so-called ‘theory of mind’. Social Communication The problem here is not that the child cannot talk (although a small proportion never develop speech) but that they do not use their vocabularies as tools of social interaction and reciprocal communication. A child can often repeat perfectly what has been said (known as echolalia) but is unable to convey or comprehend information by using words. However, some autistic children are able to ask for their own needs but have difficulty in talking about feelings or thoughts and in understanding the emotions, ideas and beliefs of other people. Imagination In children, inability to play imaginatively with objects or toys or with other children or adults is an outward manifestation of this impairment. Some of these children display a limited range of imaginative activities, which may be pursued repetitively. Some confuse fiction and reality and tell rambling stories they seem to believe are true. The consequence of the impairment of imagination is a very narrow range of repetitive activities or special interests. In addition, their inability to play with other children inevitably means that the autistic child misses out on a vital aspect of development. Prevalence While there appears to be fairly good agreement that autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) affects approximately 60 in every 10, 000 children under 8 years old (Medical Research Council 2001) there is less agreement concerning a rise in prevalence. Recent years have seen divergent views emerging over the question of a rise in autistic spectrum disorders. Table 1 on the following page reviews the literature available concerning the prevalence of ASD’s over the last 20 years. Year Authors Type Measurements Findings 1979 Wing & Gould Study Prevalence (children) 5 per 10,000 children (classic autism)15 per 10,000 (children broader ASD) 1993 Wing Review of 16 studies Prevalence (children) 3.3 to 16 per 10,000 (typical autism) 1993 Ehlers & Gillberg 2-stage total population study Prevalence (children 7-16) Min. 36 per 10,000 children with AS plus equivalent number who did not meet full criteria for ASD 1999 Fombonne Review of 23 studies Prevalence (children) Min. of 18.7 per 10,000 children (all ASD except AS) 1999 Gillberg &Wing Review of epidemiological studies of prevalence of autism Prevalence (children up to 18) 0.7 to 31 per 10,000Estimate made of 1 per 1000 children for classic autism 2000 Powell & Edwards Study of incidence rates 4.8/10,000 p.a. for pre-5 children for “other ASD”3.5/10,000 p.a. for pre-5 children for classic autism 2000 Baird et al. Follow-up population study of prevalence Prevalence (children aged 7) 57.9/10,000 for all ASD’s30.8/10,000 for AD 2000 Centre for Disease Control Survey Prevalence (children 3-10) 67/10,000 for all ASD’s40/10,000 for AD 2001 Chakrabati & Fombonne Prevalence (children 2.5-6.5) 62.6/10,000 for all ASD’s16.8/10,000 for AD45.8/10,000 for other ASD’s including AS Table 1: Reviewing the apparent rise of ASD (Scottish Executive 2002) A review of the literature reveals that ASD’s are considerably more common than previously recognised. However, whether there has been a ‘real’ rise in numbers is unclear. It may be the case that the prevalence of autism has not changed over the years. There have been considerable changes in diagnostic practice as well as public and professional awareness (Scottish Executive 2002). Thus, it could be a combination of these factors and others that create the ‘illusion’ of an increase in autism over the years. Diagnostic Criteria The first symptoms of autism are extremely subtle and thus diagnosis can be extremely complicated. While there are now systematic tools in place for diagnosis, allowing for greater comparability of research studies in the future, we continue to face the disarray posed by the large numbers of studies, which we cannot comfortably contrast due to the different diagnostic criteria employed. The International Classification of Diseases 10th edition (ICD10) is one of the more popular current systems of classification. The table below documents how a child would be diagnosed as having autism using the ICD10. At least 8 of the 16 items must be fulfilled. a. Qualitative Impairments in Reciprocal Social Interaction, as Manifested by at Least 3 of the Following 5:1. Failure adequately to uses eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture and gesture to regulate social interaction.2. Failure to develop peer relationships3. Rarely seeking and using other people for comfort and affection at times of stress/distress and/offering comfort and affection to others when they are showing distress or unhappiness.4. Lack of shared enjoyment in terms of vicarious pleasure in other peoples’ happiness and /or spontaneous seeking to share their own enjoyment through joint involvement with others.5. Lack of socio-emotional reciprocity. b. Qualitative Impairments in Communication:1. Lack of social usage of whatever language skills are present.2. Impairment in make-believe and social imitative play.3. Poor synchrony and lack of reciprocity in conversational interchange.4. Poor flexibility in language expression and relative lack of creativity and fantasy in thought processes.5. Lack of emotional response to other peoples verbal and non-verbal overtures.6. Impaired use of variations in cadence or emphasis to reflect communicative modulation.7. Lack of accompanying gesture to provide emphasis or aid meaning in spoken communication. c. Restricted, Repetitive and Stereotyped Patterns of Behaviour, Interests and Activities, as Manifested by at Least 2 of the Following 6:1. Encompassing preoccupation with stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest.2. Specific attachments to unusual objects.3. Apparently compulsive adherence to specific non-functional routines or rituals.4. Stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms.5. Preoccupations with part-objects or non-functional elements of play material.6. Distress over changes in small, non-functional details of the environment. d. Developmental Abnormalities Must Have Been Present In The first 3 years For The Diagnosis to be Made. Table 2: International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO1992) Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) Vaccine “Immunisation has been one of the greatest health success stories of the last century.” Dr. Mac Armstrong Chief Medical officer of Scotland Measles Notification of measles began in 1940. The next 28 years saw the occurrence of national epidemics every 2 years, with approximately half a million cases of measles noted each year in the United Kingdom. The measles vaccine was introduced in 1968 and by the mid-1980’s notifications of measles had fallen below 100,000 in any one year (Elliman et al. 2001). Measles is extremely infectious and is transmitted through choughs and sneezes. The complications the measles virus can carry with it are numerous and can be very serious, however, these complications are more common and severe in chronically ill children. Table 3 below lists the problems associated with measles and their prevalence. Ear Infection 1 in 20 Pneumonia/bronchitis 1 in 25 Convulsions 1 in 200 Diarrhoea 1 in 6 Meningitis/encephalitis 1 in 1000 Conditions affecting blood clotting 1 in 6000 Late onset SSPE 1 in 8000 children under 2 years Death 1-2 in 1000 reported cases in recent years Table 3: Complications of measles and their prevalence (Health Education Board for Scotland 2001) Mumps Protection against mumps was first offered with the introduction of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination in October 1988. One year after protection was offered there were 3095 mumps notifications. A decade later, this had fallen to only 216 notifications of mumps. Mumps is an acute viral disease transmitted by respitory droplets. Like measles, mumps can have serious complications, discussed in table 4 below. Death is a rare outcome of mumps. Viral meningitis 1 in 20 Encephalitis 1 in 1000 Inflammation of the testicles 4 in 10 adult males Permanent hearing loss 1 in 20 000 Table 4: Complications of mumps and their prevalence (Health Education Board for Scotland 2001) Rubella The rubella vaccine was introduced in 1970 for immunisation of schoolgirls and susceptible women of childbearing age (Elliman et al. 2001). However, this approach had little affect on the circulation of rubella in the community, therefore, universal protection against rubella was offered through introduction of the MMR vaccine in 1988. Rubella is generally a mild illness. If acquired by mothers in early pregnancy, rubella can have devastating effects on their unborn child. The virus affects all foetal organs and can lead to serious birth defects including learning difficulties, deafness and retardation. The likely outcome of infection in pregnancy is related to the time of gestation. Contraction of rubella can also result in a number of complications, shown in table 5 below: Encephalitis 1 in 6000 Birth defects 90% chance baby will have birth defects if mother catches rubella early in pregnancy. Conditions affecting blood clotting 1 in 3000 Table 5: Complications of rubella and their prevalence (Health Education Board for Scotland 2001) MMR Vaccine MMR is a live vaccine. It contains measles, mumps and rubella viruses that have been modified so that they no longer cause disease symptoms in humans (Medical Research Council 2001). The vaccine contains weakened forms of the natural viruses, which give protection against disease. When injected with the vaccine the child’s immune system responds by making antibodies against the viruses (Health Education Board for Scotland 2001). Moreover, the immune system “remembers” the viruses using special cells called lymphocytes, and so if the child were later infected with the real viruses they are rapidly recognised and the immune system responds quickly to destroy the infection. The first dose of the MMR vaccine is routinely given at around 12-15 months and the second between the ages of 4 and 5 years, as part of the pre-school booster programme (Yazbak 2001). The MMR vaccine has been used for 30 years with an excellent safety record. However, as with all vaccinations there is the chance that the child may be ‘hurt’ by the vaccination i.e. the child may have a reaction to the MMR vaccine that causes damage to the child. This damage may include epilepsy, arthritis, allergies, febrile convulsions, meningitis, SSPE and even death. (Fletcher 2001; Health Education Board for Scotland 2001). There are also some children who cannot have the MMR vaccine for varying reasons. These include children with untreated cancer or diseases of the immune system, those receiving immunosuppressive therapy or high dose steroids, children with allergies to neomycin or kanamycin and those who had a severe reaction to a previous MMR vaccine (Health Education Board for Scotland 2001). Worldwide over 500 million doses of the MMR vaccine have been given since the mid-1970’s (Scottish Executive 2002). The UK alone has distributed approximately 13 million doses since it’s introduction in 1988 (Medical Research Council 2001). Single Vaccinations With the reputation of the MMR vaccine coming under fire in the recent years there has been an increased plea for the availability of single vaccinations. Dr. Andrew Wakefield first raised this issue publicly in a 1998 press interview. The suggestion came from a belief that if children catch measles and mumps within 1 year of each other they are more likely to develop Crone’s disease later. It was also claimed that MMR causes excess diarrhoea compared to single vaccines. With the triple vaccine there is a very low risk of reactions due to there being only 2 separate jags needed for adequate protection. However, giving the vaccines separately would mean a child needing a total of 6 injections to complete course. These children would remain unprotected and at the risk of disease for a longer period of time (Scottish Executive 2002; Health Education Board for Scotland 2001; Elliman et al. 2001). In addition, single vaccinations increase the risk of disease, local reactions at the injection site and trauma to the child, not to mention the risk of missing a dose completely. Thus, the result would be to undermine MMR immunisation, reduce population immunity and increase the risk of children catching these diseases. Evidence Supporting Link Between MMR and Autism The suggestion of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism was first made in a Danish TV programme in 1994, by a mother of twins one of whom had autism, which the mother believed was caused by the MMR vaccine (Health Education Board for Scotland 2001). At that time no scientist had proposed a link. In 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield of the Royal Free Hospital in London and his group of researchers published a paper entitled “Illeal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children” in the Lancet. With the publication of this paper the hysteria and confusion, surrounding the MMR vaccine, began. Below is a dissection of Andrew Wakefield’s paper. Unfortunately, despite many attempts to contact Dr. Wakefield he did not reply to any of the questions posed. Thus, instead I have included some comments he has made to the media in recent times, in which he attempts to defend his work. Wakefield 1998 Wakefield’s paper describes 12 children aged between 3 and 10 years of age with developmental and bowel problems. Nine of the 12 children had autism. In eight of these children the onset of their behavioural problems had been linked, either by parental report or by the child’s physician, to the MMR vaccination. Perhaps the most intriguing case Wakefield and colleagues looked at, was one in which a 10 year old boy who received monovalent measles vaccine at 15 months old experienced developmental slowing soon after the vaccination. While these 2 events were not associated at the time, on receipt of the MMR booster at 4.5 years his mother described a ‘remarkable deterioration’ in his behaviour, which she went on to link with the vaccine. The hypothesis put forward by Wakefield and his colleagues was that the MMR vaccine caused a ‘leaky bowel’ allowing a toxin to enter. This effectively prevented the child’s brain from developing normally resulting in autism. Wakefield described this syndrome as “autistic colitis”. The researchers themselves stated that they had not proven this link between autism and the MMR vaccine “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described [autism]…Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence [of autism] or a link with measles, mumps and rubella vaccine” p641. Moreover, both the editors of the Lancet and one of the co-authors have stated that the study did not set out to investigate the role of MMR in the development of developmental disorder (Scottish Executive 2002). There are however, a number of flaws to this study and multiple potential sources of bias. First and foremost the association between autism and the MMR vaccine was based primarily on parental recall. Thus, recall bias is introduced, as parents are likely to connect changes in their child’s behaviour to a memorable event (MacIntyre 2001). It could be the case that the parents of the children studied, incorrectly recalled the time of onset of the first symptoms, as the first symptoms of autism are extremely subtle, and linked it to the MMR vaccinations as it was given at about the time that symptoms of autism became manifest. Furthermore, Wakefield’s paper does not state how the 9 children with supposed ‘behavioural disorders’ were originally diagnosed. Thus, we have no idea what the criterion for individual diagnosis of ‘autism’ was. The most that is said on the subject is as follows “We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers” p637. This study was conducted on highly selective sample of patients all of whom were referred to the Royal Free Hospital for gastrointestinal ailments. It is not feasible to generalise results obtained from such a small number of select participants to the rest of the nation, let alone the world. In addition to the aforementioned problems, Wakefield’s studies had no controls, were unbinded and were not designed to test deltiology or harm (MacIntyre 2001). Therefore, a likely explanation of Wakefield’s results could be a mixture of selection bias and chance association. While it may appear the Wakefield is anti-MMR, and it is indeed very easy to make this assumption, Wakefield himself states that he has always and will continue to advocate that children continue to be protected (Sunday Herald 10.02.2002). However, he does believe that parents should be given the choice over how to vaccinate their children. Wakefield asserts that what he’s advocating through this paper is the presence of the “question mark, a question mark that was put there by parents” (Sunday Herald 10.02.2002 p12). Wakefield believes that while his 1998 paper does not prove causation “there is sufficient anxiety that parents must have a choice” (Sunday Herald 10.02.2002 p13). Evidence Abolishing Link Between MMR and Autism When searching for papers concerning the MMR autism debate I found the greatest proportion of papers whose conclusions demolished the link between the MMR vaccine and autism. However, while it was relatively easy to find out which were the primary studies, getting hold of the articles was somewhat more difficult. From the point of view of a concerned parent this obstacle to the information on the subject could prove very frustrating. Each primary source is critically reviewed and discussed below. These studies have been grouped by country of origin. United Kingdom Studies Taylor et al. 1999 An epidemiological study published in the lancet in June 1999 by Brent Taylor and colleagues looked at the immunisation records of 498 autistic children, identified from special needs/disability records, born between 1979 and 1998. The study was set in eight health districts in North Thames. Of the 498 cases identified 261 were diagnosed with core autism, 166 with atypical autism and 71 with Asperger’s syndrome. In 293 cases diagnosis could be confirmed by the criteria of the International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD10). Moreover, the study is shown to be reliable with inter-rater reliability above 95%. They found reports of autism to be increasing before the introduction of the MMR vaccine and there was no sudden ’step up’ or change in trend of autism after the introduction of MMR; no difference in the age at diagnosis between vaccinated and unvaccinated children; no association between the onset of autism within 18 months after MMR; and no clustering of developmental regression in the months after the MMR vaccination was given. In addition they also noted that uptake of MMR to be the same for autistic children as for the general population. The researchers also looked at the onset of parental concern in 12 time periods, between 1 and 12 months after vaccination. No clustering of parental concern was found, with the exception of one time period, within 6 months after vaccination. They concluded that their findings did not support a causal association between the MMR vaccine and autism due to trends in incidence of autism by birth cohort not being temporally associated with changes in vaccine coverage. “Our results do not support the hypotheses that MMR vaccination is causally related to autism, either its initiation or to the onset of regression.”p2029 While this is a very large population study we must take into account that it was conducted in a very small area of the United Kingdom so we must be careful when generalising the findings reported in this paper to the rest of population. It may be that while MMR coverage did not differ significantly from that in the same birth cohorts in the North East Thames region as a whole this is not to say that it does not vary from other regions throughout Great Britain. In a subsequent publication, in response to a change in hypotheses, Taylor and associates re-analysed their data in relation to the timing of MMR (Farrington et al. 2001). They concluded that there was no evidence of an association was found, providing further evidence against a casual association between MMR vaccination and autistic spectrum disorders. It has been suggested on the ‘Jabs Website’ that the study design used in Taylor’s study is flawed due to the use of case-series analysis, which should only be used with reference to acute events and not chronic events such as autism (Fletcher 2001). Wakefield himself has also criticised the use of this technique by Taylor and colleagues (Wakefield 1999). However, Paddy Farrington the statician working on the paper acknowledges that the case-series method is indeed a valid one to use for “rare chronic disorders of acute onset”(Taylor 1999) Furthermore, Dales et al. (2001) noted that ecological correlations i.e. observations of parallel trends over time, generally speaking, do not constitute strong evidence for a causal association. Kaye et al. 2001 In February 2001 James Kaye and associates published a large-scale study in the British Medical Journal. The study was based in General Practices in the United Kingdom and looked at 305 children, of which 254 were male, aged 12 years or younger diagnosed with autism between 1988 and 1993; with further analysis of boys aged 2 to 5 years also born in this time band. Unfortunately however, analysis was reduced to 114 boys. Approximately 81% of the original subjects were referred to a specialist for the evaluation of their diagnosis of autism. However, the paper does not mention how the remaining 57 participants had been diagnosed. The study reported that there was a seven-fold increase in the diagnosis of autism recorded by UK general practitioners, from 1988 to 1999. Over that same time period there was no change in the proportion of children who had been vaccinated with MMR, which remained at over 95% for the age groups and children in this study. The study authors concluded “the data provided evidence that no correlation exists between the prevalence of MMR vaccination and the rapid increase in the risk of autism over time” due to there being no time correlation existing between the prevalence of the MMR vaccination and the incidence of autism in each birth cohort that they investigated. They go on to acknowledge that the explanation for the notable increase in the incidence of autism throughout the UK remains unexplained. An asset of this study is the use of population-based data in the general practice research database (GPRD) to estimate the birth cohort specific incidence of autism. The data in the GPRD is firmly established to be of high quality and the recording of vaccinations throughout the data are to all intents and purposes complete. However there are also limitations to this study. Kaye and associates did not explore possible explanations for the increase in the incidence of autism over the past decade, nor did they evaluate the full clinical record information from general practitioners, which described the characteristics of children diagnosed with autism. Moreover, it may be the case that Kaye et al. have substantially underestimated autistic spectrum disorders, as the estimated frequency recorded appears to be very low. DeWilde 2001 In March 2001 the British Journal of General Practice published a paper by DeWilde et al. The authors proposed that if there were a close temporal association between MMR vaccination and loss of skills/onset of autistic spectrum disorder then this would be reflected in the increased consultations with the child’s general practitioner. The Doctor’s Independent Network database was used to examine whether children subsequently diagnosed as autistic are more likely to see their GP in the 6 months after MMR vaccination than other non-autistic children. DeWilde et al. concluded that there was no difference in consulting behaviour was seen in the 6 months after the MMR. In addition, the authors commented that any dramatic effect of MMR on behaviour seems unlikely. Perhaps however, parents with autistic children were reluctant to take their children to see the GP for personal or other reasons. This hypothesis was not explored however. Medical Research Council (MRC) 2001 The Medical Research Council was commissioned by the Department of Health to provide a clear picture of what scientific research has revealed about the epidemiology and causes of autism. The report was published in December 2001. The report is split into 6 sections, the bulk of which describes autistic spectrum disorders and their causes. The final section of the report goes on to discuss future research into ASD. Each section of the report answers a question from a ‘lay group’. One such question requires the MRC to examine primary reports, which discuss possible associations between MMR and ASD’s published to date. In looking at these studies the MRC Autism Review concludes that “the current epidemiological evidence does not support the proposed link of MMR to ASD’s” p31. The MRC took account, throughout the review, and in its findings, of relevant “grey” evidence (from parents, case records, and other “non-scientific” sources) in order to gain a more holistic perspective on what is known at present. However, the MRC Review is a very difficult read using technical and ‘jargon’ words throughout the report. Moreover, the report is 91 pages in length making it very laborious to read. Parents may simply not have the time nor the education, which allows them to make sense of the MRC’s findings and recommendations. While the MRC set out to “clarify issues” surrounding the MMR vaccine perhaps they did not fully consider the general public as an audience. Taylor et al. 2002 A further epidemiological study by Taylor and associated investigated evidence of a new variant of autism in relation to the MMR vaccine. This paper was published in February 2002. In total there were 473 participants, 278 children with core autism and 195 with atypical autism, all born between 1979 and 1998. The majority of the subjects were identified from computerised disability registers. Like the previous study classification of autism was made using the criteria of the International Classification of Diseases, tenth revision (ICD10). The study demonstrated that the proportion of children with developmental regression has not changed significantly during the 20 years since 1970. Taylor and colleagues reported evidence to be deficient to support the “new variant” of autism, where MMR is associated with developmental regression. In addition, they found there to be no link between MMR and autism at any time period examined after vaccination. “The single multivariable logistic regression models confirmed no association between MMR vaccination and regression”p327 Information for this study was available from a number of sources including notes from health visitors and hospitals, child development centres and other community records. This level of information allowed a serial record to be made for each child thus creating a fuller picture. However, data were not collected systematically thus the quantity and quality of information gathered was variable. The study also notes the effect of the extensive publicity surrounding the MMR vaccine. In particular it mentions a “bias associated with changes in history given by the parents” p398. The information provided by the parents of the autistic child, therefore, must be treated with considerable care as they may well have been influenced through the media or other such sources. These studies by Taylor and colleagues are the foundation of the Department of Health’s claim that MMR vaccine has no associations with autism. Scottish Executive Report 2002 The report of the ‘MMR expert group’ is one of the most recent papers available. However, at 103 pages long it is not an easy read! The report was established by the Scottish Executive in response to recommendations set out in the Health and Community Care Committee’s report of the enquiry into issues surrounding the alleged relationship between the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and autism. The report itself is split into 6 sections each answering a different question posed to the group. In addition, the report contains a number of specific recommendations to be considered and possibly implemented. The report goes into depth on 3 papers, namely, Taylor et al. (1999), Dales L. (2001) and Peltola et al. (1998). In addition to these, Taylor’s (2002) study was also looked at briefly. The Expert Group have drawn largely on the report of the Medical Research Council published in 2001, and acknowledge that it is this report which provides a substantive and rigorous academic framework for any future work in this area. Unfortunately, reports in the media have undermined the work of the MMR Expert Group. Media speculation brought into question the relationship of the members of the Expert Group and the companies that distribute the MMR vaccine. While any relationship was strongly denied by the Scottish Executive this has perhaps clouded the publics opinion of the report. “The expert group tried to remain immune to the barrage of media speculation about its work and allegations of in-fighting. Such reports may sell newspapers; they were untrue” p2 Ultimately, the MMR Expert group endorsed the view that the combined MMR vaccine is safer than the single dose option. They also concluded that there is no proven link with autism in children and the MMR vaccine. However, the group did call for more research into the causes of autism. North American Study Dales et al. 2001 This paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dales and associates compared time trends in autism and in MMR immunisation coverage in California. This study was a retrospective analysis of MMR immunisation coverage rates among children born in 1980-1994 who were enrolled in California kindergartens. School immunisation records were reviewed to determine retrospectively they age at which they first received the MMR vaccine. Also analysed was the autism caseloads among children born between 1980 and 1994 that were diagnosed with autism and were enrolled in the California Department of Developmental Services regional service centre system. The study showed there to be almost no change in MMR coverage from 1980 through to 1987. There was a modest increase in coverage in the 1988 birth cohort, followed again by a near plateau with modest change over the next 6 years. On the other hand the trend of autistic disorder caseload through to 1994 was increasing. “Essentially no correlations between the secular trend of early childhood MMR immunisation rates in California and the secular trend in numbers of children with autism enrolled in California’s regional service centre system” p1183. Thus, DR. Dales and colleagues concluded that, the lack of correspondence between the trends in MMR coverage and numbers of autistic disorder cases does not support Andrew Wakefield’s hypotheses. The data presented in this paper inevitably has some limitations. It would have been useful to examine individual immunisation and autism records in the same children; however, these could not be linked (Dales et al. 2001). Further, the childhood immunisation coverage data used in this study do not provide the quantification of percentages of children who received the combined MMR vaccine and those who had separate injections of the measles, mumps and rubella components. In addition, due to the system in place in California it is difficult to measure the actual incidence of autism, as it is impossible to know how many children with autism have actually enrolled in the system. Thus, the estimations of children with autism used in this paper are just that, estimations. Finnish Study Peltola et al. 1998 In 1998, Peltola and colleagues published the results of a Finnish study that examined gastro-intestinal symptoms reported prospectively as adverse events in relation to the MMR vaccine. Peltola and colleagues traced children who not only received the MMR vaccine but who also developed gastrointestinal symptoms or signs lasting 24 hours or more at any time, apart from the first hour, following vaccination. The records were further examined to check if these individuals later developed autistic spectrum disorders or other such neurological signs or symptoms. The authors identified 31 cases of gastrointestinal symptoms. They found no child had developed autistic spectrum disorder when followed up for approximately 10 years after vaccination. This report, however, did not examine the relationship of MMR and autism irrespective of gastrointestinal symptoms. Therefore, the study provides us with no useful information on this particular point. Conclusions There are a number of conclusions we can draw from the evidence reviewed. Firstly, it would appear that all epidemiological evidence does not support causal link between the MMR vaccine and “autistic colitis” and autistic spectrum disorders. However, it is important at this point to recognize that these studies cannot prove that the MMR vaccine is safe but can only exclude specified adverse effects with a certain degree of confidence. There are a number of flaws associated with the epidemiological studies, thus leaving room for criticism and concern. While Wakefield has also received numerous criticisms concerning his studies much of this criticism is not in the medical profession, but from those employed by the Department of Health; in other words those who have a policy which is undermined by Wakefield’s work. Nevertheless, it seems highly unlikely that the Department of Health would continue to support the use of a vaccine, which causes more damage to a child than it does good. In the words of Brent Taylor “the scientific argument is over. We are left with the sensation-seeking, hysterical press, confused families (and some confused health professionals) and a few concerned MPs…it’s just a coincidence that MMR was given about the time that symptoms of autism became manifest” (Personal correspondence). Sadly a balanced scientific argument has given way to personal attacks and unreasoned demands for single vaccines. Public confidence in the vaccine has eroded which has lead to a slump in uptake of the vaccine and cases of measles outbreak throughout the United Kingdom. Without a swift change in public opinion measles, mumps and rubella will become commonplace. While the Government have made roads into changing public opinion through their stringent advertising campaigns, this needs to be further enforced. Moreover, Doctors need to present all of the evidence to parents to allow them to make informed decisions. The debate now needs to move past the safety of the MMR vaccine. Children with autism in Britain are ill served by the current fear that MMR causes autism. What of the provisions that need to be made for them and the burden it brings to the children and their families? It is time to leave the MMR debate in the past and focus on possible causes and abnormalities that underlie autism. It is clear from the MRC report that there is a great deal still to be learned concerning autism and this is where we should concentrate our efforts for future research. References Bishop D. V. M. (1989) “Autism, Asperger’s syndrome and semantic-pragmatic disorder: where are the boundaries?” British Journal of Disorders of Communication 24: 107 Dales L., Hammer S. J. and Smith N. J. (2001) “Time trends in autism and in MMR immunisation coverage in California” Journal American Medical Association (JAMA) 285: 1183 DeWilde S., Carey I. M., Richards N., Hilton S. R., Cook D. G. (2001) “Do children who become autistic consult more often after MMR vaccination?” British Journal of General Practice 51: 226 Elliman D. A. C. and Bedford H. E. (2001) “MMR vaccine-worries are not justified” Archives of Disease in Childhood 85: 271 Farrington C. P., Miller E. and Taylor B. (2001) MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association” Vaccine 19: 3632 Fletcher J. (2001) “The controversial MMR vaccine” www.jabs.org.uk; accessed on May 28th 2002 Health Education Board for Scotland (2001) “The MMR discussion pack an information guide for health professionals and parents” Kaye J. A., del Mar Melero-Montes M. and Jick H. (2001) Measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis” British Medical Journal 322: 460 MacIntyre C. R. and MacIntyre P. B. (2001) “MMR, autism and inflammatory bowel disease: responding to patient concerns using an evidence based framework” Medical Journal of Australia 175: 127 Medical Research Council (2001) “MRC review of autism research epidemiology and causes” Peltola H., Patja A., Leinikki P., Valle M., Davidkin I. and Paunio M. (1998) “No evidence for measles, mumps and rubella vaccine-associated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14 year prospective study” Lancet 351: 1327 Scottish Executive (2002) “Measles, Mumps and Rubella; Report of the MMR Expert Group” Smith P. K., Cowie H. and Blades M. (2001) “Understanding Children’s Development” Blackwell Publishers Taylor B., Miller E., Ragnu L., Andrews N., Simmons A. and Stowe J. (2002) “Measles, mumps and rubella vaccination and bowel problems or developmental regression in children with autism: population study” British Medical Journal 324: 393 Taylor B., Miller E., Farrington C. P., Petropoulos M. C., Farot-Mayaud I., LI Jun and Waight P. A. (1999) “Autism and measles, mumps and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association” Lancet 353: 2026 Wakefield A. J., Murch S. H., Anthony A., Linnell J., Casson D. M., Malik M., Berlowitz M., Dhillon A. P., Thomson M. A., Harvey P., Valentine A., Davies S. E. and Walker-Smith J. A. (1998) “Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children” Lancet 351: 637 Wakefield A. J (1999) “MMR vaccination and autism” Lancet 354: 949 Yazbak F. E. (2001) “Measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism- MMR cannot be exonerated without explaining increased incidence of autism” British Medical Journal 323: 163 Newspaper Article Sunday Herald 10.02.2002 “MMR: Will we ever be sure it’s safe?” Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank Maggie McGonigle for all her advice and help throughout my writing as well as Brent Taylor who kindly gave me some personal feedback on his work and the work of others, and who also suggested a number of articles, which I have used in the review. My biggest thank you is to Lloyd Allanson for the wonderful insights he has given me into the world of autism, and whose drawings feature on the cover.

From silent movies to modern films, classic literature, to comic-books, the concept of mind control, or brainwashing is a theme that has been prevalent. Bram Stoker’s Dracula has held the fascination of generations of readers and movie goers alike with his ability to bend the will of his victims with the power of his compelling gaze. In Stanley Kubrik’s A Clock-Work Orange a futuristic society attempts to cure the violent tendencies of its criminals by subjecting them to painful stimuli while forcibly subjecting them to view repeated violent images. Frank Sinatra stars as a man conditioned by the Koreans through the utilization of hypnosis and drugs to be an unwitting political assassin in classic film The Manchurian Candidate. While popular novelist Dean Koontz’ tales abound with insidious top secret experiments in brainwashing conducted by the CIA.

Despite the many instances, including the specific cases to be explored in this paper, in which there is compelling evidence to show that brainwashing techniques can and have been utilized with chillingly effective results, experts continue to disagree as to whether brainwashing is an authentic scientific phenomenon, or as much a fiction as the films and novels in which it is popularly portrayed. The majority view–holding brainwashing to be little more than science fiction– is manifested in the fact that the assertion that one was being mentally controlled or coerced by another generally fails as a defense to criminal charges. This is most notably observed in the cases against Patty Hearst, the Manson accomplices, and those who participated in the atrocities committed in the name of the Third Reich’s “Final Solution” during World War II.

The argument can be made that although evidence of brainwashing was quite convincing at least in the cases of Patricia Hearst–an heiress who was kidnapped and supposedly brainwashed by the Symbionese Liberation Army and was later prosecuted for participating with her kidnappers in an armed robbery,–and Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkle, and Leslie Van Houeten–the Manson girls who will be discussed later in this paper,– the nature of the crimes was such as to make it inconceivable not to hold the participants fully liable for their actions in the absence of proof of insanity as legally defined, whether one actually believed they were brainwashed or not. This is particularly true in the Manson case, where prosecutor Vince Bugliosi himself argued the mind control tactics used by Manson, in an effort to show that it was on his orders that the murders were committed; yet the jury found the girls fully liable for their actions, ultimately sentencing them to death.

Most commentaries on the topic from the field of Psychology can be found in relation to the area of cults. Here where evidence of brainwashing is often all but undeniable, experts still strongly disagree over its existence; in fact, the APA has taken the official position that studies analyzing the use of brainwashing tactics in relation to cults lack scientific validity as does the concept of brainwashing itself. Those who consider brainwashing to be nothing more than a myth, assert that while strong methods of what they would classify as persuasion may be exerted, the human capacity for free will can not be overcome. Lowell Streiker, author of Mind Bending, a text examining cult religions, quotes psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, whose opinion on the matter serves as an excellent summation of this school of thought.

“The critical question thus becomes: What is brainwashing? Are there, as the term implies, two kinds of brains: washed and unwashed? How do we know which is which?

Actually, it is quite simple. Like many dramatic terms, ‘brainwashing’ is a metaphor. A person can no more wash another’s brain with coercion or conversation than he can make him bleed with a cutting remark.

If there is no such thing as brainwashing, what does the metaphor stand for? It stands for one of the most universal human experiences and events, namely for one person influencing another. However, we do not call all types of personal or psychological influences ‘brainwashing.’ We reserve this term for influences of which we disapprove…”(Streiker, 1984, p. 153)

Experts subscribing to the view that brainwashing is indeed a valid concept, while in the minority, are hardly few in number. Respected professionals such as Dr Margaret Singer, Dr Joost Meerloo and have written extensively on the subject and have even testified as to the validity of brainwashing in several criminal and civil cases.

References to the techniques used in mind control, along with suggested methods of treating those who have fallen victim to these techniques, can be readily found in scientific journals. One such reference, printed in the American Journal of Psychotherapy, is an article entitled, Toward a Theory of Therapy with Cultic Victims. Although the question of the scientific validity of brainwashing is not addressed within the article, the authors lay out typical brainwashing techniques in describing experiences patients have been exposed to, and stress the severe psychological damage that may result.

“…This pathology is usually imposed by the following means.

(1) The individual is removed from family and friends.

(2) The individual is taught to ignore and separate from his/her experiential base.

(3) New and sometimes very conflicting philosophical systems are inculcated. Total allegiance to the leader is required and often deification is clearly demanded. Profound fear of talking with others who are not members of the group is constantly reinforced…Individuals are controlled in every aspect of personal life…Personal decision making is negated and methods of teaching not to think or not to feel are practiced and supervised…” (Morse & Morse, 1987, p. 566)

The authors go on to report that those subjected to such tactics can suffer long lasting effects, with many patients exhibiting symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress. In these cases, any contact with stimuli victims had been exposed to during “indoctrination” might cause the victim to display symptoms of “confusion, flashbacks, and panics.”

Another source lending legitimacy to the concept of brainwashing comes from within Congress. The House of Representatives Report on Jonestown–Findings, in describing factors involved in the Jonestown Massacre, states:

“Among the tactics he (Jones) practiced with engineered precision are the following recognized strategies of brain washing:

Isolation from all vestiges of former life, including and especially all sources of information, and substituting himself as the single source of all knowledge, wisdom, and information;

An exacting daily regimen requiring absolute obedience…

Physical pressure, ranging from depravation of food and sleep to the possibility and reality of severe beatings. As a compliment to the physical pressures, he exerted mental pressures on his followers…”(House of Representatives, 1979)

The report goes on to list several other tactics, some specific to Jonestown, and others common to many situations in which brainwashing tactics have been utilized.

The first scientific studies of mind control can be traced to the work of Russian scientist Ivan Pavlov beginning in the early twentieth century. While conducting studies on the canine digestive system, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1904, Pavlov hypothesized that the brain and nervous system played a large part in the digestive process, and began conducting experiments to learn more about this connection. What he discovered was what we now call the process of Classical Conditioning.

The process by which Pavlov first discovered the principals of Classical Conditioning are commonly known by any student who has ever taken a General Psychology course. Studying the connection between digestion and neurological processes, Pavlov began pairing the sounding of a metronome with the immediate introduction of meat powder. He knew that the introduction of the meat powder naturally caused the dog to salivate, but what he discovered was that after repeatedly pairing the stimuli, the sound of the metronome alone would be sufficient to cause the dog to salivate. What is not so commonly known is the progression of Pavlov’s work after this point.

While conducting his experiments in Classical Conditioning, a natural disaster led Pavlov to a fascinating discovery. When a flood swept through Leningrad, Pavlov’s dogs were trapped in their cages. Panic set in as the dogs struggled to keep their heads above the rising water. Fortunately a lab assistant was able to save the animals before the water level reached the top of the cages. Resuming his experiments, he found that, in the majority of the animals, conditioned behavior had been extinguished. Intrigued by this event, the scientist hypothesized that stress caused by the conditions of the flood had led to the extinction, and began to conduct further research on this vein.

Repeated experiments showed that when subjected to prolonged stress, the animals would “break down” and conditioned responses would be extinguished. Terming this response a “protective transmarginal inhibition,” he went on to classify three separate stages of the phenomenon. During the first phase, “equivalent transmarginal inhibition,” dogs showed little distinction in their responses to either strong or weak negative stimuli. In the second stage, termed the “paradoxical” stage, he found that the dog would react more forcefully to a weaker negative stimulus than to a stronger. Of these stages it is the last stage that is of most interest and significance in relation to the concept of brainwashing.

William Sargant,(1957) author of Battle For The Mind, describes the “ultraparadoxical” stage, “…positive conditioned responses suddenly switch to negative ones; and negative ones to positive. The dog may then, for instance, attach itself to a laboratory attendant whom it has previously disliked, and try to attack the master whom it has previously loved. It’s behavior in fact, becomes exactly opposed to all its previous conditioning.”(p. 30) This phase of transmarginal inhibition forms the basis for the concept of brainwashing– to subject an individual to enough stress to induce break down thereby erasing the previously conditioned beliefs, moralities, and attachments that a person once held, and recondition them with those that suit the goals of the person or entity utilizing brainwashing techniques, who will hereafter be referred to as the controller.

In the midst of Pavlov’s studies came the communist revolution in his country. Communist leaders quickly seized on the implications that his work could have in regards to the elimination of political dissent. Methods for which Pavlov’s work had laid the foundations were now used for the “reeducation” of political dissenters, and also to elicit confessions from those whose political dissent was determined to be a danger to the regime. Sargant writes of the effect of these methods, “Many people are also bewildered at the spectacle of an intelligent and hitherto mentally stable person who has brought up for trial behind the Iron Curtain and prevailed upon not only to believe but to proclaim sincerely that all his past actions and ideas were criminally wrong.”(1957, p. 20)

To avoid tarnishing the reputation of a brilliant man whose work lent great contributions to the field of psychology, it must be noted that Pavlov never intended for his experiments to be used for the purposes of human mind control. His intentions were to expand the base of knowledge relating to neurology and brain function with the goal of aiding in the treatment of those who had been exposed to severe stress. He was no sadist, and was as interested in curing his animals as he was in inducing their symptoms. Although the Communist government in the Soviet Union seized on the value of his work, exploiting it towards their own means of interrogation, and “reeducation,” Pavlov was, in fact, openly against government control of the free flow of ideas and speech.(Sargant, 1957)

An understanding of the difference between the concept of brainwashing, and that of intense persuasion is important in the discussion of brainwashing techniques. Because both rely on Classical Conditioning, an explanation of this concept is necessary. In Classical Conditioning, a stimulus that naturally produces a physical or emotional response is repeatedly paired with one that does not. By the repeated pairing of these stimuli, the stimulus that had previously elicited no response will come to elicit the same response as the stimulus with which it was paired, even when no longer paired with the original stimulus.

An example has already been presented with Pavlov’s dogs. When Pavlov presented the dogs with meat powder (the unconditioned stimulus), they naturally salivated (the unconditioned response). The sounding of a metronome(an unconditioned stimulus) produced no such reaction. However, after repeatedly sounding the metronome immediately before presenting the meat powder, the dogs would begin to salivate (conditioned response) at the sounding of the metronome (conditioned stimulus), even in the absence of the meat powder.

A prime example of Conditioning can be seen in television advertisements, where advertisers attempt to pair their products with something consumers are thought to have positive feelings towards, in order to cause the same positive feelings to be transferred to the product. For instance, a recent commercial for Cadillac pairs the image of the automobile cruising a roadway with Led Zeppelin music playing in the background. Most likely through the use of extensive marketing studies, those in charge of the campaign have concluded that Led Zeppelin is popular with the specific consumer audience being targeted, and have further concluded that the music elicits positive feelings within this audience. By pairing the two in commercials, they are hoping that by the principals of Conditioning, these positive feelings will transfer to their product, increasing sales.

Although many would confuse this process with brainwashing it is missing at least two key elements, breakdown, (or as Pavlov termed it, the ultraparadoxal phase of protective transmarginal inhibition,) and isolation. The breaking down of the subject’s prior conditioning, beliefs and values through some sort of stress is a key distinction between simply using the concepts of conditioning to elicit a desired response, and actual brainwashing. While conditioning may be a very effective means of bending the will to one’s objectives, as attested to by the amounts of money advertisers are willing to spend securing song rights and celebrity endorsements, it is not nearly as effective as it would be if a break down were induced.

Going back to the Cadillac commercial, many factors could influence whether conditioning will actually be achieved by any given consumer. Suppose for instance, a consumer is already driving a Lincoln. The consumer may already have positive feelings towards the automobile he is currently driving, although positive feelings toward the Cadillac may have resulted from viewing the advertisement these may not be strong enough to override his feelings toward the Lincoln. Or suppose that after viewing the Cadillac commercial, the consumer then views a commercial for a Hummer featuring Arnold Shwartzenegger; his positive feelings about his favorite action film star transfer to the Hummer, and override any feelings he may have had about the Cadillac.

This leads to another important distinction between simple Conditioning and Brainwashing, isolation. Even when transmarginal inhibition has been achieved it is important that subjects be kept from outside influences that will affect subsequent conditioning. There must be no other alternatives offered to interfere with the belief system the controller is attempting to instill. It will be shown time and time again that those who have been successful in the utilization of brainwashing tactics have either physically isolated their subjects, or employed other tactics to assure that theirs would be the only doctrines available for consideration.

Before any controversies over the subject of brainwashing had ever arisen, before any scientific experimentation in the area had ever been conducted, in fact, before anyone had ever even heard of the term, the basic elements of brainwashing were being exploited. An excellent example of early utilization of these tactics can be found by examining the practices of the Christian Church during its early history.

In the time of the Roman Empire, Christianity was outlawed, and Christians persecuted and forced to operate as underground societies, but with the decline of the Empire came the rise of Christianity. As the erosion of the Roman Empire forced an end to its reign over England and other European countries by 303 A.D., Christianity was recognized as a lawful religion, and Church leaders became perhaps the most powerful force in the lives of the European people.(Stuckey & Roberson, 2001) Although certain crimes such as murder and theft were tried in “secular” courts, the Church had its own court system, known as “ecclesiastic” courts, and people could be tried and punished in these courts for any number of offenses labeled as “crimes against the church.”

The list of crimes for which one could be prosecuted in ecclesiastic courts included, but was not limited to, adultery, fornication, incest, bigamy, defamation, and blasphemy (Stuckey & Roberson, 2001) The crime of blasphemy was a catch-all so to speak, and could include speaking out against the Church, any of its representatives or practices, or any other related “offense” the church saw fit to punish.

Further, the methods of trial employed in instances where one was accused of such crimes, far from actually establishing the guilt or innocence of the accused, was often a death sentence in and of itself. One favorite method of trial, utilized by the church, called “trial by ordeal,” consisted of the accused being forced to place his or her hand in boiling oil, the priest or bishop would then wrap the scalded appendage. If after a prescribed period of time when the wound was unwrapped, it had healed, the person was declared innocent of the charges. This outcome, however, especially in light of the far from sanitary living conditions of the time, was highly improbable. The far more likely result would be that the wound would become infected, and the accused would die a painful death.

The severe stress of living under such tyranny manifested itself in the form of the outbreaks of “mass madness” occurring during the Middle Ages. In one such madness, Tarantism, or St. Vitus’ Dance, individuals would dance frantically for hours on end, believing themselves to have been bitten and subsequently possessed by a spider. Another, “Lycanthropy” manifested itself in individuals who believed themselves to be turning into wolves, having been possessed by the creature. (Comer, 2002)

Utilization of brain washing tactics by the Church reached its apex with the Inquisitions of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Criteria used by Inquisitors in determining who would be accused and subsequently called in for secret examinations were, at best, vague, and there was no way for the people of determining who would be next. Those taken for questioning, being forbidden to tell family and friends where they were going, were at the unmitigated mercy of their Inquisitors.

If during the questioning, these victims were determined to be guilty of heresy, or other crimes against the Church, they were imprisoned, and urged to confess under penalty of torture. The catch to this, (aside from the fact that confession would itself result in a death sentence often in the form of burning at the stake,) was that the confession had to be genuine, under the threat that were it not genuine, the confessor, after being burned to death here on earth would suffer eternal damnation, and continue to burn in the flames of hell. “They had to believe themselves genuinely guilty of crimes suggested by the Inquisitors or conveniently invented by their overwrought imaginations.”(Sargant, 1957, p. 215) The following is a description of the questioning of Joan of Arc:

“The instruments of torture were shown to her, and next to them the torturers…Also present was the usual array of greffiiers de douleurs and the notaries d’angoisse, trained in the indispensable art of picking confessions from the incomprehensible shrieks of the victims. …(she was given) sufficient time to take in the nature of the assembled implements, the pullies and cords, the winches and the rack, the malles and the funnels, the hooks, the gridirons, the knives, the boot, the pincers, and the braziers…Then…Joan was required and advised to make true answer to a number of different points, on pain of being delivered to the officers, who…are here ready to put you to the torture, and thus force you to return into the way of truth, and to acknowledge it, that thus the salvation of your soul and body may be assured…”(Sargant, 1957, p. 215)

Not only were individuals forced to confess to their own indiscretions, but they were often forced to inform against others, including their own families. Husbands were forced to inform against wives, parents against children, and so on. The penalty for failing to come up with adequate information in this area was also torture and death. In this atmosphere the amount of stress was significant. There was no one for an individual to turn to for comfort, even the closest of family members could be the instrument of one’s demise. No one dared speak out against the Church, even to the most trusted of confidants in the most private of atmospheres.

Another tactic employed by the Church to instill fear into people was one which will be seen as common to most of the cases of mass brainwashing presented in this paper. That is the creation of an enemy, protection from which must be perceived by subjects as capable of being provided solely by the person or entity utilizing brainwashing elements. If the fear of whatever enemy is presented is powerful enough, it will serve to create a strong bond of dependency on the controller, who is perceived to provide protection, and the subject, who perceives such protection as vital to his or her well being. The stronger the perceived fear, the stronger the resulting bond is likely to become.

The enemy utilized by the Church inspired enough fear to create an incredibly powerful dependency in the masses. That enemy was Satan, who was perceived as having the power to claim anyone’s soul at any time. The Church held itself out as being the only entity having sufficient power to protect the people from the deceptions of Satan, and only complete faith in the Church, and unconditional adherence to all its policies would be sufficient to protect an individual from the eternal pains of hell.

Considering all of these stresses placed upon the people by the Church, coupled with the generally dismal living conditions of the time, it is not surprising that these techniques were highly successful in ensuring the brainwashing of the masses. The totality of subservience is attested to by the fact that no successful revolt against the tyranny of the Church occurred. The stresses endured by the masses, it could be argued, were sufficient to induce breakdown, leaving them little choice but to fully embrace the ideology of the Church as right and just. The all–encompassing crime of blasphemy was sufficient to ensure that the people were not exposed to any other ideology, nor criticism of any Church policy.

Although the Church had utilized brainwashing tactics without any specific knowledge of the science relating to the process and the communist government of the Soviet Union had subsequently made some use of Pavlov’s scientific findings in obtaining the confessions of political dissenters, the Maoist regime in China was the first to institute a widespread program of conversion based on the utilization of brainwashing tactics. And it was the somewhat successful employment of brainwashing techniques by Maoists to convert American POWs during the Korean War that brought the concept of brainwashing to the attention of the American public. It was also the Maoists who first used an actual word to describe brainwashing techniques. The program they instituted to achieve the conversion of the masses to communist ideology was called, Szu–hsiang kai–tso, loosely translated as “ideological remolding” or “thought reform.”(Walsh, 2001) Prior to the deployment of this program for American POWs, Szu–hsiang kai–tso was employed in Chinese and Korean villages as they fell into Maoist hands.

It is worth noting that although this program was carried out with brutal precision, the original goals of the program were presented in such a way as to at least put forth the appearance that its underlying intensions were altruistic. Mao Tse-tung, leader of the Chinese communist revolution, said that he was instituting this program for the good of the people, rather than to cause them any harm or to impose any form of oppression upon them. “In 1942, Mao Tse-tung himself explained the purpose of thought reform as being to ‘punish the past and warn the future,’ to ’save men by curing their ills’ and to expose errors. The object is like curing a disease. The purpose is to ’save the person, not to cure him to death.’”(Glasser & Possony, 1979, p. 498) Assuming Tse-tung genuinely believed these statements (which he most likely did not,) consideration of the effects of the program in actual practice shows the inherent danger of brainwashing tactics, independent of the outwardly projected intentions of those utilizing such tactics.

The utilization of Szu-hsiang kai-tso, was a highly successful program, carried out in four phases. After villagers had been subjected to severe stress induced by having their village captured by an invading army, charismatic officials would then be sent in to gain the people’s confidence, and would begin the introduction of Communist ideology in a non threatening manner. In this way, these officials would be perceived as protectors against the invading army, regardless of the fact that they themselves were a part of it. “…Communist officials would behave like brothers to the people. Everything was handled in a simple manner, with no unpleasant actions taken. They would use simple slogans for doing things in a different way. The soldiers would sometimes even help the farmers in the field. During that time, the peasants would begin to feel that Communism was truly a better way of life.”(Keckeisen, 2002, p. 71)

During the first phase, having gained the people’s trust, it became effortless for these officials to gather information about the villagers themselves, and the village hierarchy in general. This information was then used to institute the second phase of indoctrination, turning those at the bottom of the hierarchy against those closer to the top. It would be revealed to those of the lower rank that a class reversal was to take place. In accordance with communist principals, they were to be the new elite. The catch was that they would first have to demonstrate allegiance to the party through participating in the overthrow of the upper class.

Once the cooperation of the lower ranks had been secured, Communist leaders would then gather the village together under the pretext of a “town meeting.” Those of status in the village would be called upon to confess their crimes against the lower class. They were in a no win situation; whatever their response, they were to be beaten by chosen members of the lower class. The village had now been successfully divided against itself.

Now that the classes had been divided, the goal of phase three was to turn friends and relatives against each other. It was now time to “purge” the people of their crimes. Individuals were encouraged to confess to their own crimes, as well as to inform on others for past transgressions. The breaking of family ties was specifically targeted. “The Communists organized women’s groups to break family ties, for in China the family had been the basic unit that held the people together. Children were singled out for special praise if they informed on their parents.” (Keckeisen, 2002, p. 71) The last phase seems to have been engineered to induce complete breakdown.

Accusations having been made, it was now time to punish the accused. The punishment was public execution. The preferred manner of execution was either beating or stoning the person to death, and the entire village was forced into the role of executioner. None were exempt from participation in the horrendous ordeal. Husbands, wives, even children of the victims were forced to take their part in the executions. Once sufficient trauma had been induced, Communist leaders placed themselves in the role of saviors. Family ties now broken, in an atmosphere laden with guilt and suspicion, it was they to whom the people would turn for solace. Phase four complete, the road to indoctrination was now perfectly clear. For the villagers, life as they had once known it had come to an end; their minds were now the equivalent of unformed clay, to be shaped at will. On average, the ideological remodeling of an entire village took only eight months.

The onset of the Korean War gave Maoist leaders new subjects on whom to apply the Szu-hsiang kai-tso program, American POWs. One author writes of the situation, “The Korean War was really two conflicts in one. One was the highly publicized battle between the forces of the United Nations and those of North Korea and China, whose goal was the Communist unification of Korea. The other war was fought behind the barbed wire of the prisoner of war cages, with slogans and lectures on political theory. The prize was the hearts and minds of the U.N. POWs, for many of whom the hardest fight began after being taken captive.”(Keckeisen, 2002, p. 70)

Strategies undertaken to achieve the conversion of POWs were similar but not identical to those used within the villages that fell into Communist hands. First, officers were separated from the enlisted men to discourage any leadership under which the men might band together in resistance to indoctrination. Thereafter, officials treated newly arriving prisoners much as villagers subjected to the first phase of Szu-hsiang kai-tso had been treated. Officials well versed in the English language, and having knowledge of American history and customs were employed to gain the confidence of the men, and elicit person information from them. Prisoners were also instructed to fill out forms detailing a variety of personal information.

To assure that the information provided would be as accurate and comprehensive as possible, prisoners were told these forms had originated from, and were to be returned to, the Red Cross. In actuality, they were developed by the Maoists themselves, and information obtained through them would be used to determine individual strategies for indoctrination.

Once the confidence of the men had been gained, and enough personal information about each individual had been obtained, indoctrination began. Methods of indoctrination varied from case to case in accordance with what had been determined to be each individual’s particular strengths weaknesses, beliefs and prejudices. Some were rewarded for any signs of compliance, given better food, blankets, and improved living conditions. For others harsher conditions were imposed, including food and sleep deprivation, and occasionally physical torture. In all cases Communist ideology was constantly preached, and soldiers were urged to make confessions concerning the war crimes perpetrated by American forces, chief among these being the use of biological weapons. Respected Psychiatrist, Joost A.M. Meerloo (1956) describes some of the means employed to induce the break down of POWs:

“If a prisoner resisted Communist doctrines, his life became easier…but if a prisoner resisted…the tortures applied included:

Making a prisoner stand at attention or sit with legs outstretched in complete silence from 4:30am to 11pm and constantly awakening him during the few hours allowed for sleep.

Keeping prisoners in solitary confinement in boxes about five by three by two feet.

Withholding liquids for days ‘to help self reflection.’

Binding a prisoner with rope passed over a beam, one end fixed as a hangman’s noose round his neck and the other tied to his ankles. He was then told that if he slipped or bent his knees he would be committing suicide.

Forcing a prisoner to kneel on jagged rocks and hold a large rock over his head with his arms extended. It took a man who had undergone this treatment days to recover the ability to walk.

At one camp North Korean jailers pushed a pencil like piece of wood through a hole in the cell door and made the prisoner hold the inner end in his teeth. Without warning a sentry would knock the outer end sideways, breaking the man’s teeth or splitting the side of his mouth. Sometimes the rod was rammed inward against the back of the mouth or down the throat.

Prisoners were marched barefoot to the frozen Yalu River, water poured over their feet and they were kept for hours with their feet frozen to the ice to reflect on their crimes.”(Meerloo, 1956, ch.1, p. 9)

Under these conditions many soldiers actually did write and sign detailed confessions as to their participation in fictitious war crimes. Although most recanted these confessions upon their return to the United States, many stated that the coercion they had been subjected to was of such extent that their resulting confusion caused them to believe these statements to be true at the time. The American government gave credence to the effect of brainwashing tactics employed on these soldiers. Of the 565 soldiers investigated, only 47 were tried for treason in connection with false confessions made against their country, and of these, only 12 were held to be responsible for their actions. (Keckeisen, 2002, p. 71)

Aside from the obtainment of many false confessions against themselves and their country, signed by trained soldiers, the success of Korean brainwashing tactics is apparent; at the conclusion of the war, when POWs were to be released, 21 American soldiers refused repatriation. Twenty one soldiers, trained to resist torture and other forms of interrogation by the enemy, men who had bravely fought for their country, now refused the chance to return home.

Although Maoists deliberately used a well planned brainwashing strategy, knowledge of scientific studies in brainwashing and a deliberately engineered program based on these techniques is not necessary to achieve these results. Those perceptive in human nature may manipulate others to their will using similar techniques, and obtaining similar results without ever having knowledge of the techniques discovered by Pavlov, those used by communist governments, or even the concept of brainwashing itself. Such will be shown to be true of “cult” leaders who manipulate their followers to the point that they seem to be nothing more than unthinking robots whose only impetus is to follow their leader’s commands.

The Manson Family and Jonestown congregation offer convincing evidence that brainwashing techniques may be successfully utilized to the extent that individuals may be manipulated into doing anything the controller might command. Some may even be brought to the point at which they will have little compunction against even the breaking of what most would consider the ultimate taboo, the taking of human life. An examination of these two cults will explore the brainwashing techniques exploited by Manson and Jones, and determine what–if any–characteristics of their members would have made them more receptive to such techniques. Were these individuals truly responsible for their own actions? Were they merely puppets, reduced to the point at which their every thought and action had become controlled by the orchestration of diabolical puppeteers? Or, as prosecutor Bugliosi would argue in the Manson case, was it a combination of both?

On the morning of August 9, 1969, Winfred Chapman, a maid employed at the home of actress Sharon Tate, reported to work at 10050 Ciello Drive at 8am as usual. Minutes later, her screams, “Murder! Death! Bodies, Blood!” shattered the stillness of the morning in the quiet Bel Air neighborhood, as she fled from the horrific scene.

Arriving on the scene a short time after, LAPD officers, well accustomed to investigating scenes where victims had met with violent ends, were confronted with a scene more horrendous than any they had previously encountered. The body of eighteen year old Steven Parent was discovered in the driveway, still in his vehicle, he had been shot 4 times. Defensive stab wounds to his hand showed he was aware of his attackers and struggled for his life. The bodies of heiress, Abigail Folger and film director, Voytec Frykowski were found outside the residence; Folger had been stabbed 28 times. Frykowski had been stabbed 51 times, struck over the head with a blunt object (later discovered to be the gun used in the shootings–the handgrip had been broken due to the extent of the force of the blow), and had been shot twice. In the blood drenched living room of the home, lay the brutalized bodies of well–known Hollywood “hairstylist to the stars,” Jay Sebring, and beautiful actress, Sharon Tate. Both were bound with rope. Sebring had been stabbed 7 times, and shot once. Tate had been stabbed 16 times. Tragically, she had been in her eighth month of pregnancy with a baby boy, whom doctors would determine could have been saved had Tate’s body been discovered within 20 minutes of her death. Written on the front, door in what would later be determined to be Tate’s blood, was the word “PIG.”

The next day, Frank and Susan Struthers, the children of Rosemary LaBianca, arrived at the home of their mother and stepfather, Leno LaBianca, at around 9:30pm. Frank had arrived home earlier; confronted with the unusual situation of drawn shades, the teenager had become uneasy. When his knocks on the door received no reply, he walked down the street, phoning his older sister for assistance. Upon entering the home, Joe Dorgan, who had accompanied Susan, discovered the mutilated body of Leno LaBianca, and phoned police.

Arriving at the LaBianca home, (within the same vicinity as Ciello Drive, scene of the Tate murders) police were again confronted with a scene of surrealistic brutality. Leno LaBianca, discovered in the living room of the home had been stabbed 26 times. His hands were tied with a leather thong and a cord was wrapped around his neck. The word “WAR” had been caved into his stomach with a two–prong fork which now protruded from his throat. Rosemary was found in the couple’s bedroom. Her hands were also tied. She had been brutally stabbed 41 times; a number of the wounds later determined to have been inflicted post mortem. Printed on a wall was the word “RISE,” on another, “DEATH TO PIGS,” and on the refrigerator, “HELTER SKELTOR.” Like the epitaph from Ciello Drive, the words were printed in the victims’ blood.

The perpetrators of these crimes were not drug dealers, as the police first suspected in the Tate case. They were not Satanists, as the newspapers speculated, and they were certainly not participants in a robbery gone wrong. The individuals accused, and ultimately held responsible for the heinous crimes, turned out to be three girls barely out of their teens, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkle and Leslie VanHouten, a boy of the same age, Tex Watkins, and a rather small, intense looking man in his early thirties named Charles Manson.

As the perpetrators were not those to be expected to commit such a heinous crime, even more remote from the ordinary was the motive. In fact the motive was one that was completely original–Helter Skelter. A song included on the Beatles’ White Album, Manson read sinister meaning into the words of Helter Skelter, determining its true meaning to be a racial war between blacks and whites.

Chief among the ideologies Manson preached to his “Family,” was the idea that the Beatles, whom he believed to be the four horsemen of the apocalypse, were speaking to him through their music. One of the things they were trying to tell him was that “Helter Skelter is coming down fast.”(a phrase often repeated by members of the Family, and found written on a door recovered from the Spahn Ranch which was admitted into evidence in the trial.) This racial war would be the apocalypse prophesized in Revelation 9 of the Bible (to which he thought the White Album’s Revolution#9 referred ) The only whites to survive Helter Skelter would be himself, and those loyal to him, whom he would take with him to hide in a “bottomless pit” to wait out the war. This bottomless pit would be Utopia, the legendary cities of gold and lands of milk and honey combined. It was, Manson said, somewhere in Death Valley.

Another thing he told his followers was that he, himself, was Jesus Christ, or JC, as Manson referred to him. He also taught that there was no right or wrong, “anything you do is right” Just do what “your love” tells you he would say; and at other times, “I am your love.”

At some point, Manson decided that Helter Skelter was not “coming down” quickly enough. Many of those associated with the Family heard Manson state that something would have to be done to get the war started, “whitey” would have to show “blackey” how to do it. On two consecutive nights in August of ‘69, Manson told selected Family members to put on dark clothes, arm themselves with knives, and get into a car. This was not the first time Family members had been ordered to do such a thing.

In what appears to be a calculated attempt to prepare followers for what was to come, Manson instituted the practice of regularly ordering his followers to carry out what he referred to as “creepy crawly missions.” During these missions, Family members would dress in dark clothing, arm themselves with knives, and break into homes selected by Manson. Although the residents of the homes targeted for these missions were not harmed, and in fact were not even made aware of the Family’s presence, they served as rehearsals for the brutal crimes which were to be committed. Whether consciously or not, Manson’s employment of these creepy crawly missions likely served to erode taboos which may have existed in his followers minds, thus limiting their capacity to commit the atrocities he would later order them to carry out.

On the first night, Manson’s commands were directed to Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkle, Linda Kasabian, and Tex Watkins. It seems Watkins had earlier been instructed by Manson as to the details of what was to be done that night. The girls on the other hand were instructed only to do exactly as Watkins indicated. All, with the exception of Kasabian (who did follow instructions to the point of going along with the others, and helping to conceal evidence after the crimes, but did not participate in the murders) obeyed without question. The massacre of Sharon Tate, Abigail Folger, Voytec Frykowski, Jay Sebring, and Steve Parent was the result.

On the second night, Manson again ordered selected Family members into a car, but this time he himself was driving. He drove to 3301 Waverly Drive, and entered the house alone. Returning to the car after some time, he said that he had tied the occupants, and that they were calm, as they did not know that they were going to die. He ordered Krenwinkle, Leslie VanHouten (who had not been along the previous night,) Atkins, and Watkins to get out of the car. He then drove away, telling them to hitch a ride home when they were finished. This time there was no dissent, all complied. The brutal murders of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca resulted.

Had Manson simply preached his warped ideology to his followers, and had they acted on his orders simply because of their belief in him, this would certainly not fall under the definition of brainwashing as has been presented. Were this to have been the case, it could clearly have been said that Manson exerted a strong influence over his followers, yet their decision to act on his commands was one made of their own free will, and was one for which they were undoubtedly fully accountable. This, however was not the case, as an examination of Family life will show, the strategies exploited by Manson match quite closely with those necessary to achieve brainwashing.

Charles Milles Manson was born in 1934, the illegitimate son of an alcoholic mother, who apparently did not want the child. Bounced back and forth between his mother and other relatives in his youth, Manson’s first brush with the law came in 1948, when at only thirteen years of age, he was convicted of armed robbery and subsequently sentenced to a juvenile facility. After his release, Manson continued to commit various offenses, drifting in and out of the prison system, until ultimately being convicted for a violation of the Mann Act, Manson and sentenced to a federal penitentiary for ten years.

Released at the age of 32, after having spent the better part of his life behind bars, Manson drifted to Haight-Ashberry, where he found the accepted lifestyle of drug use, panhandling, and “free-love,” quite suitable. It was here that he met Mary Brunner, an unattractive librarian, who was to become the first member of the Manson Family.

Although Brunner at first objected to Manson’s bringing other women into their home, Manson’s charm and manipulation ultimately won her over, and in a short time he had attracted many other young girls, including Catherine Share and Lynette Fromme to form the core of his Family. Using the favors of the women as a lure, Manson began to convince young men to join his growing commune as well. The men, he would in turn utilize to draw more women. The group drifted from place to place, increasing in number, and finally settling at Spahn Ranch.

Every aspect of life at the ranch was completely controlled by Manson. Where and when to eat or sleep, when, how and with whom to have sexual relations, even names individuals were to use– all were dictated. Manson often spoke about the necessity for the death of the ego. Family members were encouraged to give up their own identity, merging with the group. Personal possessions were not allowed, even clothing was kept in a communal pile for all to share. To this end, Manson discouraged followers from using their own names and gave them aliases to use in their place. Even these aliases were not their own, and like the clothing kept in the community pile, they were often used interchangeably among Family members.

Manson himself used such an alias, claiming his own middle name to be Wilson. This alias however had nothing to do with the demise of his own ego. Rather it was another tool of manipulation. As Susan Atkins, (christened by Manson as Sadie Mae Glutz among other names,) would later explain the meaning of his chosen name: “Charles’ Will is Man’s Son;” further proof for his audience that he was indeed Jesus Christ, and his commands were to be followed.

Even children were not exempt from Manson’s design to strip the Family of all personal possessions and identity. In the Manson Family, mothers were not allowed to raise their own children. Stripping the women of this most basic of human instincts, to love and care for their own offspring, further alienated them from both their own sense of identity and from society around them, thus reinforcing their subservience to Manson.

Another method commonly employed in brainwashing, is the disorientation of the subjects as to the passage of time. Significantly, there were no calendars or clocks on the Spahn Ranch.

Perhaps the most effective tool utilized to achieve the breakdown of Family members was Manson’s method of using their own sexuality against them. Upon the introduction of a new female into the Family, Manson would have sex with the girl regardless of whether or not she was willing. During this encounter, he would discover any negative feelings she might have about her own body and would then exploit these negative self images to his own means, on the one hand telling her that he found her body beautiful, and on the other subtly emphasizing the negative aspects. This ritual was usually performed with the girl being forced to stand naked in front of a mirror.

He also encouraged all Family members to abandon whatever morality or personal boundaries they might have concerning sexual encounters, which he labeled “sexual hang–ups.” After discovering an individual’s personal sexual taboos, he would then force them to perform these acts with either himself or other Family members. Although he often condemned homosexuality, there were several instances in which he forced himself on heterosexual males in the group, both privately and in the presence of others. This too, he justified as being a necessary means of eradicating sexual hang-ups. Dr. David Smith, when questioned by prosecutors concerning the extent of Manson’s control over his Family, commented as to these tactics of sexual control, “A new girl in Charlie’s Family would bring with her a certain middle class morality. The first thing that Charlie did was to see that all this was worn down. That way he was able to eliminate the controls that normally govern our lives.” (Bugliosi & Gentry, 1974, p. 164) Another method of sexual exploitation favored by Manson was to conduct group orgies, during which he would orchestrate every move, including the pairing of sexual partners, and the acts they would perform.

In the instance that sexual exploitation and manipulation proved insufficient to cause breakdown and total unquestioning obedience, Manson was not above using physical punishments to achieve these results. One Family member whom he singled out in particular was sixteen year old Dianne Lake who, among other abuses, was punched in the face and whipped with an electrical cord by Manson for disobedience. The girl was later institutionalized, and required psychiatric treatment to help her recover from the damage Manson’s abuse had caused.

If life in the Family was so abusive, than why did new members choose to stay? Although on the face of things, Manson’s followers were free to come and go as they pleased, making it seem unlikely that he achieved the isolation of his subjects, a close analysis proves this not to be the case. Manson’s tactics of stripping individuals of their “egos,” and their children as well as his sexual exploitation, served as the first step in isolating them from society as a whole. Finally, the presentation of a common enemy, in the form of the “establishment” ensured that this isolation would be complete.

The “establishment,” already resented by many young people of the time, included almost all adults (or at least those over thirty). In Manson’s case it also included former friends, and actual family members, anyone who was not a member of, or in close association with, the Family. These were the “pigs” to whom the bloody epitaphs written at the scenes of the massacres referred. Manson’s introduction of another “enemy,” the black race, and the atrocities they would supposedly inflict on the whites at the onset of Helter Skelter, served to further foster the Family’s fear and dependency, making them extremely hesitant to leave the group.

Even had these conditions not existed, there remained the fact that the freedom to come and go at will was not as clearly available as it might seem. Those who did try to escape the Family lived in constant fear of being hunted down and either brought back or killed. As police later discovered, there were instances in which fleeing Family members actually were hunted, and were lucky to have escaped with their lives.

After the point of breakdown had been reached, Manson assured that there would be no conflict with the indoctrination of his ideology by discouraging any questions of his sermons. If something he said did not seem to make sense (there were a large number of contradictions in Manson’s philosophy) followers were directed to accept it at face value, questions of clarification were simply forbidden. Family members were frequently rebuked for asking questions, and Manson made it clear that free thinking was not to be tolerated.

This prohibition against questioning extended not only to verbal inquires, but also to one’s own thoughts. This was especially true in the case of the women, who were constantly told they were inferior and not capable of rational thought. A woman’s function, according to Manson, was limited to pleasing men and bearing children, nothing more. This inferiority was instilled with as much fervor as any other of Manson’s tenets, and there is no doubt that the vast majority of Family members believed it to be true.

Manson’s followers were encouraged in the belief that Manson, being the messiah, had the power to read minds, and so they would not have been likely to allow themselves to internally question any of Manson’s teachings. Manson was so skillful at manipulating others into believing that he had this power, that not only did most of his followers firmly believed this to be true, but many individuals with whom Manson came into contact outside of the group also perceived Manson as having supernatural powers. Many earnestly reported detecting strong “vibes” emanating from Manson even outside of his physical presence. Even Vince Bugliosi (the prosecutor in the Manson trial) admitted to having a moment of doubt as to Manson’s professed powers, when after a knowing look from Manson, his watch stopped on the spot.

Given the fact that many who had not been exposed to brainwashing tactics applied by Manson were nonetheless persuaded by his manipulations into believing that he possessed some form of supernatural power, it is not surprising that Family members who were exposed to such tactics fell under his power to the extent that they did.

If the fact that the girls, after being subjected to the tactics described, obeyed Manson’s orders to the point of committing brutal murders for which they had no apparent motive of their own is not enough to convince skeptics that they had become victims of brainwashing, than their actions during their trial may be. Further attestation to the success of Manson’s brainwashing techniques can be found in the fact that these girls were actually willing to die for him themselves. Charged with murder, and faced with the death penalty, Susan Atkins, Patricia Krenwinkle and Leslie VanHoueten actually allowed Manson to run their defense.

Despite the impassioned and persistent pleas of their respective attorneys, the girls rejected defenses which, if not entirely clearing them of charges against them, would likely have resulted in conviction of a lesser charge than murder in the first degree. Had the girls rejected Manson’s wishes and taken the advice of their attorneys, it is probable that the death penalty would not have been sought. Instead, they continued to follow the command of their puppet master.

Susan Atkins, at Manson’s urging, refused a plea bargain offered by the prosecution which would have resulted in her being charged only with murder in the second degree. Further, none of the girls allowed their attorneys to present any psychiatric testimony concerning the effects that Manson’s tactics may have had on their mental culpability for the crimes with which they were charged. In fact as per Manson’s wishes, and with the girls’ consent, none of the defense attorneys presented any case at all on behalf of their clients.

Aside from allowing Manson to effectively eliminate any hope that they might escape a sentence of death, additional manifestations of the effect of Manson’s tactics can be seen in the girls’ behavior throughout the trial. Not only did none of the three display the slightest sign of remorse for what they had done, but they seemed to have completely failed to appreciate the seriousness of the proceeding. Instead of paying attention to evidence being presented against them, they spent their courtroom time sketching, giggling, and whispering amongst themselves. In general, the girls acted though the entire process was an incredibly boring waste of time.

When such behavior is looked at from a psychological standpoint it would seem to reflect symptoms, such as flat or inappropriate affect, often indicative of severe psychological disturbance. Whether or not a professional psychiatric evaluation would have found this to be the case can only be speculated upon. No such evaluation was ever made public. And as no evidence of the effects of Manson’s tactics was allowed to be presented during the guilt phase of the trial, neither was any such evidence concerning the girls behavior ever offered during the sentencing phase. Without the benefit of any such mitigating testimony, this strange attitude continued through the sentencing phase of the trial. This totally inappropriate and offensive behavior may have held even greater weight with the jury than any evidence presented by the prosecution. The young girls were seen as cold blooded, remorseless deviants deserving of nothing less than the severest of penalties. All three of the girls, along with Manson himself, were sentenced to death.

These girls were no angels. Even before meeting Manson, all three already lived within the counterculture that existed in California at the time. They were all involved in the illegal use of narcotics to one extent or another, and all had had multiple sexual partners. But the same could have been said of many young men and women of the time. They had never been arrested for any violent crime, and no one who knew them would have imagined that they were capable of carrying out the atrocities for which they were convicted. Had they not met Manson, they, like other former “hippies,” would most likely have outgrown their rebellious stage, settling down to lead normal– or at least not seriously criminal lives.

If these girls were in fact victims of the effects of brainwashing, than they were again victimized by the sentence to which they were condemned. Although the sentence–after a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court which temporarily declared the death penalties of all 50 states to be in violation of the Constitution–was converted to life imprisonment, it seems highly unlikely that any of the girls, now women in their 50’s, will ever have a chance of living a normal life outside of prison walls. If the concept of brainwashing is considered, Manson’s tactics led not only to the horrific deaths of seven innocent people, but also effectively took the lives of those who, having fallen under his complete control, were robbed of the ability to think for themselves, and subsequently committed murder at his command.

Those who would argue brainwashing is a nothing more than a fiction may point to the fact that members of the Manson Family were individuals already possessed of criminal tendencies, drawn to a guru with those same tendencies. The ensuing group dynamic facilitated the release of what inhibitions these individuals may have possessed allowing for the commission of heinous crimes; crimes they already possessed the capacity to commit. Although this argument may hold some weight in the case of the Manson Family, the same can certainly not be said of the tragic fate of 913 members of the People’s Temple in Jonestown.

Far from a criminal or deviant outcast from society, Jones outwardly projected the ideals toward which society strives. His philosophy appeared simply to advocate the furtherance of such altruistic practices as charity, brotherly love, and racial equality. His followers, although possibly lonely, possibly searching for companionship, faith, love, or something to bring a deeper meaning to their lives, were certainly unlikely to have possessed any criminal tendencies. They were men, women and children, black and white, old and young, well to do, middle class, and poverty stricken, yet all fell under Jones’ control.

On November 18, 1978, the bodies of US Congressmen Ryan, along with those of four individuals who had joined his party were discovered at an airstrip. Ryan and his colleagues had traveled to Jonestown, Guyana to investigate allegations of abuse within the community. They were subsequently murdered by members of the congregation who professed to have sought Ryan’s assistance in escaping the commune. Soon after, came the shocking discovery of the fate of those who had remained behind.

The commune at Jonestown, where so many had hoped to live a life of peace, and harmony, had become the scene of one of the most appalling massacres the world had witnessed outside of the context of war. One author writes of the congregations’ hopes for Utopia, “…eager to live the dream of an agricultural commune where they would pursue socialism and racial harmony. They built cottages, workshops and dormitories in tidy rows, grew fruit and vegetables and raised chickens and pigs…They made their own shoes, educated their children, and cared for the old and the sick.”(Suicides, 1997) This dream, however, would soon become a nightmare. At the conclusion of it all, the bodies of 913 men, women and children were found scattered throughout the compound, most the victims of poisoning, others shot to death, while apparently attempting to escape their fate.

It was later discovered that the majority of individuals had committed suicide, voluntarily consuming a beverage which they knew to be laced with cyanide. Those who did not, or could not, voluntarily do so were murdered by other members of the congregation. Parents murdered their infants by feeding them the poison. “The babies and small children, over two hundred of them, were the first (to die) with the poison poured into their mouths with syringes…One or two women who felt that the children should be able to live protested, but they were soon reassured…As parents watched their children die, they too swallowed the fatal poison.”(Steele, n.d.) “According to one witness, “…a little girl kept spitting out the poison until they held her mouth closed and forced her to swallow.”(Harray, 1992, p. 66)

How could such a thing have happened? What was it that brought ordinary people, seemingly wanting nothing more than to live their lives in peace and harmony with their fellow man, to the point at which they ended up committing suicide and murder? Attempting to answer this question, Joel Greenburg, in a 1979 article writes,

“In the year since that grisly slaughter in the forest shrouded commune, behavioral scientists have been conducting their own ‘psychological autopsies’ on the forces that would ultimately drive members of an entire community to knowingly drink grape punch laced with lethal amounts of cyanide…they have begun to shed light on Jones’ awesome power and control over his ‘flock.’ And in the end it was this very twisted and primitive idea of power that dictated the downfall of Jonestown…” (p. 378)

Following this path a step further, an examination of the congregation and its history shows strong evidence pointing to the conclusion that the answer lies in Jones’ successful utilization of brainwashing tactics.

As opposed to Manson, who having spent most of his life in correctional institutions, was decidedly one of society’s outcastes, Jim Jones, the self styled guru who would eventually mastermind the tragic death of hundreds of his followers, had managed to earn a position of respect in California society. Born in 1931, to parents of modest means, too busy struggling to put food on the family table than to pay much attention to the boy, Jones found a home in a fringe Pentecostal congregation called the Gospel Tabernacle. Although the Gospel Tabernacle was not exactly a mainstream religious institution in Jones’ hometown of Lyn, Indiana, “its members dwelt on the fringes of the community and were known as holy rollers and tongues people by the more conservative community of Lyn,”(Steele, n.d.) Jones nevertheless gained useful skills from his time with the church, which he would later use as a springboard to gaining a position in the community. It was here that he first saw the powerful potential in staging “spiritual healing,” and, more importantly, it was here that he first began preaching, and realized by the praise he received for it, the captivating effect he could hold over an audience.

Encouraged by his success within the congregation, in his early teens, Jones struck out on his own and began preaching his own brand of philosophy on the streets of Indiana. His speeches at this time, having more to do with social reform than religion, centered on the idea of attaining equality and brotherhood for people of all races and social classes. While his philosophy sounded altruistic, he was privately developing an urge for personal power, idolizing such iniquitous dictators as Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin. This urge for power led him to begin to exploit more extravagant tactics in order to draw larger audiences during his sermons. By his early twenties he was successfully applying the faith healing skills he had learned from his time with the Gospel Tabernacle.

His charismatic presence and extravagant healings paid off, and by 1956 his following was large enough to allow him to start his own congregation, The People’s Temple. Far from resembling the seedy hippie commune founded by Manson at the Spahn Ranch, The People’s Temple, opening a soup kitchen and instituting other charitable programs, quickly established itself as a respected institution within the community, to the point that Jones was eventually appointed head of the Indianapolis Human Rights Commission. With this appointment Jones, and his philosophy, came into the public eye, and many in the conservative Midwestern community began to criticize his liberal political beliefs.

Not one to suffer criticism lightly, Jones began seeking a more amiable location for the People’s Temple. Under the pretext that the Midwest would be a likely target in the event of a nuclear attack, Jones began a two year trek in search of a “safer” place to move the People’s Temple Congregation. After considering locations in Hawaii, Brazil, and Guyana, (where he would ultimately move his congregation in 1977,) he settled on Ukiah, California, moving his congregation there in 1965.

The early years in Ukiah were trying ones for Jones. His wife, because of his controlling behavior and constant philandering, filed for divorce. His congregation, of which only 68 chose to relocate, was thus decreased in number, was lacking in funding, and facing extinction. But Jones would not let his gambit for power die easily. In 1968, he applied for affiliation with a large church called the Disciples of Christ.

The grant of affiliation was the turning point for the People’s Temple. Provided with tax exempt status and church funding, Jones was able to institute many of the same programs that he had started in Indiana. His esteem in the community began to increase, and by 1973, his congregation was over two thousand strong and growing. Affiliation with the church however, did not mean adherence to its tenants. Jones accepted the benefits provided, then ignored the tenants of the Disciples of Christ, and continued to run his congregation as he chose. “With very little supervision from the church administration, Jones was able to ignore its requirement for Holy Communion and Baptism; instead he preached socialism and baptized new members ‘in the holy name of socialism.’” (Steele, n.d.)

Individuals joining the People’s Temple had no way of knowing that they would come under the influence of a megalomaniac who would employ insidious means to take control of their very will. Jones was considered a legitimate Minister, a respected member of the community (even if his “liberal” politics still came under criticism from more conservative elements) and he had even been appointed to the California Housing Authority. Although stronger mind control tactics would not be employed until the group was moved to Guyana, the foundations for these tactics was being laid subtle stages even while the congregation was still based in California.

As previously stated, Jones used his “faith healings” to attract new members to his congregation. As his hunger for power and control grew, so too did the scope of these showings.

“Jones widely publicized his services, promising miraculous healings where cancers would be removed and the blind made to see…To further convince his audience of his great powers he would make predictions of events that would always come to pass, and receive ‘revelations’ about members or visitors, things that only they could have known. Before their eyes, Jones would heal cancer patients and a mass of putrid tissue would be torn from the patient’s body.” (Steele, n.d.)

Once drawn in by such showings of Jones’ omnipotence, new members would be treated with warmth, kindness and understanding, reminiscent of the treatment of subjects of the Maoist program of Szu-hsiang kai-tso during the first stage of indoctrination.

Once suitably impressed with the altruism of the congregation, more and more demands would be made on the members. Slowly, subtly, demands on their time and financial resources were increased until at the highest level of commitment the “church” consumed their entire life. In this way, without having to use any physical force, Jones assured the continued devotion of his followers. Because of the sacrifices they had already been manipulated into making, they would now be exceedingly reluctant to leave the group, “At each new level of commitment, any reservations the person may have had could easily be rationalized and justified. By the time Jones’ demands had become oppressive, the individual members were so heavily committed that not to fulfill any new demands would require a complete denial of the correctness of all past decisions and behavior.”(Steele, n.d.) It was at this level that more extreme methods of thought control began.

Already isolated from friends and family members outside of the church by virtue of the prolific amount of time that church membership required, Jones now sought to further isolate members from each other, while at the same time discouraging any questioning of his philosophy. Employing tactics which are again reminiscent of the Szu-Hsiang kai-tso program, Jones would hold meeting of members who had reached the highest level of commitment, the purpose of which was to root out and punish those who displayed less than absolute devotion to Jones and his philosophies. Individuals were called upon to confess personal transgressions as well as to divulge the transgressions of other members, especially those of the people to whom they were the closest. It was also preferable that punishments for these transgressions be carried out by the offending party’s own family. Parents were called upon to dispense harsh physical punishments upon their children, husbands upon their wives and vice versa. As in other instances of thought control, an atmosphere of guilt and mistrust resulted.

At this point, Jones had taken the domination of his congregation about as far as he could. Considering the fact that he was essentially operating out in the open and dealing with a large group of people it was conceivably only a matter of time before someone would break ranks and go to the press with their story. Fearing publicity, exposure, and the ultimate condemnation of his tactics, Jones decided once again that it was time to relocate, this time out of the United States altogether, to the remote South American Nation of Guyana.

Again using the pretext of his vision of nuclear holocaust, Jones convinced 1,000 of his most devoted followers to relocate to the remote jungle area, which would become Jonestown. This community was supposed to be the socialist utopia of which Jones had preached. In Jonestown all people would be equal; there would be no more racial or economic distinctions. There the congregation would live in peace and harmony sheltered from the evils of capitalistic American society and supposedly malevolent government. Here also, Jones was essentially free of public scrutiny. His exploitation of that freedom led to the escalation of mind control tactics, the effectiveness of which would lead to tragedy.

Far from the promised utopia life at Jonestown could more nearly be described as a living hell for its residents. Sessions of confessions, informing on other members, and retributions became more frequent, and the punishments more severe, escalating past the point of mere beatings in many cases to include such things as the application of electrical shocks. As had been the case in California, it was preferable that these punishments be exacted at the hands of family members, and in Jonestown they were increasingly carried out publicly. If these physical tortures were not enough to cause breakdown in and of themselves, the sexual degradation and exploitation that Jones, like Manson, subjected his followers to certainly should have been.

While Manson employed similar methods of sexual degradation in furthering the breakdown of his followers, the methods employed by Jones were somewhat more extreme, and obviously on a larger scale. Dr. Harray, a psychologist who had worked closely with those lucky enough to have escaped Jonestown before the massacre writes of Jones’ sexual degradation tactics,

“Both men and women were…coerced into having sex with Jones in private and with other people in public. Husbands and wives were forbidden to have sex with each other, but were forced to join others in watching their spouses being sexually humiliated and abused. In order to prove that he wasn’t a racist, a white man was coerced into having oral sex in front of a gathering of members with a black woman who was having her period. Another man was made to remove all his clothes, bend over and spread his legs before the congregation while being examined for signs of venereal disease. A woman had to strip in front of the group so that Jones could poke fun at her overweight body before telling her to submerge herself in a pool of ice–cold water. Another woman was made to squat in front of 100 members and defecate into a fruit can. Children were…forced to have hot peppers stuffed up their rectums…”(Harray, 1992, p. 67)

Also, like Manson Jones forced heterosexual members to publicly engage in homosexual encounters while at the same time condemning homosexuality.

Subjection to such brutal and abhorrent treatment not only produced such stress as would be likely to cause breakdown, but produced such revulsion and guilt as to cause the person to believe he or she would almost certainly be considered an outcast by society, thus precluding any desire to leave the group. He did not, however rely on this to ensure against defection. Other factors ensuring that members would remain in Jonestown included the fact that it was surrounded by miles of jungle and surrounded at all times by armed guards.

Like the Church had used fear of Satan and eternal damnation to guarantee the allegiance of the masses, establishing itself as the sole source of salvation from such a fate, so Jones used the common enemy of the CIA to instill fear into his congregation. Jones warned that the CIA was stalking the group, always lurking insidiously on the verge of attack. When the attack did come, Jones warned that no man woman or child would be safe from torture and death at the hands of the enemy. Jones’ proposed solution, however, should not have provided much solace. The ultimate solution would be for members to take their own lives before falling into enemy hands.

In the same way that Manson had first conditioned his followers to commit atrocities by first sending them out on “creepy crawly” missions, so Jones conditioned his congregation to meekly accept mass suicide. In repeated midnight rituals, the commune would awaken to the sounds of sirens signaling that a night of hellish terror was to begin. Some sense of that terror can be experienced when reading former Jonestown member Deborah Layton’s recollections of these rituals.

“During so-called ‘white nights,’ about 50 rifle-toting members would go from cabin to cabin to round up members as sirens blared…A mass meeting would ensue. Frequently…we would be told that the jungle was swarming with mercenaries and that death could be expected at any minute…we were informed that our situation had become hopeless and that the only course of action open to us was a mass suicide for the glory of socialism. We were told that we would be tortured by mercenaries if we were taken alive. Everyone, including the children, was told to line up. As we passed through the lines, we were given a small glass of red liquid to drink. We were told that the liquid contained poison and that we would die within 45 minutes. We all did as we were told.”(Greenburg, 1979, p. 380)

For those who escaped Jones’ deadly influence, and survived the Jonestown massacre, they will always live with the emotional scars from the experience; this is especially true for those who lost loved ones on that fateful day. One survivor who lost her mother and grandmother to the tragedy says, “I think about my mother and I think about what happened in Jonestown every day. I drive down the street in my car and I think about our family.”(Locke, 2000) Tim Stoen, who escaped from Jonestown himself, and was in the process of trying to extricate his six year old little boy from Jones’ clutches when the tragedy took place says, “While waiting in our hotel, we heard that Ryan and his four companions had been killed on the Jonestown airstrip. We realized immediately there would be a collective suicide. We knew our son would die. We couldn’t do a damn thing. It was the most horrible night of my life.”(Stoen, 1997, p. 44)

In the above cases it has been shown that manipulative leaders have utilized brainwashing elements, apparently overcoming the free will of their followers, both with and without full knowledge of the scientific theories relating to them. But might naturally occurring circumstances mirror brainwashing elements in such a way as to produce similar results? Interestingly, such a link appears to exist in relation to the events of September eleventh and the ensuing reaction of the American people and government. Although the question of whether or not the Bush administration is consciously exploiting brainwashing elements is an intriguing one, this along with all the implications thereof is an incredibly broad and complex topic. For this reason, this analysis will treat these events and the reactions to them as a naturally occurring phenomenon, demonstrating how they could be linked with these elements.

The day the Twin Towers fell, and the horrific image of their destruction, broadcast ad nauseaum for months after the event itself, is one that is impressed upon the mind of every American. Every television network and newspaper in the country displayed extensive coverage of the attack almost exclusively in the weeks that followed. It was the topic of water cooler and dinner table conversation; for most there was virtually no respite.

Aside from the trauma suffered by witnesses to and survivors of the attack, individuals living in the vicinity of ground zero, and those who lost loved ones in the tragedy, countless Americans were so shocked and frightened by the attack as they witnessed it in subsequent media coverage that they sought professional help for the anxiety and depression it caused them. The problem was so widespread that schools, churches and community centers across the country even set up walk-in counseling centers to help individuals cope with these feelings. Even among those who did not seek therapy, it would have been hard to find an American who did not suffer some form of anxiety in relation to the situation. Even though this trauma alone could arguably have been sufficient to induce the essential brainwashing element of breakdown in many Americans, the office of Homeland Security was formed and immediately instituted the security alert system.

Now in addition to the stress induced by coverage of the attack, Americans were subjected to the further stress of watching the alert system rise from yellow to orange and back again, with no clear instructions being given as to what they were to do to about it. “Remain vigilant;” “We have no clear information on what kind of attack may be carried out or where it might occur,” were the typical statements made in relation to an elevated alert level. In one instance media went so far as to run a headline warning individuals of the necessity of having an emergency supply arsenal in the event of attack. Among the items listed as essential supplies were masking tape and plastic, to be used to seal off a “safety room” in the event of chemical of nuclear attack. Frightened individuals, willing to grasp at any straw, soon emptied store shelves of these items. In some cases individuals took these warnings so seriously that they actually sealed their homes, causing a risk of carbon monoxide poisoning, thus necessitating the media to broadcast a warning against taking such extreme measures.

Further evidence of the effect of these stressors can be found in President Bush’s soaring approval ratings. A common enemy had been created in the form of Muslim terrorists. The danger from this enemy was ever present, posing as law-abiding citizens, they could be behind any corner, poised to strike without notice. No American was safe–”Remain vigilant.” As the Church was the source of protection against the fires of hell, as reverend Jim Jones was the source of protection against the CIA, as Manson was the source of protection against the chaos and destruction that would ensue in the wake of Helter Skelter, so President Bush now became the source of protection against the omnipresent threat of Muslim terrorists. After a hotly contested election in which George W. Bush had won the electoral vote, but not the popular vote, his approval rating had now soared to over 70%.

The American people overwhelmingly supported the administration’s decision to declare war on Iraq. This decision was based not on the fact that Iraqi president, Saddam Hussien was a brutal and oppressive dictator who consistently violated the human rights of his people, but on the president’s vehement assertion that the country had provided support to Al–Qaeda and was developing weapons of mass destruction. Although the president failed to present evidence to convince the United Nations of the validity of these allegations, and did not receive a mandate to proceed against Iraq, the war went ahead against the protests of many U.S. allies. Even so, the majority of American citizens failed to question the decision to go to war, and those who did so were often labeled “anti-American.” In one case, Michael Moore, while making a speech at the Academy Awards ceremony in March of 2003 dared to publicly question U.S. motives concerning the war. His speech was met with overwhelming audience criticism, and he was forced off stage before completing the speech. Other public figures who openly questioned US policy around the same time were similarly criticized.

Whether the allegations on which President Bush relied to gain the American people’s support in the war against Iraq are true remains to be seen. But what is most disturbing is the fact that the majority of Americans continue in the failure to question them. With Iraqi despot Saddam Hussien defeated, and American forces occupying Iraq since May of 2003, evidence of the ominous weapons of mass destruction which our President warned existed within the country has yet to be found. Where is the widespread outcry, the demand for investigation to discover the truth? After a campaign that devastated a nation, led to the loss of untold number of historical artifacts, and took the lives of hundreds of Iraqi civilians and U.S. soldiers alike, no such outcry appears to be forthcoming.

Could it be possible that the average American citizen, especially in consideration of the brutality to which Hussien subjected his people, simply does not care if there is any truth to the accusations on which the invasion was justified? Is our thirst for revenge so great that we do not care at what cost it is obtained or at whom it is directed? Although these are possibilities, the alternative theory, that the circumstances unfolding in this country in the wake of the September eleventh so closely parallel the parameters of brainwashing that the American people are suffering the same effects as others exposed to such tactics have suffered, is one that should not be ignored.

Having considered the preceding cases in which there is reason to believe that brainwashing elements have been utilized with success in a variety of situations on diverse groups of individuals, the question then becomes, if any individual is vulnerable to the effects of such tactics, then what sets apart those who escaped being controlled? If the tactics of the Church were so successful, why does the institution not still reign supreme? Why were soldiers who signed confessions and those who refused repatriation in the minority? How did Linda Kasabian manage to exert the will not to commit murder on the orders of the man whom she believed to be Jesus Christ? If Jones’ tactics were so skillfully carried out as to cause 913 members of his congregation to commit suicide, and even to murder their own children at his command, than why do some members of the congregation survive to tell their tales; and why did 15 members choose to leave with the Ryan party? And what of evidence that some refused in the end to follow his directives, and were instead physically subdued and poisoned or shot while trying to escape? Why are many Americans now protesting American occupation in Iraq? Although the answers to these questions are both complex and multifaceted, they can be explained in part by another of Pavlov’s findings.

In conducting experiments on his animals in the area of transmarginal inhibition, Pavlov was able to identify four distinct temperaments, one of which would be possessed by each individual subject. These consisted of the “strong excitatory” type, the “lively” type, the “calm imperturbable” type, and the “weak inhibitory” type. Of these types, the “lively” and “calm imperturbable” would most closely correspond to a person who is well adjusted and self assured whereas the other two types would be less so.

The critical discovery that Pavlov made in relation to these different temperaments was that although the ultraparadoxal stage of protective transmarginal inhibition could be induced in all subjects regardless of the category they fell into, the amounts of stress required to induce this state varied significantly. In the “weak inhibitory” type, the amount of stress required to induce a state of inhibition was lowest, whereas the amount of stress required to reduce the “lively” type to this state was drastically greater, with the other types falling in between. British studies of soldiers who had experienced break down under the stress of battle showed similar resistance in those of varying temperament.

Thus one explanation for the fact that not every individual displayed total submission to brainwashing tactics is the possibility that they were never actually brainwashed in the first place. As previously stated the induction of break down is perhaps the key ingredient in the successful application of brainwashing tactics. It is critical that the subject be reduced to this state to avoid the interference of previously held morals and beliefs with the process of indoctrination. Should these morals and beliefs remain intact, subjects may continue to internally question the validity and morality of the doctrines imposed, such questions having great potential to lead to the ultimate failure of brainwashing.

While Pavlov himself fully realized the importance of attention to temperament and the necessity of attaining the ultraparadoxal phase of inhibition, it is in this area that those using brainwashing elements without full knowledge, (or often without any knowledge at all) of scientific studies in this area will fail. Knowing the potential for failure in the brainwashing process sheds light on the way in which individuals may be able to guard against its effects regardless of their particular temperament.

While Pavlov’s dogs may have responded to stressors in accordance with their individual temperamental type, humans possess the capacity to reason, and so may have the capacity to react more forcefully in certain situations than they normally would in others. It is here that assertions that the human capacity for free will negates the possibility of brainwashing as an effective means of one individual controlling another, thus negating the scientific validity of the process of brainwashing itself, may hold the most weight. Among those experts who recognize brainwashing as a valid phenomenon, the general consensus is that the ability to effectively question and analyze any given situation is the best defense against falling victim.

Robert M. Rowe (1979,) a consultant to the California Department of Education, has studied the effects of brainwashing, and seeks to develop ways to insulate children from falling victim to such tactics. He says that the optimum defense is the “development of strong questioning minds.” In studying the types of people who have become victims of brainwashing, like the Manson girls and the Jonestown congregation, he finds the common thread to be complacency and insecurity, rather than any kind of innate predisposition to deviance from the norms of society. These people fell under the control of devious leaders not because they identified with their motivations and ultimately wished to do what they did, but because they lacked the strength and self reliance to question the situations in which they found themselves.

Speaking of the likelihood that these people could have rebelled against their controllers once the situation became obviously dangerous to themselves or others, Rowe says that at this point it was probably too late for them to have been capable of doing so. The time to question is before indoctrination has been successfully completed. One must recognize the elements of brainwashing beforehand and be prepared to defend against them. This may explain the fact that the Maoist program of Szu-hsiang kai-tso, while highly successful in Chinese and Korean villages was less so in the case of POWs. These men were trained soldiers, and while not expecting to be targets of a brainwashing program per se, they were trained to resist enemy indoctrination and questioning; therefore, they fared much better than villagers who had received no such training. If an individual perceives brainwashing as an entirely fictitious concept, than the chances of recognizing and guarding against it are slim.

In spite of arguments that brainwashing and its effects have no scientific validity, and that the human capacity for freewill makes any individual solely responsible for his or her own actions, the fact that elements of brainwashing tactics can and have been utilized in the variety of settings discussed cannot be disputed. The only remaining argument concerns the extent to which these techniques may or may not have overridden the free will of those on whom they were applied. An examination of countless other situations, such as the compliance of the German people in the holocaust of the Jewish people, the kidnapping of and subsequent criminal acts committed by Patricia Hearst, the fate of the Branch Dividians in Waco, Texas, all will show the same essential elements linked to equally devastating results.

One might conclude that in all these cases, the individuals involved retained at all times the capacity to make decisions for themselves, but simply lacked the will to rebel. However, a dispute as to the semantics of the matter does nothing to change the existence of the link between brainwashing elements and the negative effects that have been experienced by those on whom they were applied. As such, whether or not one disputes the validity of brainwashing, an awareness of brainwashing elements coupled with an ability to analyze and question situations in which they appear to exist remains an important skill for every individual to possess especially given the many stressors existing in modern society.

The ever-present fear of terrorism and the possibility of attacks utilizing weapons of mass destruction, an uncertain economy, and the rise of technology which has led to a decline in community interaction for many, all serve to leave individuals increasingly vulnerable to brainwashing. Charismatic individuals can and will exploit this increased vulnerability. The puppet masters of the future may appear on the fringes of society, appealing to the disenfranchised, as did Charles Manson; they may appear as more main stream religious leaders, appealing to a wider audience as did Jim Jones; or they may appear as powerful political leaders who seek to mesmerize an entire nation, as did Mao Tse-tong and Adolph Hitler. Although the form in which they will appear remains to be seen, it is almost certain that they will appear in the future, as they have in the past. Those who dismiss brainwashing as science fiction, and thus lack the necessary skills to guard against it, may be the first to fall under their control.

References

Associated Press. (1997). Jonestown suicides shocked world. Retrieved September 24, 2003, from http://www.rickross.com/reference/jonestown/jonestown3.html

Bugliosi, V. & Gentry, C. (1974). Helter skelter. New York: W. W. Norton.

Comer, R. J. (2000). Fundamentals of abnormal psychology. (3rd ed.). New York: Worth.

Glaser, K. & Possony, S. T. (1979). Victims of politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

Greenburg, J. (1979). Jim Jones: The deadly hypnotist. Science News, 116, 378–382.

Harray, K. (1992). The truth about Jonestown. Psychology Today, 25 (2), 62–70.

Keckeisen, G. L. (2002). The Korean War ‘brainwashing’ myth led to US countertechniques against communist indoctrination. Military History, 19 (3), 70–72.

Locke, M. (2000). Jonestown survivors remember. Retrieved September 24, 2003, from http://www.rickross.com/reference/jonestown/jonestown11.html

Meerloo, Dr. J. A. M. (1956). The rape of the mind. Retrieved September 26, 2003, from http://www.ninehundred.net/control/mc.html

Morse, J. C. & Morse E. L. (1987). Toward a theory of therapy with cultic victims. American Journal of Psychotherapy, XLI (4), 563–570.

Rowe, R. M. (1979). The challenge of Jonestown. Education, 101 (1), 60–62.

Sargant, W. (1957). Battle for the mind. New York: Doubleday.

Staff Investigative Group. (1979). House of Representatives report on Jonestown–Findings. Retrieved September 24, 2003, from http://www.rickross.com/reference/jonestown/jonestown1.html

Steele, F. (n.d.). Jonestown Massacre. Retrieved September 30, 2003, from http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/mass/jonestown/index_1.html?sect=22

Stoen, T. (1997). The most horrible night of my life. Newsweek, 129 (14), 44–45.

Streiker, L. D. (1984) Mind bending. New York: Doubleday.

Stuckey, G. B. & Roberson, C. & Wallace, H. (2001). Procedures in the justice system. New Jersey: Prentice–Hall.

Walsh, Y. (2001). Deconstructing ‘brainwashing’ within cults as an aid to counseling psychologists. Counseling Psychology Quarterly, 14 (2), 119–129.

The Individual and the Organisation: Selection and Choice

The selection of employees with the correct abilities and qualities is important in any organisation as this will ensure the best possible future performance of both the candidate and the organisation. It is for this reason that a great deal of emphasis is placed upon using the most accurate selection procedures, which are a means of measuring the future performance of job candidates with some predictability. Since the “reliability and validity of selection procedures determines the quality of personnel entering an organisation, it is crucial that selection procedures provide valid assessments of future behaviour” (Arnold et al., 2001). It is therefore necessary to ensure the accuracy of selection methods by assessing the criterion-related validity of the predictors. It is only after both the validity and reliability of a personality test have been established can it be used to aid the selection of employees with any accuracy.

Before the selection process can be completed, the two main principles that underline the roles of personnel selection and assessment must be understood. The first is that there are many individual differences between people, the conclusion being that not all people are equally suited to every job. It is for this reason that the selection process needs to be as accurate as possible, as jobs and individuals need to fit together to be effective. One method of achieving this is to fit the job to the person, which requires selecting and training a worker specifically for one job. The other is to fit the person to the job, which requires designing the job’s tasks to suit the worker’s physical and psychological characteristics. As every person is unique and individual, both methods must be considered when selecting appropriate candidates. From the perspective of a candidate, it is possible to ‘fit’ a job by analysing the job criteria and seeing how well these match his/her personal characteristics. If there appears to be a high correlation, it would be safe to assume that the job would be an appropriate match. For example, if the job description specifies that the candidate should be motivated, enthusiastic and a quick learner, and the candidate believes him/herself to be so, the candidate should apply as the chances of being successful are greatly enhanced.

The second principle of personnel assessment and selection is that future behaviour is only partly predictable. Due to constant interaction with other people and the environment, a person’s characteristics and, as a result of this, behaviour patterns can change. In this respect, it is important to assess all the available information before the selection of a candidate.

Many organisations use job analyses in the selection process which can not only give the candidate an understanding of the job, but it can also enable an interviewer to determine which qualities are required from the successful candidate by listing the criteria that candidates must satisfy if they are to be successful. However, as useful as they may be in providing information relating to each individual work place, job analyses alone cannot prove that certain characteristics mean that one person is better suited to a job than another as translating these characteristics to psychological qualities is a difficult and complicated process.

Personality, which refers to “the psychological qualities that influence an individual’s characteristic behaviour patterns, in a distinctive and consistent manner, across different situations and over time” (Huczynski et al., 2001), is an important factor in job selection as behaviour can affect performance in the work place. In this respect, personality is one aspect that needs to be considered when applying for a job vacancy.

One method of determining whether a candidate is suited to a job is to use a personality test. A personality test is “a selection procedure to measure the personality characteristics of applicants that are related to future job performance” (Kiess, 1996). An example of a personality test is the Kiersey Character Sorter, which is based upon Jungian theory.

If, for example, a candidate were identified as a ‘Guardian’ using this method, the candidate would have the following characteristics: responsible, hardworking, loyal, dutiful, and dependable, with a natural talent in managing people, goods and services. When selecting which job to apply for, the candidate would be encouraged to apply for a job which specified the need for similar personal qualities to those identified by the personality test. For example, a ‘Guardian’ might apply for a job in a management or consultancy firm in which interacting with customers and providing a service are important factors. Another factor that would encourage a ‘Guardian’ to apply would be working as part of a team, while also being a leader as and when required. The job description stated that a successful candidate would have to be enthusiastic, determined and responsible, all of which are qualities identified in the personality test. Again, the candidate would be influenced into applying for that particular job.

However, while personality tests provide some information about a candidate, they are poor predictors of future performance as people are able to develop new skills, behaviours and to adapt to new circumstances. In this respect, personality asessments capture only a fragment of the whole, and will not be accurate over a long period of time. For some highly skilled and technical professions, an applicant’s training and experience may have a greater impact on job performance than personality, and so although an applicant may not appear to be suitable, he/she may be more so than a candidate with apparently ‘appropriate’ characteristics.

Another disadvantage of the use of personality assessments is the fact that, in clinical and research settings, people generally answer honestly, but when applying for a job, candidates give the answer seen to be correct. As a result of this inaccuracy, personality tests should not be used as a selection method by themselves but in conjunction with other procedures as one element of the selection process, such as an interview. To a certain extent, personality tests are important in personnel selection as the work place is becoming more project and team orientated, resulting in an increased emphasis upon the individual personality of each employee. In this respect, it is vital that the role of fit in job selection is considered before applying for, and accepting, a job.

Interviews have always been the most popular form of selection in the UK and Europe (used by eighty per cent of companies), but they can also be a very imperfect way of obtaining accurate information about an individual due to the way in which the interview is structured and how the final conclusion of whether or not to offer employment is made.

The main reason for this has been shown to be the actual structure of the interview. Many organisations would benefit greatly by standardizing their interviews and giving more thought to the data, regarding the candidate’s past experiences and personal qualities for example, which needs to be collected. Due to the lack of planning, the data is collected in an unsystematic way that allows poor comparison between candidates. Overcoming this disadvantage requires preparation and a consideration of exactly what is being evaluated. Adding structure by asking each candidate the same questions in the same order yields more data and produces results that are more valid and reliable. Not only would this formal structure allow the interviewer to control the direction of the interview, but it would also provide the interviewer with the ability to compare the answers of all the candidates in order to see which best meets the criteria defined in the job analyses. This method allows less opportunity to best judge the applicant’s personality, but is a more accurate predictor of future work-related behaviour as the interviewer can focus upon past behaviour within a given situation. The interviewer could, for example, ask the candidate to describe a situation in which he/she was required to work as part of a group. Not only does this allow the interviewer to focus upon the candidate’s past experiences, but to gain an impression of the quality of the candidate’s interpersonal and communicational skills within a work environment.

However, although they are a good method of further evaluating a person’s character and competence, interviews have frequently been shown to be questionable as to their reliability and validity. The judgements made as a result of interviews are often inconsistent and poorly predict later performance on the job.

One reason for this is what is commonly known as the ‘halo’ effect. This refers to “our tendency to assume that one desirable characteristic in a person means that they will also possess other desirable characteristics, even if we have no direct evidence for them” (Arnold et al., 1998). The halo effect can, quite literally, blind the interviewer in regards to faults and unsuitable characteristics. Research has shown that the type of school or university attended by the candidate, or even the candidate’s accent can influence interviewers. The opposite of the ‘halo’ effect is the ‘horns’ effect, where on undesirable characteristic encourages the interviewer to reject a candidate. If, for example, the candidate was born and raised in Wales, this might influence the interviewer of an English firm to reject that candidate. Closely linked with the ‘halo’ and ‘horns’ effects is the implicit personality theory.

An implicit personality theory refers to “the beliefs that each of us holds about the personal qualities that ‘go together’ when we make a judgement about another person” (Sims et al., 1993). An experiment conducted by Kelley in 1950 illustrates the theory that we unconsciously make social judgements about other people. As Kelley shows, we form our impressions of people by concentrating upon one aspect of their character (such as dress, voice, gait) and fit them together as an ‘assumptive framework’ (what we expect people to be who dress like, …speak like,…walk like to be and do). While assumptions are an inevitable part of thinking, we are not always aware of making them and this can lead to the candidate being disadvantaged by the interviewer’s personal opinion clouding his/her judgement.

However, from the perspective of a job applicant, this can also be an advantage as it is possible to learn the appropriate ‘mask’ to wear. An applicant can create the most desirable impression, allowing the ‘halo’ effect to bias the interviewer in his/her favour. It is possible to use many different tactics to present a certain image of ourselves that is suitable to the situation and the environment in order to manipulate the other person’s opinion of ourselves. This is often termed “impression management” (Rosenfield et al., 1995) and concerns the theory that the perceiver (in this case the interviewer) can only perceive what the target (the interviewer) wants him/her to. (Arnold et al., 1998). In regards to a job interview, impression management can be used by revealing an (perhaps false) obstacle or barrier, which the candidate previously overcame. The candidate is thus hoping that this revelation will encourage the interviewer to view him/her as a motivated, determined and competent person. Another technique of using impression management to a candidate’s advantage would be ingratiation - bringing (oneself) into a person’s favour, especially to gain advantage - in an attempt to make himself/herself more attractive to the interviewer.

Research shows that interviewers often reach their decision as to whether to employ a candidate in the first few minutes of the interview. The interviewer then seeks confirmation of their judgement, ignoring most of the candidate’s weaknesses and looking more favourably upon those he/she recognises. If, upon entering the room, the candidate shook the interviewer’s hand and said ‘good morning’ in a clear, articulate voice, the interviewer’s initial opinion of the candidate would be one of a polite, well-mannered, well-spoken person. This initial impression would positively affect the interviewer’s opinion of the candidate. In this respect, the interviewer’s perception of a candidate’s personality and initial behaviour can determine the outcome of the interview, irrelevant of a candidate’s suitability. It is possible to avoid the primary effect, but there is then a danger of the recency effect (a tendency to place too much emphasis upon the last information received about a candidate). Even if the candidate is re-interviewed at a later date, the first impressions that the interviewer has of that candidate will be hard to change.

Another major problem associated with interviews is discrimination, as people tend to identify with those similar to them. In this respect, the interviewer could identify an applicant with traits similar to his/her own, but not essential for the job, and discriminate against those who are not similar. Not only does this mean that an unsuitable candidate could be successful, but if similar people are continually picked, it can lead to organisational cloning, resulting in a position where there is little diversification between the employees as well as a limited range of personal qualities.

Closely linked with discrimination is stereotyping, which is the “generalised beliefs about the characteristics, attributes, and behaviours of members of certain groups” (Hilton and Von Hippel, 1996). Many researchers believe that we develop stereotypes in an attempt to define our identity and those of others in terms of group memberships. This is the foundational basis of “social identity theory” (Tajfel and Turner, 1985), which proposes that “not only do we wish to create a social ‘map’, we also wish to uphold the value of our own group relative to other groups” (Arnold et al., 1998). It has been argued that interviewers in groups different from the candidate’s will view him/her in terms of negative stereotypes, and thus reject the candidate on grounds of unsuitability in an attempt to enhance the superiority of his/her group.

As research has shown, a wide range of cognitive biases all effect the final decision about whether or not to offer employment. However, despite any inaccuracies, interviews remain the most commonly used form of personnel selection and will do so until a more efficient, accurate method can be devised. Until then, personnel selection will remain partially biased, based upon the perception and initial impressions of the interviewer. One thing is for certain - even with its disadvantages, an interview remains the best, modern-day method to discovering the real person behind an anonymous application form.

Bibliography

Arnold, J., Gooper, C. & Robertson, I. (1998), Work Psychology: Understanding Human Behaviour in the Workplace, London: Financial Times, Pitman Publishing

Huczynski, A. & Buchanan, D. (2001), Organizational Behaviour; An Introductory Text, London: Financial Times, Prentice Hall

Sims, D., Fineman, S. & Gabriel, Y. (1993), Organizing and Organizations; An Introduction, London: Sage Publications

www.frc.mass.edu/hkiess/work.htm

Word count (excluding Bibliography): 2261

Psychoanalytic ego psychology is distinguished by the priority that it assigns to the ego’s management of instinct-derivatives. Ego psychology had its foundations in Freud’s writings of the 1920s, but first became a distinctive approach to psychoanalysis in the 1930s. In Inhibitions, Symptoms, and Anxiety, Freud (1926a) listed ten manners by which the ego defends itself against dangerous thoughts: regression, reaction-formation, isolation, undoing, repression, introjection or identification, projection, turning against the self, reversal, and sublimation or displacement of instinctual aims. To this list of defenses, Anna Freud (1966) added identification with the aggressor (pp. 116-120). The list has since continued to grow.

For Freud, das Ich, “the I, ” was a metaphor that signified the part of the mind with which a person consciously identifies. In a loose sense, it was Freud’s way of discussing the self. More technically, however, he defined the ego as the part of the mind that performs rational thinking, the type of thought that he considered a “secondary process.” Freud’s (1923a, 1940b) concept of the ego did not include the defense mechanisms that Anna Freud (1966) attributed to it. Freud (1926a) explained:Symptom-formation…has two assets: one, hidden from view, brings about the alteration in the id in virtue of which the ego is removed from danger; the other, presented openly, shows what has been created in place of the instinctual process that has been affected-namely, the substitutive formation. It would, however, be more correct to ascribe to the defensive process what we have just said about symptom-formation and to use the latter term as synonymous with substitute-formation. (p. 145)In this formulation, defense consists of (1) unconscious stimulus barriers, such as repression, that enlarge the dynamic unconscious repressed and so remove the ego from danger, and (2) the substitution of a fantasy for the repressed that manifests the repressed in symbolic fashion. The stimulus barriers are ego functions, and they alone are truly defensive. The substitute-formations are not ego functions; they are products of unconscious symbol-formation. Freud (1926a) explained them as pathological symptoms to which the ego makes an accommodation:It is…only natural that the ego should try to prevent symptoms from remaining isolated in one way or another, and to incorporate them into its organization…. The ego now proceeds to behave as though it recognized that the symptom had come to stay and that the only thing to do was to accept the situation in good part and draw as much advantage from it as possible. It makes an adaptation to the symptom-to this piece of the internal world which is alien to it-just as it normally does to the real external world. (pp. 98-99)Freud’s (1926a) notion of defense mechanisms as “a kind of frontier-station with a mixed garrison” (p. 99) reflects the complexity of their origin. Every so-called defense mechanism combines a stimulus barrier, belonging to the ego, with a fantasy formation, of unconscious origin, to which the ego has adapted. Why does the ego accommodate selected pathological symptoms? Were the unconscious to be constantly producing new symptoms, the ego would be obliged to respond to them all, resulting in unwanted and frequent mood swings. Instituting selected symptoms as permanent structures does not lessen their irrationality. It has the advantage, however, of making the type of irrationality predictable. Because the predictability provides the ego with stability that is necessary for mood regulation, the automatization of selected symptoms may reasonably be regarded as a kind of defense.

Unfortunately, Freud failed to distinguish clearly between stimulus barriers and the symptoms that the ego automatizes for its purposes of stability. The oversight led to the widespread neglect of the origin and nature of the automatized symptoms. Anna Freud’s The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense (1966), first published in 1936, expressed an over-simplification that went unchallenged for half a century. Anna Freud (1966, 157) postulated “the ego’s primary antagonism to instinct-its dread of the strength of the instincts” (p. 157). She maintained her position throughout her life. “Many disputed it when I said it, and I still say that the ego as such is hostile rather than friendly and helpful to the instincts, because it’s against its nature to be friendly” (Sandler with Freud 1985, 494).

Anna Freud’s concept of defense flowed similarly from her failure to embrace the subtleties of her father’s formulation of psychic structure. Anna Freud wrote:The part played by the ego in the formation of those compromises which we call symptoms consists in the unvarying use of a special method of defense, when confronted with a particular instinctual demand, and the repetition of exactly the same procedure every time that demand recurs in its stereotyped form. (p. 34)In this presentation, defenses belong exclusively to the ego and are not themselves compromise formations. Symptoms and defenses are mutually exclusive; and it is symptoms that are compromise formations-between the instincts and the defenses! Anna Freud’s account of defenses agreed with her father’s formulation in so far as stimulus barriers were intended, but it misrepresented the circumstances of such defenses as regression, reaction-formation, undoing, introjection or identification, projection, turning against the self, and reversal. In her father’s view, these defenses were themselves pathological symptoms.

Anna Freud’s hypothesis of “the ego’s primary antagonism to instinct” was able to command the devotion of ego psychologists presumably because Freud’s structural concepts of id and ego were understood, for clinical purposes, on the topographic model of the old systems Unconscious and Perception-Consciousness. Anna Freud stated that for many decades she and many other psychoanalysts used both the topographic and the structural models of the mind in alternation, depending on whether, for example, they were momentarily concerned with dreams or defense mechanisms. “I definitely belong to the people who feel free to fall back on the topographical aspects whenever convenient, and to leave them aside and to speak purely structurally when that is convenient” (Sandler with A. Freud 1985, 31). In similar fashions, Bertram D. Lewin (1952), Jacob A. Arlow and Charles Brenner (1964), and Heinz Kohut (1984) estimated that most of their contemporaries reverted to the topographic hypothesis when conceptualizing dreams. Bernard Apfelbaum (1966) drew attention to the distinction I have emphasized between Freud’s view of the ego as the secondary process and Anna Freud’s expansion of the ego to include character defenses:A distinction must be drawn between two conceptions of the ego: what may be called the “reality ego” versus the “defence ego.” The “reality ego” emphasizes the ego’s temporizing, compromising function-as a busy mediator between the demands of reality and of the drives. The “defence ego” is a more active principle, having superordinate goals of its own, before which both reality and the drives must yield. (p. 462)Ego psychology’s transformation of the ego from a “reality ego” that performs rational thought, into a “defense ego” that includes the “character armor” (Reich 1949) of irrational defenses, depended on equating the ego with the sense of self. This step, taken within American ego psychology, later served as a point of departure for Heinz Kohut (1971, 1977, 1984), whose system of self-psychology may be seen as both a valuable contribution and an inappropriate expansion of defense analysis into a complete program of psychotherapy.

Continuing David Rapaport’s (1960, 1967) project of introducing academic methodology and systematizing within ego psychology, Roy Schafer (1968) took issue with the “traces of the machine analogy in the prevailing conception of defence mechanisms” (p. 52). There are no machines in the mind. There are only thoughts. The notion of a mechanism is either a fallacy or a metaphor that refers summarily to both “the instinctual act and the defence against it” (p. 54). Morris Eagle (1984) added that “the supposition that the intensity of the instincts is threatening to the ego” derives from a reification of the metaphor of psychic energy.

It is a purely fictitious notion. “The idea that instinctual impulses, particularly those of great intensity, are inherently dangerous to the ego derives from an a priori tension-reduction model of human behavior and a conception of the nervous system as naturally and ideally quiescent, and disturbed, in varying degrees, by excitation” (p. 111). Because too much energy will shatter or burn out a machine, reifying the metaphors of psychic energy and psychic structures leads to the idea that the structures of the psychical apparatus are inherently and necessarily threatened by psychic energies.

In “Analysis Terminable and Interminable, ” Freud (1937) corrected his daughter’s formulation without naming her explicitly. He asserted that “id and ego are originally one” and “the psychical apparatus is intolerant of unpleasure”-implicitly, of unpleasure alone (pp. 240, 237). He also emphasized that defense mechanisms and symptoms are two ways of discussing the same psychic elements:The mechanisms of defence serve the purpose of keeping off dangers. It cannot be disputed that they are successful in this; and it is doubtful whether the ego could do without them altogether during its development. But it is also certain that they may become dangers themselves…these mechanisms are not relinquished after they have assisted the ego during the difficult years of its development.

They become regular modes of reaction of his character, which are repeated throughout his life whenever a situation occurs that is similar to the original one. This turns them into infantilisms…. The adult’s ego, with its increased strength, continues to defend itself against dangers which no longer exist in reality; indeed, it finds itself compelled to seek out those situations in reality which can serve as an approximate substitute for the original danger, so as to be able to justify, in relation to them, its maintaining its habitual modes of reaction. Thus we can easily understand how the defensive mechanisms, by bringing about an ever more extensive alienation from the external world and a permanent weakening of the ego, pave the way for, and encourage, the outbreak of neurosis. (pp. 237-38)Freud here took for granted his previous account of the origin of defense mechanisms as amalgams of stimulus barriers and symptoms. Defenses can alienate the secondary process from the external world only because symptoms are among their components. As flights from reality, symptoms are inconsistent with the reality principle of secondary process thought.

Anna Freud’s misunderstanding of her father’s theory of defense was one of several developments in the 1930s that collectively accomplished a paradigm shift in psychoanalytic theory and technique. Wilhelm Reich’s Character Analysis (1948), first published in 1933, emphasized that differences in character types reflected differences among the defense mechanisms that individuals favored. Ernst Kris (1934) introduced the concept of “ego-directed regression, ” or “regression in the service of the ego, ” which permitted unconscious manifestations such as play and creativity to be diagnosed as whole-some, where their classical descriptions as “regression” had meant that they were pathological. Kris’s revalorization of fantasy anticipated Anna Freud’s revalorization of defense mechanisms. Her catalog of defenses, first published in 1936, supported the clinical technique of defense analysis, where interpretations are made of the defenses, and efforts to interpret the unconscious drives are postponed until a later phase of the treatment. Heinz Hartmann’s (1939) emphasis on the ego’s devotion to adaptation completed the basic paradigm of ego psychology. Where classical psychoanalysts thought of the benefits derived from symptoms as “secondary gains” of illness, ego psychologists construed defenses as positive adaptations and left unremarked their inherently fantastic and irrational nature.

The idea of repression is perhaps one of the Freudian concepts that call for psychoanalytic treatment. Freud split the mind into three parts, the conscious, the subconscious and the unconscious. The conscious part of the mind is what is being used to read this paper at the moment. The subconscious contains information that is not in the conscious processing zone but could be very readily retrieved. For example, ones spouse, may not be present in consciousness but could quickly be prompted by just mentioning the name. The most important part in the field of psychoanalysis and in which the id and superego operate is the unconscious. The unconscious is that part of mind where so much information is stored but very hard to retrieve. Freud believed that the unconscious is a reservoir of human experiences forced to obscurity by the ego so that they protect the subject from unbearable pains if and when those experiences are remembered.

Freud argued that when the ego fears the inability to balance between the id’s sexual and aggressive needs and the proper way to attain it as the superego demands, the result is anxiety. In order to deal with this anxiety Freud proposed that the ego develops defense mechanisms. Defense mechanisms reduce anxiety by reducing or redirecting anxiety in various ways, but always by distorting reality. Before listing the Freudian defense mechanism it’s prudent to highlight the defense mechanism categories as prescribed by Freud. First, reality anxieties which are fear of objects that can be physically escaped, for example, fear of a snake. Second, neurotic anxiety is a type of anxiety that comes from unconscious worries that the impulses of the ID will overpower the person, leading to impending punishment. Finally, this is fear of moral judgments or fear of violating moral values which result in guilt and shame.

The defense mechanism of displacement involves the transfer of feelings or behaviors from a dangerous object to one that is less threatening. A person who is angry with the boss may maintain a discreet silence, then go home and shout at a family member. Or aggressive impulses may be unconsciously diverted from a frightening object to oneself, which may lead to self-inflicted injuries or even to suicide. Anxiety may also be displaced, as when a child who is victimized by abusive parents shies away from people in general.

In contrast, the defense mechanism of projection conceals dangerous impulses by unconsciously attributing them to other people or things. For example, projected anger may lead to the belief that you are disliked, hated, or being persecuted by other people. In displacement, you know that you are angry and choose a safer target; in projection, you repress your anger and believe that other people are angry at you. Also, projection always operates unconsciously, whereas some displacements may be conscious. Although projection plays a significant role in the development of paranoid behavior, it is a normal way for very young children to deny their mistakes.

Denial is often accompanied by another defense mechanism, fantasy, where unfulfilled needs are gratified in one’s imagination. A child may deny weakness not only by playing with reassuring symbols of strength like toy guns or dolls, but also by daydreaming about being a famous general or worthy parent. Virtually everyone daydreams to some extent. As with denial, however, an excessive amount of fantasy prevents the ego from fulfilling its main function perceiving and dealing with reality.

BibliographyFreud, Anna. 1966. The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense. 2nd ed. New York: International Universities Press, 1980.

Freud, Sigmund. 1900. The interpretation of dreams. In The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, ed. James Strachey, with Anna Freud, Alix Strachey, and Alan Tyson, 4-5. London: Hogarth Press, 1958.

–. 1901. The psychopathology of everyday life. In Standard Edition 6:1-279. London: Hogarth Press, 1960.

–. 1905. Three essays on the theory of sexuality. In Standard Edition 7:130-243. London: Hogarth Press, 1953.

–. 1908. Character and anal erotism. In Standard Edition 9:169-175. London: Hogarth Press, 1959.

–. 1909. Analysis of a phobia in a five-year-old boy. In Standard Edition 10:5-149. London: Hogarth Press, 1955.

–. 1910a. Five lectures on psycho-analysis. In Standard Edition 11:9-55. London: Hogarth Press, 1957.

–. 1911. Formulations on the two principles of mental functioning. In Standard Edition 12:218-26. London: Hogarth Press, 1958.

–. 1913. Totem and taboo: Some points of agreement between the mental life of savages and neurotics. In Standard Edition, 13:1-161. London: Hogarth Press, 1958.

–. 1914. On the history of the psycho-analytic movement. In Standard Edition 14:7-66. London: Hogarth Press, 1957.

–. 1916-17. Introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. In Standard Edition 15-16:9-463. London: Hogarth Press, 1961-1963.

–. 1920. Beyond the pleasure principle. In Standard Edition 18:7-64. London: Hogarth Press, 1955.

–. 1921. Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. In Standard Edition 18:69-143. London: Hogarth Press, 1955.

Hartmann, Heinz. 1939. Ego Psychology and the Problem of Adaptation. New York: International Universities Press, 1958.

Ihilevich D., & Gleser G. C. ( 1986). Defense mechanisms: Their classification, correlates, and measurement with the Defense Mechanisms Inventory. Owosso, MI: DMI Associates.

Ihilevich D., & Gleser G. C. ( 1991). Defenses in psychotherapy: The clinical application of the Defensive Mechanisms Inventory. Owosso, MI: DMI Associates.

Juni S. ( 1982). The composite measure of the Defense Mechanisms Inventory. Journal of Research in Personality, 16, 193-200.

Juni S., & Masling J. ( 1980). Reaction to aggression and the Defense Mechanisms Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 44, 484-486.

Rudnytsky Peter L. 1987. Freud and Oedipus. New York: Columbia University Press.

–. 1992. Introductory essay. In The Incest Theme in Literature & Legend: Fundamentals of a Psychology of Literary Creation, ed. Otto Rank. Trans. Gregory C. Richter. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.

Rycroft, Charles. 1977. Is Freudian symbolism a myth? In Symbols and Sentiments: Cross-Cultural Studies in Symbolism, ed. Ioan Lewis, 129-40. London and New York: Academic Press.

Sandler, Joseph, with Anna Freud. 1985. The Analysis of Defense: The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense Revisited. New York: International Universities Press.

Sandner, Donald. 1979. Navaho Symbols of Healing. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Sapir, Edward, and Harry Hoijer. 1942. Navaho Texts, ed. Harry Hoijer. Iowa City: University of Iowa.

Schafer, Roy. 1968. The mechanisms of defence. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 49:49-62.

Segal, Hanna. 1957. Notes on symbol formation. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 38:391-97.