LinkExchange Member
Reason Over Hate Page 1: Cults, Hate Groups and Persuasion
This series of pages is designed to explain methods of persuasion, and how hate groups use them. It has been noted that the number of hate group sites on the internet has been growing, and some people seem to think the answer is in trying to shut them down. However, not only is that a violation of freedom of speech, but it wouldn't allow us to use what they post to expose the hate that they try to sugar-coat when talking to a potential new recruit. I found an example and admission of this at a site about a reformed ex-skinhead (neo-nazi) at The Making of a Skinhead, where he says,
"I'd have kids come to my house and they would look at my books and say 'you're a Nazi.' And I'd say, 'well that's a relative term. That's what you see, I don't see it that way. I'm just proud of my race and my culture. I just read these books because they are about white history.' I'd say, 'here take one and read it.' I'd give them a book and then they'd come back and I would ask them if they understood it. If they had any questions about the book we'd go through it. I would say, 'well you interpreted it wrong, you just didn't get it.' And I'd bring them along slowly until eventually they'd say 'well, you're a Nazi' and then I'd say 'Yea.'"
(He also says he was attracted to the skinhead group because he wasn't dealing with his parents' divorce well and liked the sense of "family" the group promised. That is something that joining a group, even a hate group, cult, or street gang often provides. He also had a lot of anger about his family situation and it is common for hate groups, cults or street gangs to recruit people in those situations. He was a recruiter himself before he got out,
"I dedicated most of my time to recruiting new - and young - followers for the Aryan movement. I targeted junior high schools in particular by instigating fights between white and non-white kids. Often I used the tactic of asking the white kids, "Shouldn't there be a group for you?" I passed out racial comics and Aryan Resistance leaflets to the young students and became affectionately known as "Grandpa," giving me a sense of the premature age of the children.")
The best remedy for bad free speech is more free speech, not less, and it is in that vein that I write this.
I'd like to start this page with a discussion of the ways people might try to recruit other people into a group, so I'll start out talking a little about cults, then on the next page a little about propaganda in general, and on subsequent pages, I'll get into specific hate sites on the internet.
Hate groups are not always cults, and cults are not always hate groups, but occassionally they do overlap. For instance, Nazism started out as a political cult (which also shows that cults are not always religious). In addition to political and religious cults, there are pyramid and other marketing schemes that could be considered cults, as well as those centering around pseudopsychology such as Scientology. Ayn Rand's group of early Objectivists is considered a cult of personality.
The main reason I want to talk about cults in this hate group section is that cult methods can be used by anyone, including hate groups so it is important to know about them. The word "cult" unfortunately means a lot of different things to different people, so to avoid confusion we'll use this definition from Cults: Questions & Answers:
"A cult is a group of people who organize around a strong authority figure. Cults, like many other groups, attempt to expand their influence for the purposes of power or money. However, to achieve these ends, destructive cults employ a potent mixture of influence techniques and deception to attain psychological control over members and new recruits. This fundamental level of control is known alternatively as 'brainwashing,' 'thought reform,' or 'mind control.' A successful induction by a destructive cult displaces a person's former identity and replaces it with a new one. That new identity may not be one that the person would have freely chosen under her own volition (Hassan, 1990)."
And now another definition:
"The following conditions are present in groups practicing thought reform: Obtaining substantial control over an individual’s time and thought content, typically by gaining control over major elements of the person’s social and physical environment. Systematically creating a sense of powerlessness in the person. Manipulating a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences in such a way as to inhibit observable behavior that reflects the values and routines of life organization the individual displayed prior to contact with the group. Maintaining a closed system of logic and an authoritarian structure in the organization. Maintaining a noninformed state existing in the subject." (Singer & Ofshe, 1990, pp. 189-190)
I'd now like to paraphrase just a little bit of the information I found at the same site: One of the techniques used is called The Hot-Seat Technique in which a confession is drawn out of a new recruit and the other members alternate disapproval for his/her confessions with praise for "coming clean". Then the leader encourages the new recruit to improve him/herself, and redirects the "confessional into an extemporaneous exhortation to the group", both humiliating the recruit and praising him for the confession at the same time. This is done in order to decrease self-esteem since people lacking in self-esteem are more easily persuaded by weak messages than those higher in self-esteem are. So if someone needs to tear down your self-esteem in order to convince you of something, chances are the message is not truthful or sensical enough to stand on it's own.
Next, the AFF Resources Student Study Guides & Resources Cultic Studies Critical Thinking page discusses some principles which are commonly used by people trying to convince you of something. I'll paraphrase just a little bit of what they have to say, or quote when necessary: "Rule of Reciprocity: According to sociologists and anthropologists, one of the most widespread and basic norms of human culture is embodied in the rule of reciprocity." Basically, this is the idea of returning a favor. Some people try to exploit this by giving you something first in order to make you feel indebted, and therefore obligated to return the favor. This works so well because it's very powerful, applies to uninvited first favors which does not allow us to choose who the rule should apply to and it can cause unequal exchanges because sometimes people will agree to too large a favor in order to stop feeling indebted.
They also describe the door-in-the-face technique in which someone asks for a very large favor which they know will be denied, in order to get you to agree to a smaller favor, which is the one they really want. Of course, I'd already heard of the door-in-the-face technique from my psychology classes in college, as well as the foot-in-the-door technique. That is where someone asks you for a very small favor which they know most people would be likely to agree to, so that you will be more likely to say yes to a bigger favor since you've already made an initial commitment and people often feel obligated to be consistent. (See the section on commitment and consistency a little later.)
The solution to people taking unfair advantage of reciprocity?:
"Our best defense against the use of reciprocity pressure to gain compliance is not systematic rejection of the initial offers of others. Rather, we should accept initial favors or concessions in good faith, but be ready to redefine them as tricks should they later be proved as such. Once they are redefined in this way, we will no longer feel a need to respond with a favor or concession of our own."
Other important principles used to con people into something are Commitment and Consistency. People want their speech, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors to be consistent because society places a high value on consistency and because consistency makes life easier. When you are consistent, instead of having to process all the relevant information you only have to recall earlier decisions. The important thing to con artists and other marketers in using consistency, is getting an initial commitment or stand that's consistent with the behavior they want to talk you into in the future. (Recall the foot-in-the-door technique I mentioned earlier). When you are alert to efforts to influence you, however, you will be less susceptible to manipulation because commitments are most effective when they are viewed as uncoerced. They are also more effective when public, active, and requiring effort. The tendency to want to be consistent can cause us to act in self-defeating ways, because commitment decisions can snowball as people add new rationalizations to justify decisions they've already made. To avoid becoming further victimized by this kind of pressure we'd better resist doing things we know we don't want to do, and "ask ourselves a crucial question,'Knowing what I know, if I could go back in time, would I make the same commitment?'"
Another principle is that of Social Proof. "One means we use to determine what is correct is to find out what other people think is correct. We view a behavior as more correct in a given situation to the degree that we see other performing it." So sometimes people will try to talk you into something by telling you that lots of other people, and/or very famous people are doing it, too. new recruit) Social proof works best when the situation is uncertain and when the people are similar since people are more likely to follow others who are similar to them. We need to be aware of false evidence about what other people are doing as well as the fact that doing something solely because people who are a lot like us are doing it is a bad reason.
Another principle is Liking. People are more likely to do favors for those they know and like, so those trying to convince you of something try to appear likable, which often includes being physically attractive as well. In addition to the fact that people like looking at beautiful people, people also tend to attribute other positive and unrelated traits to the person as well. This is called the "halo" effect. Liking also depends on similarity, since we like people who are just like us. Flattery really can get you everywhere. People like people who compliment them, as the flatterer is not being too obvious! People also like people they are more familiar with, especially under conditions of "mutual and successful cooperation". Association is important to, and is often used to connect the person to positive images or events. A good way to protect ourselves from this type of manipulation is to be aware when we like the person more than the circumstances would ordinarily dictate, and to separate the person from the request so that we can make a decision "based solely on the merits of the offer".
Authority is yet another principle. Many of you may have heard about the Milgram experiment in which subjects thought they were giving experimental confederates electric shocks in response to requests by the experimenter. The experiment showed that most people have a very strong tendency to obey authority figures. Often this can be adaptive, but often people will respond to "the mere symbols of authority rather than to its substance". Research has shown that three kinds of symbols: titles, clothing and automobiles are effective in getting people to respond to someone as an authority figure.
"In separate studies investigating the influence of these symbols, individuals possessing one or another of them (and no other legitimizing credentials) were accorded more deference or obedience by those they encountered. Moreover, in each instance, those individuals who deferred or obeyed underestimated the effect of authority pressures on their behaviors."
In order to guard against this kind of manipulation we need to concentrate on what credentials the person has or is lacking in order to legitimately be called an "expert", and consider whether the person is trustworthy. We should beware of the "trust-enhancing tactic in which a communicator first provides some mildly negative information about him- or herself. Through this strategy the person creates a perception of honesty that makes all subsequent information seem even more credible to observers." Personally, I have also observed that someone who is legitimately an expert in one field, will be used as an authority figure on something completely unrelated to his/her field of expertise. We'd better watch out for this as well.
According to the scarcity principle, people think opportunities are more valuable when they are more rare. In marketing and con artistry this is used when they say things like "limited number" or "for a limited time only" or other deadline tactics. This works due to the fact that
"because things that are difficult to attain are typically more valuable, the availability of an item or experience can serve as a shortcut cue to its quality; as things become less accessible, we lose freedoms. According to psychological reactance theory, we respond to the loss of freedoms by wanting to have them (along with the goods and services connected to them) more than before."
In addition, research has found that information that has limited access to it is more persuasive. The scarcity principle works best when the items are become more valuable recently (as opposed to being scarce all along) and when we have to compete with other people for them. This has an "emotion-arousing quality" that needs to be counteracted by being alert to the emotional rush, taking steps to calm ourselves and then make a decision based on the merits of the item. "(*Taken from Influence. Science and Practice, Robert B. Cialdini, Scott, Foresman and Company, 1985; Summary notes.)