Resisting the influence of cults

Resisting the influence of cults

Moral Reasoning and awareness of own values

Kolherg (1969) believed that moral development proceeds in stages throughout life. Some people never achieve thee highest stage of moral development, post-conventional reasoning, which involves an understanding that society's rules and conventions are not always morally right. An awareness of one's values, and confidence in these values, can help people to resist conformity.

Hornsey et al. (2003) found that if someone has a strongly held conviction about an issue, they are less likely to conform. In a follow up to Asch's study, Perrin and Spencer (1980) found that engineering students were much less likely to conform. This may relate to their self-confidence in their own ability to make visual judgements. Confidence is promoted in schools, and may help young people resist the pressure to abuse alcohol and drugs.

This theory helps to explain why some people act immorally, but raising people's moral development is very difficult. It is not practical as a short-term strategy.

Questioning Motives

Another factor affecting compliance is the ability to question motives. To achieve sales, certain compliance techniques are sometimes used.

The low-ball technique is similar to Milgram's obedience study- participants had agreed to take part, and didn't feel they could pull out when greater 'costs' (in terms of stress) were later revealed.

Cults are experts in using compliance techniques, making people feel that they have made a commitment that they cannot escape from. Raising awareness of these techniques makes them much less powerful.

Simply making people aware of the techniques that are used can help people to resist them. Anderson and Zimbardo (1984) state that it is important that people avoid making decisions when under stress, and avoid making decisions when in the presence of the person who triggers the stress.

Disobedient Models

As Milgram (1974) demonstrated, having peers who refused to continue led to the lowest levels of obedience. In Asch's study, the presence of just one other group member who disagreed with the majority was enough to reduce conformity to under 10%. Both of these studies show the potential effect on our behaviour if other people in society resist social pressure. These disobedient peers act as role models, making it easier for others to do the same.

In a partial replication of Hofling et al.'s (1966) study of obedience, Rank and Jacobson (1977) found that only 11% of nurses obeyed when they were allowed to check with a colleague. The idea that disobedience is more likely when people are allowed to discuss their course of action was supported by Gamson et al. (1982), who found greater levels or dissent when people were put into groups, and allowed to mix and discuss their ideas.

Experimental evidence supports the strong effect of disobedient models on our behaviour. Children could be encouraged to discuss a problem with friends or guidance staff at school, for example, when they are being pressured into doing something. Telephone helplines may also be valuable.

A limitation is that all too often in the real world, there is no disobedient model to help people resist obedience.

Some real-world evidence goes against the value of disobedient models. During the Second World War, the Nazi soldiers of Reserve Police Battalion 101 murdered Jewish civilians despite being given the option to be assigned to other duties. Despite several 'disobedient models', 80% of the troops continued to carry out the killings (Browning, 1992).