Assessment of coercive persuasion: the Scale of Detection of Coercive Persuasion in Group Contexts (EDPC)

Assessment of coercive persuasion: the Scale of Detection of Coercive Persuasion in Group Contexts (EDPC) ÉVALUATION DE LA PERSUASION COERCITIVE : L’ÉCHELLE DE DÉTECTION DE LA PERSUASION COERCITIVE DANS DES CONTEXTES DE GROUPES (EDPC) Ph.D. José Miguel Cuevas, Universidad de Málaga Ph. D. Carmen Almendros, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid Jesús M. Canto Universidad de Málaga 1. INTRODUCTION Here, we’ll review the “dark side of the groups”…. But usually, groups are good. Some benefits of the groups (Baumeister y Leary, 95; Fiske, 2010; Stangor, 2004): - Survival - Reduce anxiety - Increase confidence and self-esteem - Personal empowerment - Understanding of reality, control - Social identity - Productivity - Membership - Social support They’re very important to satisfy the affiliative needs. People extremely strive to join groups. Sometimes, the worst enemy Sometimes groups are the source of relational abuse. Psychological abuse (Langone, 1992) would be those practices in which the person is treated as an object to be manipulated and used, rather than as a person. Respect for your mind, your autonomy, your identity and your dignity is necessary. They offer to satisfy your needs and desires. Its objectives and statutes have little to do with its true purposes, closely linked to the desires and interests of its leaders. They show an attractive image, a "wonderful facade, that hides a dark back room full of secrets" (McDonald, 1988). There is a double rule, a double standard. Group Psychological Abuse It’s better not to distinguish psychologically abusive groups based on the context: religious congregation, cult, business organization, couples, work context, etc. The phenomenon is common and analogous in its characteristics and development (Rodríguez-Carballeira et al., 2005) The experts in legal context should not be involved in the terminological denomination of the agent; its better to focus on the practices and consequences that have generated (or intensified) in the valued persons (Alonso, 2010, Almendros et al., 2011, Cuevas, 2012) Evolution of cultic groups “Old school”, communes in the 70’-80’, to“Personal growth”, business, coaching, new age, rural touristic places… in the XXI century. New appearances: coercive coaching, pseudo-therapies, personal growth, humanitarian aid,; “from the robe to the suit” Evolution of the Old School… “Personal Growth, communes, rural places, etc.” The background, the consequences and manipulation do not seem to have changed An attractive Hook of cults (Perlado, 2011; Cuevas, 2012) - Support of academic and proffessionals (Status) - Proselytism in classrooms at universities and public centers - Healing and immersion in health contexts - Dictatorships with a democratic appearance - “Spirituality and magic” immersed in a discurse that denies its religious or esoteric nature - Use of new media (ICTS) for the recruitment and control Extreme Consequences The most dramatic, horrible and visible for mass media (Cuevas, 2015): - Criminal activities - Terrorist attacks: Daesh (Hassan, 2015), Aum Shinrikyo, Osho, etc - Suicides - Sexual abuse But… Usual consequences (Cuevas, 2012, 2016) 1. Damages to the vital journey and personal FREEDOM 2. Damages to mental health 3. Emotional problems 4. Blocks free choice of partner or breaking partners 5. Damages to the family structure 6. Damages to the social network 7. Social and work damages 8. No future outside the group 9. Economic, working and personal exploitation 10. Sexual exploitation The damage is “EGOSINTONIC”. The Victims • Their characterics have also changed , although there is no single profile (Singer y Lalich, 1997) • Situational factors and stressful events prior to entry are more important: separations, deaths, unemployment, etc. (Singer, 1979; Swope, 1980; Carr, 1981; Clark, Langone, Schecter y Daly, 1981; Maron, 1988; Langone, 1996 Tobias y Lalich, 1997) • Myth: only for mad people, “strange people” o incultivated people. Research shows that they have a little better intelligence, from stable and good families contexts and have no history of mental illness (Lalich, 1997; Langone, 1993; Cuevas, 2012, 21016). Many members did not suffer any previous vulnerability: only 1/3 presented some difficulty or psychological problem (Sirkin y Grellong, 1988; Langone, 1993; Singer y Lalich, 1997) • They look for active, productive, intelligent and energetic persons to help them raise funds, recruit more followers, run business or lead their seminars (Lalich, 1997) Can be anyone as long as they: 1. have an ideological & affective connection 2. are on a vulnerable moment Are in high risk if they: - are unaware of manipulation practices, social influence, etc; Members don´t know there is a coordinated influence program (Singer y Lalich, 1997; Almendros, Rodríguez-Carballeira, Carrobles y Gámez-Guadix, 2010). - have a social network with a preference of risky contents: subcultural risks: New Age’s lovers, esoteric contents, alternative therapies, magic solutions, extreme practices, etc. - have a reduced social network - are socially discontent - are unemployed with too much free time - have “Pre-cultic” characteristics (Rodríguez, 2000) DEFINITIONS: COERCIVE PERSUASION & TYPES OF COERCIVE PERSUASION Extreme and intentional influence. This groups build a complex structured system of influence & manipulation. Their techniques are the source and reason of the controversy generated by this groups (Almendros et al, 2011) Any deliberate act of a person or group of influencing the attitudes or behavior of another people, relying on the use of force (whenever physical, psychic or social) (RodríguezCarballeira, 1994). 17 manipulative techniques in 4 types of coercion: A) ENVIRONMENTAL (4) B) EMOTIONAL (3) C) COGNITIVE (6) D) INDUCTION OF DISOCIATIVE STATES (4) A. ENVIROMENTAL’S TECHNIQUES (4 techniques) Examples A.1. Isolation "The goal was to eliminate my family. I came to believe that my parents were "monsters", that my father sexually abused me, ... a whole nightmare created within the group. "They manipulated my memories, I was convinced that my father wanted to kill me" A.2. Control of information “It was totally isolated from the outside, it is an example, I was from 80 to late 88, when I left I did not know that the Mecano group existed” Note: “Mecano” was a top spanish group in the 80-90 decades A.3. Creation of an Existencial Dependency State Ex. Pseudohinduist religious cult: Freedom?. On a sexual level, he decided I had to experiment with people of the same sex. After that I had to maintain relations with the leader and with other people of his choice ... He later forced me to make vows of chastity for years ... literally, you had to wipe your ass like they had been taught " M.* Shortly before leaving I had accepted that I would marry with a complete stranger (from another country), someone with whom I would have to spend my whole life. Divorce is not allowed in the group (instead, the leader imarried several times). A.4. Physical & Psychological Weakening Ex. Pseudohinduist religious cult .: We usually slept 3 or 4 hours a day. One day a week you did not sleep because you attended the leader's master classes all night. I remember we pulled the hair off our legs so we could stay awake (...) B. TECHNIQUES BASED ON EMOTIONAL CONTROL (3 techniques) Examples B. 5. Emotional Activation of Joy Ex. coercive coaching E.: Multiple emotional dynamics: “In a dark room you begin to receive compliments, for ten or fifteen minutes by each partner”. Color choreography, happy music Cradling: “they catch you all, raise you and cradle you ... about 20 people pick you up, you are with your eyes closed. It's a wonderful feeling " Solidarity tests, etc. B. 6. Emotional activation of fear, guilt and anxiety Ex. Pseudotherapeutic cult.: Regarding his girlfriend, whom she wanted to take away from her "what do you think of the idea that you're talking to her at home and going to the bathroom, you're still talking to her; you leave the bathroom and suddenly you see as it is not, you look out on the balcony and you see she crashed on the ground. Would you be able to live with this risk and this responsibility? " B.7. Selective application of awards and punishments Ex. Pseudohinduist religious cult: “They humiliated me in public,they spit on me several times and even accused me of having beaten some people (...). I was rewarded especially when I "loaned" six million pesetas (over 36.000 euros), it was a time praising me. In addition, it generated competitiveness and envy to see who served him best (...) Ex. Pseudohinduist religious cult: I used to be deprived of food, sleep or speech, forcing you to have a vow of silence, not being able to talk to anyone, or the use of the public transport, forcing you to walk everywhere no matter how far you were, you could also be deprived of shelter in times of excessive cold weather, etc. But the worst thing was the emotional void. D.T. *: “Lashes on the back ... you would fall and he went over you ... aggressions, insults, humiliations ... the worst is emotional punishment ... he knows that is what it really hurts" C. COGNITIVE CONTROL TECHNIQUES (6 techniques) Examples C.8. Denigration of critical thinking Invite not to think, repetitive mantras (1728 times mantras a day), prevent any option to criticism ... C.9. Use of lies and deception Double moral order, utopian goals, inciting to make confessions, etc. C. 10. Demand for condescension and identification with the group Group elitism, group thinking, signs, dress, hymns, etc. C.11. Attention control Cancellation of free time, constant duties and routines, accompaniment, etc. C.12. Control over language Slogans, technicalities, reduction of thought through cliches, totalitarian language, etc. C.13. Alterations of sources of authority The hierarchy is the only authority, which boasts an absolutist power and without competition, above previous authorities, laws, etc. D. TECHNIQUES OF INDUCTION OF DISSOCIATIVE STATES (4 techniques) D.14. Drug's use D.15. Denial of treatment / medical assistance D.16. Songs, mantras, "speaking in tongues", meditation, prayer, not thinking D.17. Other methods of dissociation: suggestion, hypnosis, trance, etc. Ex. Pseudotherapeutic cult: “I was about to go crazy really. Before the strong doubts arrived ... I was totally confused ... I said I do not understand and I put all my effort to understand it. Depending on what suited you what you thought, you were or was your disorder. It was as if I were two persons, and depending on what suits her, you were you, or you were another”. Therapist B.: “It made me believe that my father and my uncle abused me continuously. She altered my memories with hypnosis and regressions. All the family behaviors becomes abuse”. COERCIVE PERSUASION IN OTHER CONTEXTS 1. In pseudo-therapies or thereapeutic contexts (Perlado, 2011) 2. In organizations/companies (mobbing) Leymann (1990); Olweus (1994); Fendrich, Woodword y Richman (2002) 3. In couples and other dyadic relationships (Rodríguez-Carballeira, Almendros, Escartín, Porrúa, Martín-Peña, Javaloy y Carrobles, 2005) 4. Bullying , cyberbullying (Cuevas y Perlado, 2011) 5. Grooming (Cuevas y Perlado, 2011) 6.Trafficking of women 7. Indoctrination – terrorist fanaticism (Rodríguez-Carballeira et al, 2009; Trujillo, et al., 2009; Martín-Peña et al., 2010; Moyano & Trujillo, 2013; Hassan, 2015) 8. Prisioners of war and state terrorism (Rodríguez-Carballeira, 1994; Cuevas y Canto, 2006; Cuevas, 2016) 9. Totalitarian regimes (Rodríguez-Carballeira, 1994) 10. Within conventional religions (Fernández, 1997; Velasco, et al.,2012;Esquivias, 2015) ASSESSMENT OF COERCIVE PERSUASION • Few assessment tools for abusive groups contexts • They focus usually on psychological abusive practices. • Group Psychological Abuse (GPA, Chambers, Lagone, Dole y Grice, 1994), is a good scale for individual experiences. It has been validated in several countries • Other scales: Individual Cult Experience Index (ICE, Winocur, Withney, Sorensen, Vaughn, & Foy, 1997); Across Groups Psychological Abuse and Control Scale (AGPAC; Wolfson, 2002) • Our study focus in coercive persuasion; we want to distinguish between manipulative and no manipulative groups, depending on the application of coercive persuasion STUDY OBJECTIVES The main objective is to elaborate an analyze new tools to assess the dynamics of coercive persuasion / psychological abuse, which may be useful in clinical and forensic contexts. We elaborated the Coercive Persuasion Detection Scale, based on the main questions of the interview questions of the EPC and in the classification of coercive techniques of Rodríguez – Carballeira (1994, 2001, 2004), Cuevas & Canto (2006), and we examined their psychometric properties. SOURCE OF THE ITEMS 1. Environmental Control 1. Isolation 2. Informational control 3. Existential dependence 4. Psychophysical weakening 01, 02, 03, 04, 05 y 06 07, 08 y 09 10, 11, 12, 13 y 14 15, 16, 17, 18 y 19 2. Emotional Control 5. Activation of positive emotions 6. Activation of negative emotions 7. Application of fears and punishments 20, 21, 22 y 23 24, 25, 26, 27 y 28 29, 30, 31 y 32 3. Cognitive Control 8. Denigration of critical thinking 9. Use of lies and deception 10. Demand for condescension and identification with the group 11. Attentional control 12. Control over language 13. Alteration of souces of authority 33 y 34 35 y 36 37, 38 y 39 40 y 41 42 43 y 44 4. Dissociative Control 14. Drug’s use 15. Denial of health care 16. Use of rituals 17. Other methods for obtaining dissociation 45 46 47 48, 49 y 50 2. METHOD PARTICIPANTS We select a sample of 134 spanish participants who self – identified as having been abused or over-controlled by a group. 48,5% (n=65) were females and 51,5% (n=69) males, with a mean age of 48.85 years (SD = 11,91). PROCEDURE Participants accessed through http://questionpro.com/t/ABwJQZSrPu to the battery of assessment tools, through Proquest, from July to September 2015. Self-identified persons as victims of psychological abused by coercive groups. Anonymous participation and informed consent prior to participation DATA ANALYSIS Data was analyzed using the SPSS. 20.0 (IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences, 2011) & FACTOR 9.2 (Lorenzo-Seva y Ferrando, 2006), adapted for Windows® : - Descriptive analysis of results: means, standard desviations and frequencies - Parametric (T Student) & no parametric (U Mann Withney) tests: differences between sex and born (born vs. not born/bred in group) - Psichometric characterics of the EDPC scale: descriptive analysis of the items; Exploratory factor analysis based on the Hull Method, model adjustment indexes; internal consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha) - Correlations between EDPC & other variables of interest: GPA, MOSS-SSS, BSI, ICP, EDS 3. RESULTS CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE There are no differeces between genders: t (132) = 0,57; p= 0,57. Except condition “Time in”. Higher coercive puntuations in women when they stay some years in groups. The majority live in a couple relation(57,5%; n=77), with univerisity or technical studies (82%; n=110), currently working (71,6 %; n=96), with a perceived socioeconomic status mean (54,5 %; n= 73) or mean-high (22,4%; n=30). Almost two thirds reported being believers (64,2%; n=86). DESCRIPTIONS REGARDING GROUP EXPERIENCE 30,6% (n= 93) was borned or raised in the group, no differences with respect to the unborn/bred in the group: t(132) = -0,68; p= 0,49. The mean age at wich they entered the group was 20,91years (SD = 10,67), remaining on average for 14,39 years (DT = 10,34) & leaving, on average, 13,75 years ago (DT = 11,94). DESCRIPTIONS REGARDING GROUP EXPERIENCE First, linked to groups from Catholic Church, 67,91% (n = 91). 51,49% (n = 69) from Opus Dei and 12,68 % (n = 17) from Camino Neocatecomunal. 0,7 % (n = 1) Legionarios de Cristo and other 0,7 % (n =1) to a non-specific catholic group. 2,23 % (n = 3) are from “Tradición Familia y Propiedad” (TFP Covadonga) and/or “Heraldos del Evangelio”. Pyramid+commercial (20,9%) and then, therapeutic group (10,4 %), coaching or personal growth & syncretic (9,7 %). 4,5 % each one: politic, philosophical, cultural & New Age groups. POURPUSES OF THE GROUP • Obtain power and money…………………..….33,33% (n=37) • Proselytism …………………………….……..18,91% (n=21) • Control ………………………………………..17,12% (n=19) • Work……………………...…………….......….10,81% (n=14) • Sectarianism .……………………………...… 6,30 % (n=7) • Influence ….................................................. 5,40 % (n=6) • Other: abuse, exploitation, obedience, dependence, fear… DESCRIPTIVES WITH RESPECT TO THE GROUP EXIT Type of perceived abuse Psychological abuse: 93,3 % (n=125), at high levels (quite, very or continuously) Psysical Abuse: 20,8% (n=109) Sexual Abuse: 18,7% (n=25) Current attitude Very negative attitude toward the Leader… 74,6% (n=100) (the highest on a 7-point Likert scale) Very negative attitude toward the group …..60,4 % (n=81) Very negative attitude toward the partners ..16,4% (n=22) Current attitude: rejection, indifference, contempt, grief, anger, hatred, disgust, pity, pain, indignation, sadness, resentment and hopelessness. How did you leave the group? Pesonal Reflection… 67,9% (n=91) Family or Friends help….. 14,2% (n=19) Expulsion.……………. 18,7% (n=25) Advised by experts…… … 9,7% (n=13) Deprogramming…. 15 % (n= 20) Nearly 40 % of exits were facilitated by counselors, specialists, famliy or friends Other reasons: dissolution of the group, falling in love, disagreement with the leader or superior, beig near to death, psychological and physical exhaustion, change of residence, physical problems, observed manipulation of their child, mental problems, depression, receiving threats, forced to mistreat others, for abuses of the member´s children, not being able to stand the group, for personal evolution… Psychological assistance previous to entering the group Only 9,7 % (n = 13) received any psychological attention before entering the group, vs 44 % (n = 59) with psychological attention after they leave the group. Assistance after leaving the group * Psychological attention: 44% (n=59) • Psychological assistance linked directly to group experience: 35,8% (n=48) • Medical assistance linked directly to group experience: 26 % (n=35) • Psychiatric assistance: 17,7 % (n=22) • 45% have been helped by cultic experts (n=24) Treatment duration: from a few consultations to 13 years, the majority a period longer to a month (82 %) COERCIVE PERSUASION DETECTION SCALE EDPC - DISTRIBUTION OF THE SCORES