The question now was why anyone would engage or remain in a business without a reasonable hope for meaningful success. Didn’t Amway/ Quixtar people understand that the odds were stacked against success, as the numbers reflected? Why would people make a business commitment if it wasn’t in their own best interest? After all, isn’t business about making money? At this juncture I pointed out that Amway had settled a class action lawsuit for $56 million. The lawsuit alleged that the company had engaged in predatory practices including “racketeering, among other charges.”1153
Why would people knowingly allow themselves to be preyed on? We touched on what some Amway critics have called the “cultlike” nature of the organization, a kind of rigid mind-set expressed by Amway enthusiasts who echo the same jargon and seem totally enthralled with the company. Does Amway have a preferred way of thinking that denigrates objective and critical analysis? Do Amway and Quixtar devotees behave like people in cultlike groups? Do Amway distributors recognize that multilevel marketing often ignores basic business principles like market saturation? Or do they obscure such reasonable guidelines with the company’s slogans and jargon?
Later on during the first day, we touched on what might be seen as “Loading the Language” in Amway. That is what psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton describes as “highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed” that become “the start and finish of any ideological analysis.”1154 Loaded language is one of the characteristic components of what Lifton calls “thought reform” or what is more commonly labeled “brainwashing.”
We talked about how Amway appears to use such verbiage through phrases such as “building the business,” which essentially means recruiting more “downlines”1155 or distributors by showing “the plan.”1156The plan means the multilevel marketing scheme Amway and Quixtar uses. The lure for many potential participants is referred to as “chasing the dream”1157 of wealth and success. Someone who criticizes Amway/ Quixtar is apt to be labeled a “dream stealer,”1158 a derogatory label denoting that someone somehow represents opposition or is an impediment to the dream fulfillment attributed to Amway. People or things that distract someone from following the plan are “negative”1159 and therefore avoided. This might include a regular job, television, or in some situations family and old friends.
The young man was familiar with all these expressions. He had often heard them through his involvement with Amway/Quixtar. His “sponsor” or “upline,” who mentored him, sometimes spoke of them.
Reviewing this particular form of insider language and how it paralleled Lifton‘s definition of loaded language drew the young man’s interest. He listened intently to the explanation of how such language could restrict critical thinking and ultimately constrict the mind itself. I commented how this might partly explain why people stayed in Amway, even when it didn’t produce meaningful income. They were following “the plan” and caught between “chasing the dream” and being “negative.”
We also discussed the environmental control exerted through Amway’s subculture composed of “downlines” and “uplines.” How much time did he actually spend with people outside those tied into the multilevel marketing company? Were his preexisting friendships outside of Amway being nurtured and meaningfully maintained, or were they withering and falling away? To what extent had Amway come to dominate his daily life and environment? How much significant feedback did he really receive from people outside the Amway subculture that now surrounded him?
These questions solicited answers from the young man that provided further evidence of the pervasiveness of Amway’s influence in his life. He admitted that his time was increasingly taken up with Amway and that the people he now socialized with were largely other Amway distributors. We also discussed his attendance at Amway conferences, seminars, and meetings and looked at how the company and its supporters controlled these activities and environments.
Didn’t all these factors contribute to the creation of a kind of encapsulated Amway world or subculture, in which only positive affirmations about the company were encouraged, recognized, and allowed? How could anyone within such a subculture meaningfully consider alternate ideas? Was it really possible for alternate ideas to penetrate this environment? Could any criticism of Amway and its business practices be seriously considered and thought through within this environment? These questions ended our first day.
At the beginning of the second day, we discussed in more detail how Amway, through its subculture and domination of time and associations, could be seen as what psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton calls “Milieu Control.”1160 I asked whether it was possible that his new Amway life had effectively come to control much of his communication and had effectively shut out, dismissed, or eliminated anything negative that might contradict or criticize Amway’s basic assumptions or its business plan. At this point the young man became uneasy and asked whether this meant that Amway was somehow engaged in what could be called “brainwashing.”
Building on the thought-reform model, I cited another criterion Lifton described called “Sacred Science.” That is, the group or organization encourages “an aura of sacredness around its basic dogma,” and “this sacredness is evident in the prohibition (whether or not explicit) against the questioning of basic assumptions, and in the reverence which is demanded for the originators of the Word, the present bearers of the Word, and the Word itself.”1161
I asked the young man whether seriously questioning the Amway business plan was possible. Would criticism of the plan be tolerated? He answered that any distributor who criticized the business plan was likely to be pressured to cease such criticism. If the distributor persisted in criticism, he or she would probably be labeled as negative and made to feel so uncomfortable that he or she would leave Amway.
I asked whether the plan was possibly wrong in some aspect. Could Amway’s business plan be improved based on constructive criticism—for example, addressing the issue of market saturation? The young man responded that he couldn’t recall an instance when any mistakes or imperfection was acknowledged in regard to the Amway business plan. He added that if a distributor didn’t get positive results through the plan, the failure was somehow due to that distributor’s personal failure to execute the plan properly. There was never any criticism of the plan itself.
I asked him whether a perfect business plan actually existed. Didn’t businesses frequently benefit by encouraging constructive criticism from within? Wouldn’t acknowledging mistakes in a business plan lead to improvement, positive change, and a better business plan? Wouldn’t an improved plan provide more profits? Wasn’t that the goal of positive, evolving change? Isn’t that often a goal of good business? The young man appeared perplexed but admitted that these were basic business principles that made sense; he’d studied them in college. His father interjected emphatically that all businesses were subject to changing conditions and that no business plan was perfect.
I then asked the young man another question. Did he feel there was noticeable reverence expressed toward the leaders in Amway who achieved elevated positions in the organizational multilevel marketing scheme, such as distributors who had reached the rank of “emerald” or “diamond”? He admitted that such people were greatly admired, if not revered, and put forth as examples or role models to be imitated. I mentioned that this reverence for the “bearers of the Word” or plan could be seen as another expression of “Sacred Science” in Amway. The young man appeared to be more interested in the process of coercive persuasion used to gain undue influence than in criticism of the business practices of Amway.
On the third day we delved into the subject of social influence. We discussed six basic principles of influence, which professor of psychology Robert Cialdini outlined.1162 How might these principles be used to manipulate people in Amway? For example: “The principle of social proof…states that one means we use to determine what is correct is to find out what other people think is correct; the principle app
lies especially to the way we decide what constitutes correct behavior. We view a behavior as more correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it.”1163 Cialdini elaborates, “Usually, when a lot of people are doing something, it is the right thing to do. This feature of the principle of social proof is simultaneously its major strength and its major weakness.”1164
I asked whether it was possible that Amway had created a false social proof by using the company’s relative control of the environment through its monopolization of the young man’s time and social interactions. That is, if everyone around him was enthusiastically echoing and providing confirmation of Amway’s business plan and saying it was wonderful through successive meetings, conferences, and social gatherings, did that influence his thinking? He agreed that social proof was a factor that initially encouraged and later intensified his participation in Amway.
We also explored how the interlocking principles of “liking” and “authority” might influence thinking in a multilevel marketing scheme. Specifically, it is true that “we most prefer to say yes to the requests of someone we know and like.”1165 For example, as Cialdini points out, “how much more difficult it is for us to turn down a charity request when it comes from a friend or a neighbor.” The young man admitted that his relationships in Amway with people he liked had greatly contributed to his growing commitment and often served as a kind of organizational glue. He also acknowledged the powerful influence authority figures, such as emeralds and diamonds, exerted in Amway. We examined the “deep-seated sense of duty to authority within us all.”1166 Cialdini notes, “We are trained from birth that obedience to proper authority is right and disobedience is wrong.”1167 How had the powerful authority figures in Amway used the aura of authority to influence the thinking of distributors?
At this point during the third day, the young man broke down and began crying. He said that before our discussion began he’d had no idea how the organization manipulated him. But now that he had examined the process of coercive persuasion and the techniques commonly used to gain undue influence, he felt that he had been brainwashed and that this realization was deeply disturbing. I explained that the process people often call brainwashing is really quite subtle and comes on gradually in increments that are deceptive. I added that typically those the process exploits are therefore actually unaware of what is going on, and in this sense they never knowingly give their fully informed consent to go through such a process.
As the third day continued, we expanded our discussion of why people stay in multilevel marketing schemes such as Amway, even when they lose money or earn a minimal income that is inconsistent with the time they invest. Cialdini describes “our nearly obsessive desire to be (and to appear) consistent with what we have already done.”1168 This is accomplished through “personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment. Those pressures will cause us to respond in ways that justify our earlier decision.”1169 This is the basis for the principles of “commitment and consistency,” which Cialdini says can become the “hobgoblins of the mind.”1170
We now discussed how the young man’s hobgoblins of commitment had effectively anchored him to Amway so that he felt locked in by his commitment despite the financial setbacks and lack of meaningful income. The young man also explained that he had experienced pressure to remain—personally through his own sense of commitment and externally through other Amway distributors and “uplines.” This, in part, explained his seeming determination to remain loyal to Amway despite whatever hardships occurred and the serious questions his concerned family and friends raised about the business.
As the day ended we discussed what sociologist Benjamin Zablocki calls the “exit costs” cult members consider as “disincentives for leaving.” Zablocki lists “costs ranging from financial penalties, to relational commitments.”1171 I added that this might also include a sense of personal equity after much time, effort, and money have been invested and hardships endured.
At this point the young man looked at his parents and me and said he was done with Amway. Despite whatever exit costs existed, he had decided to stop being an Amway distributor. He explained that it was better to cut his losses now and move on than to suffer the probable greater costs of leaving later.
CHAPTER 22
FAILED INTERVENTIONS
It is important to understand the basis on which a successful intervention is determined. That is, what defines “success” and “failure” in my work as a professional consultant or cult-intervention specialist?
Success
Historically about 75 percent of the people who have retained me to help them due to concern about someone in a cultlike group or cultic situation have experienced a successful outcome. That is, by the end of our working relationship, the person who was the focus of concern ended his or her group involvement or cultic relationship.
It must be understood that my success rate includes all the people who have retained me. That means anyone who has paid me professional fees for assessment, consultation, or intervention work. This includes every billed client regardless of the level of work provided or amount of time spent in that working relationship.
Clients who retain me typically expect my work to culminate in an intervention effort. This usually means that there is a set date for the intervention, which is most often agreed on before I’m retained. The intervention typically takes three to four days.
Failure
A failure occurs when the person who is the focus of concern decides to stay with the cultlike group or leader despite the work I performed through the consultation or intervention effort.
The determination of whether my work has been a success or failure is therefore based on a simple question. Has the cult-involved person ended his or her involvement with the group or cultic situation as the direct result of my professional effort?
I have participated in approximately five hundred interventions (1982–2013). I don’t typically follow up with clients unless they subsequently decide to contact me. This is my policy based on professional boundaries regarding respect for privacy. But some clients have decided to follow up with me, particularly if there is a problem.
I can recall only two or three occasions when former clients contacted me to say that a person who had decided to leave a group or cultic situation by the end of an intervention effort later changed his or her mind and returned to the same group or situation. Based on this feedback from former clients, the rate of relapse after an initially successful interventions would seem to be less than 1 percent. That is, less than 1 percent of the successful intervention outcomes were later reversed when a cult member changed his or her mind and returned to his or her former situation.
Some families have later contacted me to report that though they initially experienced failure through an intervention effort, which I facilitated, the person who was the focus of the intervention later decided to leave the group. This change of mind was largely due to the information they received and the dialogue that occurred during the intervention. Such outcomes have occurred numerous times. Based on this feedback from my former clients, it appears that the rate of such delayed departures substantially exceeds 1 percent.
Statistics
In recent years I have substantially changed the mix of my work. I no longer devote all my time to interventions. My work now includes court expert testimony, media consulting, and lectures. I focus much of my time on the Web presence of the Cult Education Institute, an on-line database and research library devoted to the study of controversial groups and movements, some of whom have been called “cults.”
Between 2005 and 2013 seventy-seven clients retained me due to concerns about an individual involved in a cultic situation.
Based on the previously stated definitions for success and failure, my success rate within this historical group of clients (2005–2013) was 72.3 percent. That is, fifty-five clients experienced success when the individuals who ha
d caused concern due to a cultic situation left that situation as the direct result of my work.
Among this same historical group, twenty-one clients experienced failure. That is, regardless of the professional services I provided, the person involved in the cultic situation didn’t leave it. Two of these failures later resulted in people leaving a cultic situation, but this reversal didn’t occur immediately at the conclusion of my work.
Communication and Access Are Crucial
The single most pivotal issue that provides the foundation for any cult intervention or consultation effort is meaningful access to the cult-involved individual. Many families who have contacted me over the years have said they have little to no contact with a loved one who is in a cultic group or under undue influence in some type of cultic situation. Readers must understand that without substantial communication and meaningful access, effectively planning for any sort of intervention is virtually impossible.
When such unfortunate and difficult circumstances exist, I recommend that those who are concerned develop coping and communication strategies that may ultimately lead to improved contact and regular access. Essentially such strategies include scrupulously avoiding confrontation, arguments, and the expression of negative sentiments. Instead they should focus on more positive things, such as continuing affirmation of family support and affection. Using such strategies (see the chapter on “Coping Strategies”) can potentially produce a viable basis for an intervention, which can then be considered as a possible option.
My Shortest Intervention
Cults Inside Out: How People Get in and Can Get Out Page 42
