Hero

Videos

Slideshows

Articles

Podcasts

Poll

(This is the second part of a 3-part series. The first part discussed issues surrounding undue influence in the legal system, as well as the main thought reform and brainwashing models as background for a new framework for evaluating undue influence. This article discusses the evaluation of the proposed model—Ed.)

If our current means of detecting undue influence are not sufficient, can the BITE (Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional) Model of Authoritarian Control be of assistance? To better understand the feasibility and efficacy of such an approach and validate its use as reliable instrument, we conducted a study, which is detailed herein.

An anonymous online survey was created on SurveyMonkey and sent out to participants to collect data for this study. This approach enabled us to move forward with an institutional review board exemption. Participants were recruited online via social media and blog posts. Around 14% of participants were self-identified as a current member of a high-control group living mainly in the United States and other parts of the world. From the data collected, 82% of participants reported they were former members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Church of Scientology, multi-level marketing (MLM) groups, and other high-control groups. Convenience and snowball sampling methods were used for distributing the link to friends and family members. Participants electronically consented to participate in the research study. They were assured confidentiality and anonymity, as none of the IP addresses were recorded. In addition, participation was completely voluntary, and participants could withdraw at any time.

Extensive demographic information from 1044 participantswas collected. Less than 15% of the sample was incomplete. Participants were asked detailed questions regarding their involvement in the group in question, duration of their involvement in the group, and so on. A summary of the demographics is provided in 

To quantify the BITE model, 4 instruments were created on each component of BITE. It took approximately 30 to 40 minutes for participants to complete this survey. There were 132 items developed from the 4 instruments of BITE: 31 items were written to represent behavioral control, 33 items to represent information control, 29 items to represent thought control, and 39 items to represent emotional control. The response format was a 6-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 through 6 (1 =Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Occasionally, 4 = Frequently, 5 = Usually, and 6 = Always). The response labels were selected to assess the frequency of control on each of these elements. There were 20 questions based on demographics, residing country, employment status, highest education obtained, etc.

The raw data gathered from all the participants who completed the BITE model survey and demographic questions were exported from SurveyMonkey into an IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). All the raw data were cleaned and labeled and made ready for analysis.

The research question for this study was: What are the underlying dimensions of the items of behavioral, information, thought, and emotional (BITE) control model of mind control?

Factor Analysis was conducted using the Principal Component Analysis method, and the following results were obtained using a scree plot, KMO and Bartlett’s test, highest item loadings, and table of the total variance.

The scree plot is used to determine the number of factors to retain in principal components analysis. The procedure of finding statistically significant factors/components is shown in the 

. This plot confirmed the decision to go with 1-factor extraction.

Bartlett’s test examines whether the correlation matrix is an identity matrix. This condition just means that the variables are completely independent of each other; thus, the factor model is inappropriate. Identity matrix can be ruled out if the p-value of the test is less than 0.005.

, KMO value is .970, which is considered excellent, as it exceeds 0.5. 

Researchers computed Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity and showed significant sphericity of p = 0.000, which is less than (p < .05), suggesting that the factors that form the variable are satisfactory.

Factor loadings were reasonably strong, ranging from about .84 to .65. The items were examined for high to low factor loadings. All the items below .65 were excluded (

As only 1 major factor was derived from the analysis, we decided to name that factor “authoritarian control.” Per 

 is “of, relating to, or favoring blind submission authority.” However, 

 as the “principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action,” which may be a better fit.

The 4 BITE components explained a cumulative total of 49.33% of the variance (

The first component factor explained a total of 35.07% of the variance. The analysis of the remaining 65% variance yielded no concrete significant factor. As this variance was low, insignificant, and mainly data noise, it was disregarded. These data were represented in the scree plots by the long horizontal line at the bottom in the 

. The content of the items in the first factor resembled those in the underlined literature review, model and was labeled as control. In summary, principal component analysis of the questionnaire’s items produced an interpretable 1-factor simple structure.

What do these results mean, and what does this mean for real-life settings? The next installment will evaluate these results. In addition, it explains how this new framework will help the legal system provide a better tool to evaluate individuals under undue influence to provide them with the justice they deserve.

(Interested readers are invited to attend the presentation, “The BITE of Cults in Our Culture in the Age of COVID,” on Sunday, May 22, 2022, from 1:30 to 3:00 p.m. at the American Psychiatric Association Annual Meeting, in which Dr Hassan will be a copresenter.)

is a mental health professional and expert working for over 45 years in the field of destructive authoritarian control (undue influence) in relationships, organizations, and belief systems. He is the author of 4 books including 

Combating Cult Mind Control and Freedom of Mind

. He founded the Freedom of Mind Resource Center. He is the developer of the BITE Model of Authoritarian Control, the Influence Continuum Model, and the Strategic Interactive Approach. All are instrumental in helping empower individuals to exit authoritarian cults, trafficking, extremist groups, conspiracy theories, and controlling relationships.

is professor of psychiatry and cofounder of the Program in Psychiatry and Law, Beth Israel Deaconess Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School. He is the first professor of psychiatry in the history of Harvard Medical School to be board certified in both clinical and forensic psychiatry. An internationally known forensic psychiatrist and author of over 300 publications in the national and international clinical and forensic literature, Gutheil has served as a consulting or expert witness in more than 40 states. Recipient of every major award in the forensic field and multiple teaching and writing awards, he is also the recipient of the 2000 A. Clifford Barger Lifetime Achievement in Mentoring Award, Harvard Medical School. Gutheil lives and works in the Boston area.

was born in India and is a resident of the United States. She is a research associate at Dare Association, Inc., and a member of the Program in Psychiatry and Law at the Massachusetts Mental Health Center. She has a double master’s in psychology and writes articles based on her knowledge of behavioral and experimental psychology.

How can we more effectively evaluate undue influence? Here are methodologies and findings for research into a new framework that may help victims of undue influence find justice.

A New Framework: Exploring Efficacy

(This is the first of a 3-part article. The next articles will discuss a study exploring the notions presented here as well as their clinical and practical implications—Ed.)

To properly address the wrongs done to victims of destructive cults and other extreme exploitation situations, the justice system needs to understand and incorporate research on human development and undue influence.

 Current law assumes, incorrectly, that human beings make rational choices once they reach the age of majority despite the fact that neuroscientific research shows the brain continues to mature until age 25.

, Kahneman demonstrated that most human beings depend on unconscious heuristics to make fast decisions and use slow, conscious data analysis only when necessary.

 Former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Michael Musmanno once wisely observed that “more people feel their way through life than think their way through life.”

In this series of 3 articles, we present a new framework for evaluating undue influence. This installment will summarize some of the main issues with undue influence in the legal system as well as the main thought reform or brainwashing models. The Social Influence Model is a much-needed framework for experts to be able to do a competent job presenting a forensic analysis of undue influence in courts.

 The BITE (Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional Control) Model of Authoritarian Control, which has been qualitatively validated for over 30 years, is the subject of this research study, which will be presented in the second installment of this series. Until now, neither of these existing thought reform models have been evaluated quantitatively. The third installment will evaluate the results of the research study and explain how this new framework will help the legal system provide a better tool to evaluate individuals under undue influence to provide them with the justice they deserve.

Where Defining Undue Influence Is Important

Thomas Gutheil, MD, evaluated a young man involved with the Sun Myung Moon organization to determine if his decision to give money to that group was a competent one. (This article’s primary author belonged to the same group from 1974 to 1976.) Using a standardized method of conducting a cognitive assessment, the examiner administered a mental status exam. The participant gave a fluent, reasoned presentation about his decision, and Gutheil reported that the man handled the cognitive factors in the Mental State Examination. However, the administration of the proverbs test for abstract thinking proved difficult and disorganizing. Using existing guidelines and aside from the man’s difficulty with abstract reasoning, Gutheil did not find sufficient evidence that the young man was unfit. Although the decision was regarded as unwise by the examiner, it could not be demonstrated to be incompetent.

Consumer protection agencies have labeled pyramid schemes that defraud the public with false claims of becoming rich as illegal. These plans could be described as Ponzi schemes with people instead of money. Recognizing its inherent dangers, Noah Joshua Phillips, who served on the Federal Trade Commission, noted that even MLM experts shared the need to better define undue influence for the international problem of MLM.

 Specifically, although existing laws penalize the company and, in some cases, attempt to levy fines, no attention is given to the psychological harm done to those ensnared. Harm on such individuals can include loss of marriage, loss of relationships with family and friends, and loss of real career opportunities. Further research needs to be done to determine the public health harms, which include alcohol and substance addiction, depression, panic disorders, sleep disorders, and even suicide.

Radicalization of Adults (Online or In-Vivo Recruitment). 

More than 500 people were arrested after the attack on the Capitol in Washington DC on January 6, 2021.

 Many people have pled guilty and have expressed regret, saying they were deceived. Some people report following Donald Trump’s instructions as president; others have been involved with QAnon and other online groups. Some groups like the Proud Boys hold “in-vivo” meetings and have encouraged violence; they believe the present government is illegitimate. Islamic extremist groups recruit and indoctrinate individuals to enact violence and terrorism,

 and defectors of ISIS are put in camps by officials with no way to systematically discern whether the individuals are no longer dangerous or if they can be returned to their country of origin. The model described in this article might serve as a foundation to develop humane policies that encourage justice.

This paper provides an explanation of some models that have helped shape a framework to evaluate undue influence. One of the 3 models provides statistical analysis and potential solutions on how to evaluate or assess undue influence in the legal system. Each model is detailed as follows.

The Influence Continuum of Due Influence (Ethical) to Undue Influence (Unethical).

 In order to have a framework that can protect an individual from undue influence, one needs to utilize an influence continuum that is broad and easy to understand. On the ethical side of the continuum, informed consent is a vital practice. People need accurate information about the recruiter, the ideology, and what happens to them if they say yes to the proffered decision. Ethical, healthy influence recognizes that each person is unique. This framework assumes that individuals should enjoy freewill, critical thinking, conscience, creativity, humor, and love, as spelled out in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The themes described in the continuum are fleshed out by evaluation using the BITE model, which is detailed later in the article. Using these models, a motivated individual with modest research skills and digital access can verify claims about credentials and the methods and practices of organizations. Independent research must include critics and former members of the relevant group or organization. Lastly, researchers need to hold their own belief and value systems while learning about other ideological systems.

The Control of Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotion—as a Guide to Evaluating Groups and Situations. 

The BITE model is derived from the work of psychiatrists Robert Jay Lifton, MD, and Louis Jolyon West, MD,

 and psychologists Edgar Schein, PhD, and Margaret Singer, PhD, all of whom were involved in researching communist brainwashing. The BITE model presents a simpler, more concrete way to help people understand the complex phenomena entailed with cult and other forms of mind control.

The model began with the realization that Leon Festinger, PhD’s, famous theory of cognitive dissonance held a vital theoretical key

: Festinger argued that beliefs have cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. Festinger was studying a UFO-focused cult and was very curious why people did not leave the group when the spacecraft failed to appear on the designated mountain at the appointed time. In fact, the contrary occurred: Believers became even more firmly committed to their belief in aliens and the leader’s knowledge about them. Festinger proposed that human beings dislike conflict and prefer to have consistency or congruence so that thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are aligned. These ideas laid the foundation for all cognitive behavioral therapy.

 Individuals who make public commitments (behaviors) that become at variance with their private beliefs will often change their beliefs to be congruent with their behavior. Thus, influencers attempt to get others to act in certain ways so that they will think in different ways.

The BITE model uses these 3 components—behavior, thought, and emotion—and adds information as a fourth and overlapping component. The model proposes that behavior, thought, emotional, and information control constitute the 4 components of mind control.

 Human beings operate on the information they receive to function. Our brain relies on our senses to filter and evaluate data so that we can decide how to act. Sensory deprivation and information overload create conditions in which human beings cannot function optimally. Cults may suppress the real self and build a new identity over it that is controlled by the external authority or cult leader. This is a crucial insight into understanding the dissociative disorder 300.15 cited in the DSM-5, fifth edition.

The BITE model identifies and fleshes out specific components that characterize destructive cult policies. Since 1988, tens of thousands of individuals have reported that the BITE model has helped them identify their involvement in a destructive cult, enabling them to exit and reclaim their power. Its value has been demonstrated by individuals involved in a wide variety of destructive cults and controlling relationships across the world. Below are the BITE model criteria. The more criteria present under each component, the more controlling the destructive relationship or group is determined to be.

 The ultimate goal of behavior control is to instill dependency on and obedience to the group, its ideology, and its leadership. All major life decisions must be approved or dictated by the group. A member who does not first get permission for major decisions faces punishment. Individualism is discouraged and putting the group first is mandatory. Rigid rules and regulations are mandated and enforced. Thoughts, feelings, and activities—of self or others—must be reported to superiors.

In typical cult settings, clothing and hairstyle are among the factors used to create and enforce conformity.

 Members frequently need to live with approved people in approved housing. Control of diet, as well as fasting, is often used. Of course, sexuality is strictly controlled and regulated by cult leadership. Typically, members are sleep deprived. Research has demonstrated that individuals on average require 7 to 9 hours of sleep.

 Members are typically financially exploited, manipulated, or made entirely dependent. Usually, group indoctrination and self-indoctrination sessions demand many hours of members’ lives.

 The internet serves as a 24/7 indoctrination tool for mind controllers to keep members fully committed.

 There is little non-group leisure time or vacation time away. Those in power distribute rewards for “good” behavior and punishments for “bad” behavior.

Analyzing information is vital to understanding undue influence. For example, an ethical group will inform newcomers about who the group is, what its members believe, and what is expected of them if they become members. An unethical group uses deception by lying outright, withholding vital information, or distorting information to make it appear more acceptable. Often, all 3 types of lying are used, undermining the legal right of citizens to have informed consent to make decisions in their best interest.

Authoritarian cults usually have a pyramid shape with circles that emanate from its base (

Data flow from the top downward. The senior leadership decides who needs to know what and when people should know anything at all. There can be sharp discrepancies between what members hear versus what outsiders learn. The individual’s level of involvement needs to be considered in this framework. Individuals experience the unduly influencing organization at very different levels of involvement. By far, the vast majority of members are fringe members and are only ideologically influenced, but they are not part of the rank-and-file indoctrination.

When a forensic evaluation on social influence is conducted, determining how high up in the command-and-control structure the person is placed is essential. Leadership might mean greater privileges, separate housing, salary, and access to internal leadership documents and meetings. It might be a title and therefore higher status, but without independent decision-making ability. Members of destructive cults might get promoted and demoted several times over years of involvement. This, too, is significant. The position in the cult is also significant because lower-level members might not have access to outside sources of news at all. The legal department will know much more information that exists at the upper levels of the pyramid than the department of public relations.

Members must spy on others, including family and friends. Improper thoughts, feelings, and actions must be reported to leadership; otherwise, the person who fails to report will get into trouble, too. Many groups use a buddy system to monitor and control its members, especially when they are out proselytizing in public areas. The information gained about a member’s past, either through formal confessionals or reporting, is used to maintain group control. These data include false confessions

 of childhood abuse that may have been “remembered” through suggestive counseling or group practices.

 If a member starts showing signs of wishing to leave the group, the leadership will typically use this information and the threat of disclosure to get the member back in line.

Mind control cults, especially political cults, rely on the extensive use of propaganda.

 Websites and public and private videos are available 24/7, and meetings are often live streamed. Bigger groups have publication departments that churn out newsletters, magazines, journals, audiotapes, videotapes, podcasts, blogs, apps, and other media. Famous people are quoted, often without their permission and totally out of context, but in a way that supports the credibility of the group.

To be independent thinkers, people require information from a wide variety of reputable sources. Cults indoctrinate members to distrust critics, former members, and any media that is negative. Some groups tell members to avoid newspapers, books, articles, TV, radio, and any academic, science-based information. Some controllers keep believers so busy that they do not have time to think, check things out, or make outside relationships. Other groups control believers through their cell phones with GPS tracking, frequent texting, or calls. Some authoritarian groups have countless “front” groups to hide the parent organization.

 Hypnotic and suggestive strategies that induce an altered state of consciousness are often used to reprogram people’s thoughts and memories.

 Other techniques to induce thought control range from hours of tedious, monotonous lectures several times a week where members must memorize and regurgitate the correct answers, to audible prayers, chanting, speaking in tongues, and meditation, in ways that reduce critical thinking. Eyes-closed visualizations and guided meditation techniques can allow a group to insert thoughts and beliefs into their members.

The ideology of authoritarian groups, as discussed previously, is typically all-or-nothing, black-and-white, us-versus-them, and good-versus-evil. Members believe the doctrine to be the ultimate “truth” that is sacred and scientific.

 Members learn “thought-stopping” techniques to keep themselves pure and resist evil thoughts. The language system of closed groups can be an actual dialect not shared by outsiders. “Thought-terminating clichés” make complex ideas into platitudinous buzzwords known only by other members. Not all groups give members new names; however, when they do, it is a powerful technique that supports changes in the person’s identity.

Critical questions about the leader, the doctrine, or the organization’s policies are avoided or forbidden. Rational analysis, critical thinking, and even constructive criticism are deemed wrong. When members express this, it is turned around on them as a weakness of character and lack of devotion. All other groups and their belief systems are illegitimate, evil, or, at the very least, not useful.

Individuals are often initially “love-bombed” and flattered, sometimes with overt flirting to make them feel “special.” However, cult love is conditional upon being a good cult member and is quickly withdrawn if the person makes trouble by asking problematic questions. Members are required to always be grateful and happy, as they are part of the chosen people who “know the truth.” They believe they have the key to the world’s salvation. Members often sing songs written about the leader, the doctrine, or the group to keep positive. Listening to music, and especially singing cult songs to themselves as well as in the community, helps members access positive emotional states.

Members learn techniques like thought-stopping

 and emotion-stopping, mainly to block feelings of homesickness, anger toward leadership, or doubt. Whenever individuals feel depressed, anxious, or fearful, they are encouraged to feel guilty and engage in practices to further surrender themselves to the great leader or group. Whenever there is a problem, the group and leader are always right, and it is the member’s fault. If members feel healthy emotions, like sexual attraction to someone who is not approved, they are told they are evil and sinful or tempting Satan. Likewise, jealousy, greed, and envy are considered negative, so members deny and suppress them.

Sometimes members must repent publicly and confess these negative emotions. They are made to feel guilty, selfish, unworthy, and even unspiritual. The group can even try to make them feel guilty for their religion of origin, race, country, and personal history. The system of being in the cult always keeps people frustrated and dependent. Cult leaders want members to derive positive self-esteem by being a part of the group, not by individual accomplishments. Guilt and fear are the 2 most frequently used emotional control techniques.

One nearly universal technique used by cults was first described as phobia indoctrination.

 Obviously, phobias can be devastating and disrupt a person’s ability to function. Cult leaders either piggyback their programming onto preexisting phobias or implant phobias into members’ minds to such an extent that the members cannot imagine being happy and fulfilled without the group. In a cult member’s thinking, leaving the group equals loss of existence.

 Phobias can be diverse and range from fears about spiritual health (ie, going to hell, being possessed by demons, losing one’s soul) and physical health, (ie, getting cancer or AIDS, being killed by a car) to psychological health (ie, going insane, being committed to a mental hospital, being given drugs, or never being a success).

Individuals can be emotionally threatened or coerced into remaining members even if they no longer believe because they fear being called “bad” or sinful by leadership. Members might be afraid that family and friends will stop interacting with them unless they repent, return, and toe the line. Some members’ livelihoods may be dependent upon remaining in the group. Emotional coercion is especially forceful for individuals who were raised in the group and convinced to avoid the outside world as evil and, therefore, do not know anyone who can help them exit. Some groups will threaten physical and psychological violence, blackmail, and extortion if one tries to leave the authoritarian group. These threats can be directed not only to members, but also to their loved ones.

The Scheflin Social Influence Model (SIM)

Experts have 2 functions in the present context. The first is to collect and evaluate the scientific evidence relevant to the claim of undue influence, and the second is to testify about these data as they pertain to the facts of the case. Because the relevant audience (judges and jurors) is not scientifically trained, the complex published literature must be explained in terms understandable to those who are unacquainted with this specialized knowledge. 

For example, in cases involving what was called “the battered woman syndrome,” where one domestic partner would periodically physically beat the other partner, jurors generally thought to themselves, “Why would the victim stay with the batterer? I would just leave.” Using this reasoning, jury verdicts were hard to obtain, and monetary rewards were small. But when social scientists demonstrated the vitality of the concept of “learned helplessness” and testifying experts carefully explained this idea to jurors, battered domestic partners began to get substantial financial and emotional relief. Similarly, when social scientists discovered what is now called Stockholm syndrome, jurors could understand why victims often bond with their captors. In cult cases, victims often identify with their cult leaders and refuse to testify against them. In some situations, lying to protect the leader is considered “heavenly deception.”

In the complex world of undue influence, what was needed was a model that expert witnesses could use in the legal system that offered an easily understood framework for evaluating complex scientific data. One major objection that has been raised to applying undue influence more widely is what is called the slippery-slope argument. Undue influence, like 

, does not have easily defined contours. It is a matter of judgment, not measurement. Thus, putting limits on it is possible only in specific cases, and only after enough judicial rulings define the applicable contours.

Some commentators believe that undue influence falls within that same category—and, indeed, it does. However, the fact that a slope is slippery does not mean that the slope does not exist. Indeed, criminal cases are decided by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Many courts have refused to define 

 to juries because the definition itself—if we had one—would be more complex than letting the jurors get the underlying sense of the idea that the proof to convict must be exceptionally high, bordering on certainty. While the dividing line between due and undue influence may not be easy to define, the general sense is easily understood: “You just can’t treat people that way and get away with it.”

The SIM framework describes a robust social context that an expert witness can analyze in a case for presentation to the judge or jury. Interviews with family members and friends are quite helpful, as is collecting any writings by the influencee that show a radical change in personality and belief systems.

Alan W. Scheflin, JD, became concerned that victims of cults could not obtain financial relief in courts because judges would not hear their cases. Plaintiffs sought to present their claims using theories of brainwashing, mind control, and thought reform. Because these were not recognized legal theories, judges threw these cases out of court. What was needed was (1) a legal theory acceptable to courts and (2) a way of explaining complex ideas to judges and juries. The first problem was solved by using the well-recognized legal theory of undue influence—that opened the courtroom door. The second problem was solved by the creation of the SIM framework, which was inspired by Rudyard Kipling’s poem, “The Elephant’s Child”

Scheflin identifies each of the 6 elements of his SIM with one of the “servants” given in the poem, outlined in 

Individuals generally take in information more easily with their eyes than with their ears. Imagine the SIM on a chart or presentation. It is easily understood, it structures the interaction between the parties, and it lets jurors see precisely where the relevant science may be used to prove each of the 6 elements.

In summary, it is clear that the Influence Continuum and BITE model offer significant behavioral components of the Social Influence Model. The Influence Continuum and BITE model aim to develop a quantitative instrument that is both reliable and valid in measuring the constructs of the BITE model. They also attempt to offer solid criteria for determining the destructive, unhealthy end of the Influence Continuum, which has been described by the other respected models of thought reform and brainwashing.

The next installment of this series will present the methodology of research to validate the BITE Model of Mind Control, a new framework for evaluating undue influence.

Adolescent maturity and the brain: the promise and pitfalls of neuroscience research in adolescent health policy

Welcome to Your Child’s Brain: How the Mind Grows from Birth to University

The crusader from Pittsburgh: Michael Musmanno and the Sacco/Vanzetti case

Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies

Supporting human rights by testifying against human wrongs

500 people have been arrested in Jan. 6 Capitol riot by Trump supporters, Attorney General Merrick Garland says

. June 24, 2021. Accessed October 11, 2021.

Combatting Cult Mind Control: The #1 Best-Selling Guide to Protection, Rescue, and Recovery from Destructive Cults

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association; 2013.

Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments

Groups, Leadership and Men: Research in Human Relations

14. Hafner M, Stepanek M, Taylor J, et al. 

Why sleep matters—the economic costs of insufficient sleep: a cross-country comparative analysis

. RAND Corporation; 2016. Accessed October 11, 2020.

The Use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes

. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime; 2012.

The social psychology of false confessions

18. Lynn SJ, Evans J, Laurence J, et al. 

What do people believe about memory? implications for the science and pseudoscience of clinical practice

How can we evaluate undue influence to get justice for victims of cults and other exploitation situations?

Responding to Authoritarian Cults and Extreme Exploitations: A New Framework to Evaluate Undue Influence

Dr Linda Nielsen is an expert on father-daughter relationships in the context of divorce and best custody practices. All mental health professionals who are involved in divorce and child custody cases will profit from her expertise. Her knowledge is perfect for inclusion in my Forensic Practice column. – Alan D. Blotcky, PhD

What is it about fathers’ relationships with their daughters that leaves them more damaged than fathers’ relationships with their sons after the parents break up? More important still, how can custody laws, parenting plans, and mental health and family court professionals help protect or strengthen the father-daughter bond?

Divorce Damage: Daughters Take the Greater Hit

One of the most serious, long-lasting consequences of divorce is its negative impact on sons’ and daughters’ relationships with their fathers. This is not groundbreaking news. The research has been acknowledging this fact for decades. This damage often lasts well into the children’s adult lives, sometimes leading to such serious meltdowns that the relationship is never fully repaired. Hopefully, most mental health and family court professionals and custody law policymakers are already aware that divorced fathers’ relationships with their children are at risk.

What might come as a surprise, though, is that this father “wound” is generally worse for daughters than for sons after the parents’ breakup.

 Compared to sons, daughters are more likely to say their relationship with their dad has become distant, strained, superficial, or altogether broken. Daughters also have a greater longing for more time with their dads, feel more ignored and rejected, and are more dissatisfied with their relationship with their dad 

. In fact, it is more common for divorced fathers and sons to rebuild or strengthen their bond after the son becomes an adult than for this to happen with daughters. Even as adults, daughters are more apt to say there is still a lot of tension and conflict with their dads—much of which stems from what happened after the parents separated. In other words, the deterioration in father-daughter relationships is not only more common, but harder to repair.

The other downside for daughters is that this father wound has such a far-reaching impact on so many aspects of their lives. In married families or divorced families, the quality of the father-daughter relationship has 

impact than the mother-daughter relationship on the daughter’s romantic relationships with men, her sexual behavior as a teenager or young adult, her future divorce rate, her career choices, and her resilience in dealing with stress and adversity. The bottom line is that maximizing fathering time after the parents separate is in many ways more important for daughters than for sons.


Why do daughters usually pay a greater price than sons in their relationships with their dads? What is going on? The answer lies in 3 general areas: the nature of mother-daughter relationships before the divorce, maternal enmeshment and role reversals, and our society’s false beliefs about fathers and daughters.

 In most intact families, sons and daughters are closer to their mothers than to their fathers. This does not mean the children and their fathers love one another less. It simply means children and their moms usually share more personal information with each other, spend more one-on-one time together, and feel more comfortable talking about intimate things. Mothers and daughters are the most likely dyad in the family to have that kind of communication and closeness. This means that, when parents are separating, the stage is already set for the mother to share more personal information with her daughter than with her son. Unfortunately, mothers sometimes share damaging information about the marriage or divorce with the children—usually with their daughter, not their son. Consequently, the daughter is more apt than the son to pull away from her dad and side with her mom against him.


 In extreme cases, the mother becomes so needy and dependent that she turns the child into her adult confidant, advisor, and emotional caretaker—a damaging situation known as role reversal, parentification, or emotional incest. Role reversals may also go hand-in-hand with another unhealthy situation known as enmeshment, in which children no longer feel free to be separate entities from their mother. The 2 become “1,” which means the child feels obliged to share the same feelings, values, and judgements as the mother. When the mother’s judgements and feelings toward the child’s father are negative, an enmeshed child is the least emotionally equipped to question or reject her negative beliefs. Unfortunately for daughters, mothers tend to become enmeshed and to reverse roles more with them than with their sons. So, again, the father-daughter relationship pays the greater price.


 When a mother become enmeshed or reverses roles with 1 of her children, she is less likely to welcome or support any of the children’s bonds with their father. Whether unknowingly or intentionally, her behavior closes the metaphorical gate between the father and child—a damaging situation known as “maternal gatekeeping.” In extreme cases, the mother might carry things a step further by not only closing the gate, but by doing things that alienate the children from their dad. If the mother succeeds, alienated children no longer want any contact with their father. The research on gatekeeping and alienation is extensive. Both the American Psychological Association and the American Bar Association have acknowledged parental alienation as a form of child abuse.

 Although gatekeeping and alienation undermine sons’ relationships with their dads, daughters may be at greater risk because they tend to have closer or more enmeshed relationships with their mothers.


 Our society’s sexist beliefs and negative stereotypes about fathers and daughters also contribute to the greater rift between them after parents separate. Whether the parents are married or separated, many of our traditional beliefs about fathers’ roles and their impact on children work against father-daughter relationships in ways they do not work against fathers and sons. Even now there are family court professionals and mental health workers who believe that mothers and mothering time are more essential than fathers and fathering time—especially for infants and other very young children. The idea that sons need, want, and benefit more from their fathers than daughters do is alive and well. Supposedly mothers and daughters have a “special” and more important bond that fathers and daughters cannot and should not have, want, or strive for. After all, “everyone knows” a son needs his dad more than he needs his mom and a daughter needs her mom more than she needs her dad. Sexist ideas like these can contribute to custody plans aimed at keeping fathers more closely connected to their sons than to their daughters. There is only 1 problem with these beliefs: They are false. They have no scientific foundation.


So how can family court and mental health professionals and policymakers who create our custody laws help father-daughter relationships survive and thrive after parents separate? First and foremost, custody laws need to be revised so that children are given equal or nearly equal parenting time with both parents, except in situations where a parent is abusive, negligent, or otherwise unfit to be safe. For the 10% of parents who end up having to resolve their custody issues in court, judges, mediators, and lawyers need to work toward the goal of giving children the gift of equal parenting time.


Why would children benefit if we were to change our custody laws? How do we know that living more equally in both parents’ homes with shared physical custody is in children’s best interests? Because more than 60 studies have told us so.

 Over the past 4 decades, 60 studies have been conducted in more than 14 countries to address the question: Do children have better outcomes when they live with 1 parent (almost always the mother) and have visitation time with their other parent (almost always the father) than when they live 35% to 50% time (shared physical custody, shared parenting) with both parents year-round? Children in the shared parenting families had better outcomes on 

measure of well-being in 34 studies, better outcomes on most measures in 20 studies, and equal outcomes in 6 studies. In other words, shared-parenting kids had better outcomes overall regarding depression, anxiety, school behavior, delinquency, self-esteem, relationships with peers. Most important of all, they had better relationships with both parents, stepparents, and grandparents.

These results held true even in studies that considered the parents’ levels of conflict and their incomes

Even in high-conflict families and even when family incomes were factored in before comparing the children’s outcomes, shared parenting benefited the children

 It appears that the damage done by parents’ high conflict is offset by having a stronger relationship with both parents in the shared parenting arrangement. In other words, when parents are not getting along and coparenting conflict is high, children who live with only 1 parent are more handicapped than those who live with both parents.


It is extremely important to realize that children under the age of 5, including infants, also benefit from shared parenting custody plans. Although there are only 5 studies that have addressed this question, infants, toddlers, and 4-year-olds are as well off and generally better in shared parenting when it comes to emotional, behavioral, and social development. In fact, 110 international experts on child development, early childhood attachment, and children of divorce reached a consensus on this point: Baby girls and baby boys, just like older boys and girls, benefit from shared parenting.

Given the many benefits of shared physical custody, the bad news for sons and daughters is that 80% of our nation’s children live almost exclusively or exclusively with their mother after the parents separate. Given the way custody laws are written and interpreted, children’s time with their fathers is generally confined to 20% to 25% of the parenting time until the children turn 18. Although 21 states were considering making changes to their custody laws back in 2017, only Kentucky, Arkansas, and Arizona have passed shared parenting laws that allow each parent to have equal parenting time.

 This is especially troubling news for daughters, given the greater fragility of their bond with their fathers after their parents stop living together.


Regardless of the existing custody laws in their states, when working with parents who are trying to negotiate a custody plan, professionals should emphasize and repeatedly remind them of these 3 conclusions from the research. First, children benefit most when they continue to live with each parent at least 35% of the time, even when the parents do not get along well as coparents. Second, the father-daughter relationship has a major impact on daughters—not only in the short term, but years later as an adult. Third, daughters are at greater risk than sons of ending up with father “wounds”—preventable wounds that are related to the custody plan, enmeshment, role reversals, gatekeeping, and parental alienation.


Finally, professionals who influence custody plans must be able to recognize signs and the consequences of maternal gatekeeping, enmeshment, role reversals, and parental alienation— unhealthy situations that more commonly hurt daughters’ than sons’ relationships with their dads. Extensive checklists of these behaviors are provided and explained elsewhere.

 Byraising awareness, mental health and family court professionals can help protect and strengthen father-daughter relationships. Likewise, state legislators and the voters who elect them can make more of an effort to revise custody laws in ways that give children equal living time with both parents.

 is a professor of education at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. She is an internationally recognized expert on father-daughter relationships and shared physical custody parenting for separated parents. Her research has appeared in such outlets as 

. More information about her research, blogs, books, and courses is available 

Father-Daughter Relationships: Contemporary Research and Issues

Parent-Child Reunification: A Guide to Legal and Forensic Strategies

Statement on parental alienation syndrome

Joint versus sole physical custody: children’s outcomes independent of parent–child relationships, income, and conflict in 60 studies

Social science and parenting plans for young children: a consensus report

More than 20 states in 2017 considered laws to promote shared custody

. December 12, 2017. Accessed November 15, 2021.

7. Austin W, Fieldstone L, Kline Pruett M. 

Bench book for assessing parental gatekeeping in parenting disputes: understanding the dynamics of gate closing and opening for the best interests of children

After parents break up, why is the father-daughter relationship typically more damaged than the father-son relationship?

Fathers and Daughters: Custody Plans and Other Steps to Protect Their Relationships

Parental alienation is a mental state in which a child—usually one whose parents are engaged in a high-conflict separation or divorce—allies strongly with 1 parent (the offending, but favored parent) and rejects a relationship with the other parent (the alienated parent) without legitimate reason.

 This condition occurs in the context of a maladaptive family dynamic involving at least 3 individuals: the alienating parent, who intentionally and purposefully manipulates the child to reject the other parent; the child, who experiences parental alienation; and the rejected, alienated parent. A variety of tactics and maneuvers are used by alienating parents to achieve their goal, ranging from bad-mouthing and disruption of visitation time to false allegations of abuse and criminal charges.

Research indicates that parental alienation is present in 11% to 15% of divorce cases. It has also been found that 20% to 25% of parents engage in alienating behavior as long as 6 years after divorce. Alienating parents can be either mothers or fathers.

Parental alienation is poorly understood by many mental health professionals, not to mention attorneys, guardians ad litem, and judges. It is a confusing and vexing problem because many of its features and dynamics are hidden behind the scenes, ferociously denied, and counterintuitive from what one would expect.

Because of its counterintuitive nature, many false assumptions are made by professionals who are involved in cases of parental alienation. Much can be learned from recognizing and understanding these false assumptions, both in terms of diagnosis and treatment. This is especially important since early diagnosis and intervention are predictive of better outcomes for the child.

What follows is a description of many false assumptions that are made routinely in alienation cases. Richard Warshak, PhD,

 have written about fallacies and fundamental attribution error in these cases, and 1 of us has written about misinformation in alienation theory.

 The following concepts serve as the foundation for our fuller understanding of the role of false assumptions in parental alienation cases.

. When we think intuitively, our decisions tend to feel “right,” regardless of whether they are or not. To accurately understand parental alienation, a clinician must have an advanced understanding of the typical dynamics in these cases. Relying on intuition can lead to major mistakes right from the get-go. For example, just because a parent seems healthy or believable, does not make it so.

 It is a common fallacy that both parents are equally responsible for high conflict during a separation or divorce. It is always important to consider the possibility that 1 parent may be the aggressor, while the other parent is the victim. In most cases, both parents are not equally responsible for the ongoing conflict. It can be a major blunder to assume so.

Outward demeanors are indicative of truth. 

Alienating parents typically present as calm, verbal, and convincing. In contrast, alienated or rejected parents usually present as agitated, angry, and afraid; they are victims.

 In many cases, the alienating parent appears to be healthier and more believable—but that is a manipulation and a distraction from their intentionally alienating behavior. The rejected parent appears more psychologically disturbed, and so it is assumed that he or she is the one engaging in problematic behavior. Outward demeanors can be quite deceiving and must be considered cautiously in diagnostic decision-making.

 The intrapsychic defense of projection is often seen in cases of alienation. In essence, the alienating parent accuses the rejected parent of being the aggressor. If you fall for the offending parent’s distortion and misperception, poor diagnostic decisions will be made, and the case can quickly go haywire. Projection can lead to the wrong person being identified as the alienating parent.

Children’s denials and “truths” are gospel. 

Simply believing a child’s denial of alienation by a parent can be a recipe for disaster. Children are not usually aware of the maneuvers employed by the offending parent to turn them against the rejected parent. Plus, such children are frequently enmeshed with the offending parent and will defend that parent to the bitter end. Independent thinker phenomenon is often seen, whereby alienated children assert that their rejection of a parent is solely their idea and decision—not due to the offending parent’s influence. So just listening to a child’s denials can be a serious error that will undermine good decision-making in a case. There is a body of literature that tells us that children and teenagers do not know what is in their own best interest.

 This is especially true when they are the unwitting participants in alienation by a parent.

Alienation does not involve total rejection. 

Children naturally want to love both of their parents without interruption or impediment. A child does not totally reject a parent unless there is an alienating influence in the mix. This is true even for abusive parents. Indeed, children who have been verbally, physically, or sexually abused by a parent experience profound ambivalence because they still love the parent. They are upset and in turmoil by the fact that they cannot have a continued relationship despite the well-established abuse.

 As such, total rejection by a child is much more indicative of alienation. And to use a child’s rejection of a parent as corroboration or validation of the rejected parent’s badness can be flat-out wrong.

Estrangement and alienation are the same thing

. When children resist contact with a parent for legitimate reasons, this is called estrangement, not alienation. Estrangement is very different than alienation; it is important not to confuse them. For example, it would make sense for a child to be estranged from a parent if that parent engages in substance abuse during the child’s visits. Estrangement can be corrected if the parent is willing to make the necessary changes. Alienation, in contrast, tends to be camouflaged, insidious, and recalcitrant.

Alienating behavior is relatively harmless and will not impact the child’s long-term mental health. 

Engaging persistently in alienating behavior is child psychological abuse. It is a mistake to deny it or rationalize it away. According to DSM-5, child psychological abuse is nonaccidental verbal or symbolic acts by a child’s parent or caregiver that result, or have reasonable potential to result, in significant psychological harm to the child. In light of this, parental alienation is considered a psychiatric emergency, especially in moderate to severe cases. Minimizing the severity of the problem does a terrible disservice to the child. Unfortunately, it enables the abusive behavior to continue unchecked.

Since persistent alienating behavior constitutes child psychological abuse, the top priority should be to protect the child from further abuse. Until this is accomplished, no form of psychotherapy will be effective. In other words, protecting the child from further abuse must be the first step before psychotherapy of any kind is started. This mistake is common. In many court cases, it is erroneously assumed that psychotherapy can fix the problem when, in fact, little or nothing can be accomplished because the alienating behavior is ongoing.

Removing the child from the home is harmful. 

There is no credible evidence that removing an alienated child from the home of the offending parent causes a significant risk of psychological harm. The opposite is true. In almost all severe and some moderate cases of parental alienation, the risks of not protecting the child are far greater than the risks of protecting the child. Removal of the child from the offending parent’s care may be necessary, at least temporarily. Children and teenagers may fuss about it, but they will comply with, and benefit from, such an intervention.

Reunification therapy can start at any time and is easy. 

Reunification therapy cannot be successful unless the alienating behavior by the offending parent is stopped. Otherwise, progress will be impeded by the continued alienation, and everyone will be perplexed as to why significant gains are not being made. The reunification therapy itself may not be the issue at all. Its progress may be stalled by the omnipresence of alienating behavior by the 1 parent.

Reunification therapy is difficult and complex. It requires a knowledgeable and seasoned therapist. The therapist must be directive and assertive, not passive, lethargic, or naïve. An inexperienced or unknowledgeable therapist can make things worse. Such therapists can begin to feel overwhelmed, frustrated, and disappointed. A negative expectation for improvement can take over and become a complicating and limiting factor.

There are no interventions for alienation situations. 

Active interventions for parental alienation are available and they do work. The interventions must be aimed at (1) stopping the alienation by the offending parent, (2) clarifying and resolving the alienation in the child, and (3) repairing the child-rejected parent relationship. More traditional psychotherapies that do not target these specific areas are doomed to fail. The right therapy at the right time is critical.

Children’s school performance is the best guide. 

Here’s how to avoid false assumptions in cases of parental alienation to ensure better outcomes for children.

Forensic Psychiatry

A New Framework: Exploring Efficacy

Responding to Authoritarian Cults and Extreme Exploitations: A New Framework to Evaluate Undue Influence

Fathers and Daughters: Custody Plans and Other Steps to Protect Their Relationships

Avoiding the Pitfalls of False Assumptions in Parental Alienation Cases

False Allegations of Abuse During Divorce: The Role of Alienating Beliefs

Trauma, Resilience, and Justice for Those in the Criminal Justice System

A Forensic Psychiatrist Takes the Stand

Treating ‘Morally Objectionable’ Patients

Child Abuse Allegations: Sorting Out Lies Versus Truths

Interpreting Digital Information in Forensic Settings