Science in Christian Perspective
The Manipulation of Human Behavior*
GARY R. COLLINS
Division of Pastoral Psychology and Counseling
Trinity Evangelical
Divinity School
Deerfield, Illinois
From: JASA 22 (March 1970): 8-13.
While attempts to manipulate human behavior are very old, it is only recently
that scientists have begun to study ways in which successful
manipulation occurs.
Research in the control of behavior through sensory deprivation, conditioning,
and psychotherapy is typical of what is being done by psychologists
who are interested
in behavior manipulation. In view of the research findings,
scientists-especially
those who are Christians-must face several pertinent questions. Can
behavior really
be manipulated? What are the dangers in man's ability to control and
manipulate?
Hate do tee prevent unethical people from using this knowledge for
their own personal
gain? Should we use these techniques of manipulation in the church? This paper
gives some tentative answers to these questions.
Modern mail is a manipulated man. While boasting of individual
freedom, his behavior
and thinking is controlled-sometimes subtly-by advertisers, political
candidates,
government officials, military leaders, counselors, employers, preachers, news
media, social norms, and economic developments in the society.
Publishing houses
and research funding organizations manipulate the writer and researcher in his
work. Parents manipulate their children, and children soon become
skilled in manipulating
adults. Teachers and students are involved in similar mutual manipulation. Even
husbands and wives attempt, at times, to control the behavior of each
other.
The attempt of one person to control the behavior of another is very
old. It began
with Eve and has continued throughout history. For the most part, the
early methods
of behavior control were discovered by chance. Some techniques worked and were
retained. Others failed to work and were discarded to be replaced by some new
method which, hopefully, would he more successful.
While non-scientific attempts to control behavior are old, the scientific study
of behavior manipulation is, in contrast, relatively new. In
psychology, experimentalists
have investigated ways in which external and internal stimulation can
change human
and animal behavior. Clinical and other applied psychologists have sought to understand behavior with a view to removing, modifying or retarding
neurotic symptoms; promoting adjustment and personality growth;
resolving internal
conflicts; stimulating learning; increasing efficiency of employees;
and changing
behavior in numerous other ways. It is not surprising that psychology has came
to be defined as a science which seeks to understand, predict, and
control behavior.
But the scientific investigation of behavior manipulation has not been limited
to psychology. Biologists, geneticists, pharmacologists, economists,
physiologists,
sociologists, communication experts, and others have studied the
problem empirically
and have shown that human behavior can be altered and controlled with
a high degree
of efficiency. Space does not permit a survey of recent research developments
concerning the control of behavior by shock or other physical
stimulation, surgery
and electrical stimulation of the brain, manipulation of genes,
drugs, group pressure,
mass media, hypnosis, persuasion, education, or the arousal of fear.1
For many people, the wards "manipulation" and "control" of
human behavior have a bad connotation. Popular novels such as
Orwell's 1984, Huxley's Brave New World, or Walden Two written by B. F. Skinner, a prominent
research psychologist-have
led us to fear the implications of one person having the power to control and
manipulate another. In our lifetime we have seen men like Hitler, Stalin, and
Mao Tse-Tung control the behavior of millions and we are concerned
lest such manipulation
power again get into the hands of ruthless despots. Until recently, however, most scientists have
been reluctant
to consider the moral implications of this knowledge. We have worked
on the hopeful
assumption that an issue which is ignored will eventually disappear and perhaps
even solve itself. It is now time for science to face the fact that
we have uncovered
some powerful and potentially dangerous manipulation devices.
Following a definition of behavioral manipulation, the remainder of this paper
will summarize experimental evidence from three selected areas in psychology,
and discuss some of the ethical implications of man's ability to
control and manipulate
behavior.
DEFINITION
Although there may be some technical differences between
"control" and
"manipulation", in this paper the terms will be used interchangeably.
Following the lead of Ulrich and his colleagues (1966), behavior
control or manipulation
can be defined as the changing of environmental conditions to which an organism
is exposed so as to bring about a definite behavioral result. The result may be
a production of new behavior, a maintenance of existing behavior,
and/or an elimination
of undesirable behavior.
EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE
1. Reduced environmental stimulation (more commonly referred to as
"sensory
deprivation") became a topic for careful psychological study
after a number
of solitary explorers, shipwrecked sailors, and isolated prisoners of war had
published autobiographical descriptions of their reactions to being
alone. Admiral
Richard Byrd (1938), far example, voluntarily spent 4132' months alone in the
antarctic. He recorded his experiences in a diary and later described
his reactions
in a book. Originally, Byrd had hoped to "taste peace and quiet
and solitude
long enough to find out how good they really are." Instead, in
the dark polar
night, snowed in, confined to the monotonous unchanging surrounding of a small
space, and with little or no sound from the outside, his life became
a nightmare.
He experienced absent-mindedness, hallucinations, severe depression,
lass of motivation,
fears, and strange ideas that he was floating like some disembodied spirit in
timeless space. In his own words, he "felt the tremendous need for stimuli
from the outside world and yearned for sounds, smells, voices and touch."
During the Korean war psychological and physical isolation was one
technique used
by Communist Chinese brainwashers to control the thinking and
behavior of prisoners.
We have worked on the hopeful assumption that an issue which is ignored will eventually disappear and perhaps even solve itself. It is now time for science to face the fact that we have uncovered some powerful and potentially dangerous manipulation devices.
In the early l950's a group of psychologists at McGill University conducted the
first of several experimental studies to determine the influence on behavior of
reduced environmental stimulation (Bexton, Heron and Scott, 1954).
Undergraduate
volunteers were paid $20 a day to come to the psychology department
and essentially
do nothing. Both the rate of pay and the job description must have
sounded attractive.
A number of people volunteered and were requested to lie on a comfortable bed
in a semi soundproof room for as long as they wished to stay. They
wore translucent
goggles and long cardboard cuffs which extended beyond their finger tips. This
prevented them from looking around and reduced tactile stimulation. Eating and
going to the toilet were the only deviations from this inactive routine.
At first, the subjects passed the time by thinking about their studies, their
friends, their personal problems, and other matters. Then most fell
asleep. When
they woke up the trouble began. They became bored, restless,
irritable, and hostile
towards the experimenters. They engaged in fantasy and appeared so
eager for stimulation
that they would talk to themselves, whistle, sing, or recite poetry.
Some experienced
auditory or visual hallucinations and when they were tested with intelligence,
perceptual-motor, learning, and thinking tests, most showed a marked impairment
in their functioning.
The original work at McGill gave impetus to several related studies. In one of
the most dramatic of these, subjects were equipped with a breathing apparatus
and then were submerged to bang suspended in a tank of water (Sburley, 1960),
In this and similar studies the results of the McGill research were supported
(Zubeck, 1969).
On the basis of this work, we know that human behavior can he altered
by reducing
the input of stimulation. Some of the practical implications are obvious! If a
person is kept in solitary confinement his intellectual and
perceptual functioning
will he impaired, be will become more open to the suggestions of
others, and his
behavior will become more easily controlled and manipulated. Children who are
raised in isolated environments develop at a slower rate, have more
disease, and
often develop psychological abnormalities -which cause them to be
misfits in society
(Goldfarb, 1945).
But the studies of reduced environmental stimulation also have more
positive implications.
One study has shown that a reduction in stimulation interferes with efficient
functioning in pilots. With this knowledge, the people who are responsible for
military and space programs can he aware of the need for changing environmental
influences as pilots and space captains guide their vehicles on long journeys.
On the ground, policemen, highway department officials, and
researchers studying
accident prevention, should be alert to the impact on drivers of long
monotonous
trips and unchanging stretches of road. Physicians are recognizing that some of
the disorientation and inefficient thinking of people who are in respirators or
casts, and some of the disorientation of older people who live in lonely rooms
may be due to the lack of changing stimulation. In addition, we all know that
if someone gives a talk which is boring (i. c., not very stimulating)
the listener's
mind wanders. He thinks about other things in an attempt to provide
p 10 missing
duration of a person in an interview can be directly controlled by the utterances, head nods, and "Mmhmm's" of the interviewer (Matarazzo, 1965). A job seeker or distressed patient is usually anxious to please the interviewer. For this reason even a slight smile or bead nod from the man behind the desk is reinforcing to the person being interviewed and encourages him to continue the behavior or topic of discussion which was reinforced.
By administering desirable reinforcement following acceptable
behavior, and withholding
reinforcement following undesirable behavior, psychologists have been able to
change the behavior of uncooperative children so that they cooperate;
modify the
behavior of mute psychotic patients so that they talk; control the actions of
schizophrenics; eliminate thumbsucking, stealing, crying, tantrums, stuttering,
excessive vomiting, hyperactivity, and social withdrawal in children; control
overeating; eliminate phobias; train retarded children; treat
neurotics; and eliminate
undesirable sex behavior.2 I have even heard of studies in which the behavior
of speakers has been controlled by the members of the audience-sometimes with
neither the speaker nor the audience being aware of what is
happening. Apparently,
the research behavior of scientists is manipulated by the giving of
research grant
reinforcements for performances of one type of research behavior and
the withholding
of reinforcements for proposals to study something else. Dr. Skinner, the man
who started most of this, has himself shown how teaching machines can provide
reinforcement at the most desirable time and bring about more
efficient learning
(1968).
Of course there are critics of these conditioning procedures both
within the field
of psychology and without. Some have pointed out that conditioning
doesn't always
work. But more often it does work, and I suspect that the terms
"reinforcement"
and "conditioning" describe many of the manipulation techniques which
we use to control the behavior of our children and of each other.
3. Psychotherapy has been defined as:
A form of treatment for problems of an emotional nature in which a trained person deliberately establishes a professional relationship with a patient with the object of removing, modifying or retarding existing symptoms, of mediating disturbed patterns of behavior, and of promoting positive personality growth and development (Wolberg, 1954, p. 3).
To me this is another way of saying that psychotherapy is a procedure wherein
a professionally trained person, known as a therapist, seeks to
manipulate, control,
and modify the behavior of another person, known variously as a
patient, client,
or counselee.
Of course psychotherapy is not exclusively a function of
psychologists. Psychiatrists,
social workers, pastoral counselors, and many others spend their
lives attempting
to help distraught, confused and unhappy people to change their
behavior in ways
that will make their lives happier.
Psychotherapists use different techniques and have different goals, depending
somewhat on the patient's problem and on the therapist's personality,
abilities,
and theoretical position. Some therapists attempt to change behavior
by encouragement,
support, and reassurance; some try to promote patient insight into
problems; some
try to teach new methods of behavior;
some encourage patient expression and ventilation of pent-up
feelings; some give
advice and suggestions; some make interpretive statements about
patient behavior;
some work with individuals; some work with groups; and most
therapists use a combination
of these techniques.
It has been estimated that at least 200,000 Americans are paying anywhere from
$5 to $50 an hour to get help from psychotherapists. Since people are willing
to pay to have their behavior changed in this way, the implication is
that psychotherapy
works. At present, however, nobody has empirically demonstrated this.
H. J. Eysenck
(1952), a British psychologist, who has devoted considerable effort to research
in the effectiveness of psychotherapy has concluded that
psychotherapy, psychoanalysis,
and other such treatment techniques are ineffective and valueless. Eysenck and
a number of professionals who agree with him would surely applaud one critic's
definition of psychotherapy as "an undefined technique applied
to unspecified
problems with unpredictable outcomes."
Few psychologists are willing to throw out psychotherapy, however. In the first
place, it is one of the best techniques thus far devised for treating
distraught
behavior. Secondly, present research concerning therapeutic
effectiveness or lack
of effectiveness, is far from convincing. To a large extent this is
because research
on therapy is very difficult. The therapists (especially the insecure
ones) often
are reluctant to be investigated; it is important to insure that research does
not interfere with a patient's treatment; it is difficult to arrive
at satisfactory
criteria of "improvement"; concepts like
"insight," "catharsis,"
or "degree of rapport" are almost impossible to measure; and since it
is unethical to withhold treatment from people who want it, we have difficulty
getting control groups.
I do not believe that we can trick or psychologically manipulate a person into become a Christian.
Perhaps Rosen and Gregory in their text on abnormal psychology give
the best answer
to the problem of therapy's effectiveness. "Since no research so
far performed
has succeeded in the difficult, and perhaps impossible, task of controlling all
the relevant patient and therapist variables while conducting a study
of adequate
size, there is to date no definitive proof or disproof of the effectiveness of
psychotherapy" (1965, p. 219). Undoubtedly psychotherapists do control and
modify behavior, although the evidence in support of this is still
incomplete.
CONCLUSIONS
Man's increasing ability to control, manipulate, and modify the
behavior of other
men, raises a number of ethical issues which scientists and Christians cannot
ignore. From my perspective as a psychologist it would appear that we must face
at least four pertinent questions.
1. Can we control and manipulate human be
havior? I am reminded of Dr. Elving Anderson's address to the A.S.A.
a few years
ago (1966). In discussing genetic control he suggested that it is not a question of can
we or should
we control-we are already doing it! In the case of psychological manipulation,
some of the techniques are exceptionally subtle. Not only du we
control behavior
now, but as research coistinues-and I doubt that it would be possible
or desirable
to stop such studies-our abilities to control and manipulate behavior will be
even greater.
2. What are the dangers in our ability to control and manipulate behavior? The danger is not in the research findings but in
their potential misuse. A few years ago, a physicist, Dr. A. R. Oppenheimer, in
addressing members of the American Psychological Association, gave a
similar warning.
"The psychologist can hardly do anything without realizing that
for him the
acquisition of knowledge opens up the most terrifying prospects of controlling
what people do and how they think and bow they behave and how they feel"
(1956, p. 128).
As was suggested at the beginning of this paper, sometimes we avoid using the
words "control" and "manipulation" because we don't want to
face the moral, ethical, and legal implications of the fact that our techniques
could he used to enslave people, depersonalize them, and control them
by a means
so subtle that they would never realize that they were being manipulated.
When faced with this possibility we must remember two things. First,
in our complex
society some control of human behavior is inevitable. The government,
the economy,
and the mores of the culture all exert a control which is essential
to our survival
as a civilization. Secondly, we must realize that the techniques
which can enslave
people are also able to free men in order that they might be more
happy and productive.
The same reinforcement techniques which could make us into robots, could also
change our educational procedures so that we are able to learn with
greatly increased
efficiency. The same sensory deprivation studies which bring about
psychotic symptoms
can also help us to understand old people or to prevent automobile and airplane
accidents.
3. How can we prevent unethical people from using these devices to serve their
own selfish ends? I suspect that the answer to this question lies in
an increased
awareness of ourselves and of the world in which we live. There are
at least five
ways by which this awareness can he increased.
a. We can conduct research into the nature of behavioral control and
manipulation.
The attempts to study the effectiveness of psychotherapy are steps in
this direction
and so are a whole series of studies designed to show how to resist
persuasion.
b. We can increase communication between the general public and
research investigators.
If the public knows what we are doing, they are less likely to be manipulated
against their will and they are less likely to be influenced by sensationalist
writers. It has already been empirically demonstrated that awareness
of the manipulator's
goals and techniques is a good way to resist manipulation.
c. We can learn more about ourselves-our needs, our values, our
emotions. We cannot
be easily manipulated if we know more about ourselves than does the
would-be manipulator.
d. We can learn to see each other as persons, rather than manipulable objects.
According to Elton
Trueblood, we must "make a real effort to see persons as persons-and not
as our servants or masters or teachers or students or steppingstones
for our own
progress" (1961, p. 110). We are less likely to manipulate others when we
remember that each of us has feellogs, aspirations, frustrations, and
hopes.
e. We must realize that if the nature of man can be changed so that he is under
the control of the Holy Spirit, he will not be involved in manipulating other
people for selfish motives. Such a change in nature comes only when
an individual
realizes his sin and need for a savior and invites Christ to be Lord
of his life.
A few years ago, B. F. Skinner (1955-56) suggested that there is another way to
prevent the misuse of controlling power. We must continue to work out laws and
systems of government which prevent the strong man from using his
power to enslave
others. "Control itself must be controlled" by group pressures, and
by governmental and religious measures.
4. Should we use techniques of behavior manipulation in the church? This question is of special concern to
evangelical Christians.
Pastors, Christian education directors, missionaries, Sunday school teachers,
and other church leaders are actively involved in the work of
manipulating other
people's behavior. We want, for example, to bring men who are unsaved
to a saving
knowledge of Jesus Christ. We want to assist the believer to grow in his faith
and to live a purposeful spiritual life. We also want to train
Christians so they
can study the Word of Cod on their own and spread the Cospel through effective
witnessing. Since so much is known about behavior manipulation,
should we he using
psychological techniques in order to bring about these changes in
behavior? Should
we be using these manipulation techniques in world evangelism?
Difficult problems rarely have simple solutions and so I leave these questions
without an answer. Let me conclude with one personal opinion, however. I do not
believe that we can trick or psychologically manipulate a person into becoming
a Christian. It is the Holy Spirit, and not any psychological techniques, who
works in men's lives to convict them of sin and of their need for Christ. In a
recent address the president of Moody Bible Institute dealt briefly with this
issue:
I shall respect each man's right to his faith or even lack of it. But that does not mean that I shall not attempt to convert him. I'll oppose any attempt to coerce him, or force him by physical or other means to a decision against his will. For I believe God wants only the glad-hearted, willing surrender of a heart to Himself.3
Nevertheless, pastors, evangelists, and other Christians are currently using psychological techniquessometimes in ignorance-in an attempt to change behavior. As a result of this preaching people are sometimes "won" as "converts." But the man who is persuaded by gimmicks is not really converted. No wonder he "falls away." Psychological techniques of manipulation can be misused in the church. Whether they can or should be used as a vehicle through which the holy Spirit works, is a question which I leave for some theologian or Bible Scholar to answer.
FOOTNOTES
1 There are several concise surveys of research in the field of
behavior manipulation.
The interested reader might check the work of Bidernian and Zimmer (1961), Brown
(1963), Farber and Wilson (1961), Neuringer and Michael (t970),
Sonnebnrn (1965),
Uhr and Miller (1960), Cinch, Stachnik and Mabry (1966) and Zubeck (1969).
2Most of this research is described in Ulrich, R., Stachnik, T., and Mabry
(1966), and in Neuringer and Michael (1970).
3From a sermon delivered during the 1967 Founders Week Conference by
William Gnlbertson,
Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois.
REFERENCES
Anderson, V. E. The control of man's genetic future. Journal ASA, 18,
pp. 97-101,
111, 1966.
Bcxton, W. I-I., Heron, IV., & Scott, T. II, Effects of decreased variation
in the sensory environment. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 8, pp.
70-76, 1954.
Biderman, A. D., & Zimmer, H. (Ed.) The Manipulation of
Human Behavior. New York: Wiley, 1961.
Brown, J A. C. Techniques of Persuasion: From Propaganda to Brainwashing. Baltimore:
Penguin Books, 1963.
Byrd, B. W. Alone. New York: C. P. Putnans's Sons, 1938.
Eysenck, H. J. The effects of psychotherapy: An evaluation, Journal
of Consulting Psychology, 16, pp. 319-324, 1952.
Father, S. M., & Wilson, E. H. L. (Ed.) Control of the Mind. New
York: McGraw-Hill,
1961
Coldfarb, IV. Psychological privation in infancy and subsequent
adjustment, American
Journal of Orthapsychiatry, 15. pp. 247-255, 1945.
Matarazzo, J. D. The interview. In B. J. Wolmaa, (Ed.), Handbook of
Clinical Psychology.
New York: McGrawHill, 1965, pp. 403-450.
Miller, F C., Dvorak, B. A., & Turner, D. IV. A method of creating aversion
to alchohol by reflex conditioning in a group setting. In C. M. Franks, (Ed.),
Conditioning Techniques in Clinical Practice and Research. New York: Springer,
1964, pp. 160-161.
Nenrioger, C., and Michael, J. L. Behavior Modification in Clinical
Psychology,
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1970.
Oppenheimer, R. Analogy in science. American Psychologist, 11, pp.
127-135, 1956.
Bosco E,, & Gregory, I. Abnormal Psychology. Philadelphia:
Saunders, 1965.
Sargant, IV. Battle for the Mind. London: Pan Banks, 1957.
Shostrnm, F. L. Man, the Manipulator. Nashville: Abingdon, 1967.
Shnrley, J. '1'. Profound experimental sensory isolation. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 117, p. .539, 1960.
Skinner, B. F. The Technology of Teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1968.
Skinner, B. F. Freedom and the control of men. American Scholar. 25, pp 47-65,
1955-56.
Sanncborn, T II. (Ed.) The Control of Human Heredity and Evolution. New York:
Macmillan, 1965.
Trocblnad, E. The Company of the Committed. New York:
Harper & Row, 1961.
Uhr, L., & Miller, j. C. (Ed.) Drugs and Behavior. New York:
\Viley, 1960.
Ulrich, E., Stachoik, T., & Mabry, J. (Ed.) Control of Human Behavior. Cleoview,
Illinois: Scott, Faresosan, 1966.
Watson, J. B,, and Baynar, B. Conditioned Emotional Reactions Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 3, pp. 1-4, 1920.
Wnlberg, L. B. The Technique of Psychotherapy, New York: Crune and
Stratton, 1954.
Znbeck, J. P. Sensory Deprivation: Fifteen Years of Research, New
York: Appleton-CenturyCrofts,
1969.