Brainwashing, Conditioning, and DDD (Debility, Dependency, and Dread)

Author(s): I. E. Farber, Harry F. Harlow and Louis Jolyon West

Source: Sociometry, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Dec., 1957), pp. 271-285
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2785980
Accessed: 01-06-2015 02:02 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociometry.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:02:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Brainwashing, Conditioning,and DDD (Debility,
Dependency, and Dread)1
I. E. FARBER, ofIowa
State University
HARRY F. HARLOW, of Wisconsin
University
AND

Louis JOLYON of OklahomaSchool of Medicine

WEST, University
Few aspects of Communismhave been morepuzzlingand disturbingto
the Westernworld than the widely publicized collaboration,conversion,
and self-denunciationin individuals-communist and noncommunist,
innocentand guiltyalike-who have sufferedCommunistimprisonment.
Such behaviorin personswhose intelligence,integrity,or patriotismcan
scarcelybe doubtedhas suggestedto manya mysterious powerorknowledge
that enables Communiststo manipulatethe thoughtsand actionsof others
in a mannerordinarilyreservedto charactersin the more lurid sorts of
science fiction.Accordingly,such terms as "brainwashing," "thought
control," "menticide,"and so on, have been applied to the process or
product of this manipulation.To lend some degree of scientificrespecta-
bilityto such concepts,attemptshave been made (e.g., 12, 16) to relate
themto the psychiatricimplicationsof Pavlovian conditioningprocedures.
While these speculationshave an undeniable romanticappeal, more
sober analyses (1, 2, 7) of factorsinfluencingthe behavior of prisoners
under Communistcontrolindicate that they are neithermysteriousnor
indicativeof any unusual amountof psychiatricsophisticationon the part
of Communists.Indeed, consideringthe extraordinarydegree of control
the Communistsmaintain over the physical and social environmentsof
theirprisoners,it is rathersurprisingthat theirefforts
to indoctrinateand
converthave not been more successful.Contraryto the views of some
writersin popularmedia,therecordindicatesthatmostAmericanprisoners
in Korea, forinstance,showedremarkable"sales resistance,"even under
profoundduress.
It is a factthat the CommunistChinesein Korea achieved considerable
1 This paper is a revisionand elaborationof a reportforthe Study Groupon Sur-
vival Training,sponsoredby theAirForce Personneland TrainingResearchCenter,
March, 1956,of whichthe authorswere members.The initial reportwas prepared
by the firsttwo authors,and the researchforthe revisionwas supportedin part by
the United States Air Force under ContractNo. AF 41(657)-75monitoredby the
Director,Officer EducationResearchLaboratory,MaxwellAirForce Base, Alabama,
withthe thirdauthoras ChiefInvestigator.Permissionis grantedforreproduction,
translation,publication,use, and disposalin wholeand in part by or forthe United
States Government.
271

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:02:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
272 SOCIOMETRY

success in stimulatingcooperativebehaviorin a large numberof United

Nations prisonersof war througha combinationof threats,propaganda,
group pressures,and group manipulation. By Segal's criteria,15 per
cent of Americanarmy prisonerscooperated unduly. And if it can be
consideredthat it was everyman's dutyto exerciseactive resistanceto the
enemyand his propagandaduringthe periodof captivity,thenfully95 per
cent failed to meet the most stringentcriteriaforcommendablebehavior
(18, 28, p. 80). Nevertheless,the Chineseinducedonly21 Americanprison-
ers to remainunderCommunism(13), and it is doubtfulwhetherall these
were truly "converted." Most authoritiesagree that despite occasional
lapses the vast majorityof Americanprisonersof war performedwell and
honorably.As the Secretaryof Defense's advisory committeeon POW's
has reported,"the recordseemsfineindeed" (30).
In the light of these findings,a complete analysis would concentrate
more heavily on the factorsthat enabled the large majorityof POW's to
resistin some degree.However,it is not with these phenomenathat the
presentdiscussionis primarilyconcerned.Rather, we wish to discuss the
basis forthe successoftechniqueswherebyfalse confessions, self-denuncia-
tions,and participationin propagandaactivitieswere broughtabout. The
Communistsmade special efforts to elicitthesebehaviorsin flyingperson-
nel, particularlywith regard to confessionsof participationin bacterio-
logical warfare.Aftertheir world-widepropaganda campaign went into
high gear with accusations of "germ warfare" in Korea, beginningon
February21, 1952, a vigorouspolicy of coercivepressurewas applied to a
large numberof Americanflyingpersonnelcaptured duringthe Korean
conflict.As a result,a numberof flyersfromthe Air Force and Marine
Corps signedfalse confessionsof bacteriologicalwarfareand participated
to various extentsin enemypropaganda activities.A detailed account of
theseeventsmay be foundelsewhere(24, 28).
The objective intensityof noxious stimulation,injury, disease, mal-
nutrition,deprivation,sleeplessness,fatigue,isolation,and threatsuffered
by many prisonersfora greateror lesserperiodwas extreme.There were
few,if any, who werenot subjectedto some of these conditions.Accounts
of observationsand experimentsrelated to these various types of stress
are now appearingin the literaturein increasingnumbers(e.g., 11, 29). The
presentdiscussionis concernedwith the theoreticalanalysis of the psy-
chologicalstates and processesresultingfromsuch objectiveconditionsof
stress.
DDD

Althoughthe specificcomponentsof these states vary in intensityand

pattern,in the case of the prisonerof war they containat least threeim-
portantelements:debility,dependency,and dread. They referto the fact

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:02:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BRAINWASHING AND CONDITIONING 273

that individualssubjected to the kinds of environmentalconditionslisted

above have reducedviability,are helplesslydependenton theircaptorsfor
the satisfactionof many basic needs, and experiencethe emotionaland
motivationalreactionsof intensefear and anxiety.These componentsare
separable,but it is evidentthat they also interact.Consequentlyit seems
appropriateas well as convenientto conceiveof these states and processes
as thoughtheywerean entityor syndromeincludingdebility,dependency,
and dread, to be referred to as DDD. Amongthe POW's pressuredby the
ChineseCommunists,theDDD syndromein its full-blown formconstituted
a state ofdiscomfort that was well-nighintolerable.
Debilitywas induced by semi-starvation, fatigue,and disease. Chronic
physicalpain was a commonfeature.Loss of energyand inabilityto resist
minorabuse, combinedwith the lack of properfacilitiesforthe mainten-
ance of personalhygiene,led to inanitionand a sense of terribleweariness
and weakness.
Dependency,produced by the prolongeddeprivationof many of the
factors,suchas sleep and food,neededto maintainsanityand lifeitself,was
made morepoignantby occasionalunpredictablebriefrespites,reminding
the prisonerthat it was possibleforthe captor to relievethe miseryif he
wished.If an individualwas placed in prolongedisolation,as was so often
the case withflyerspressedto confessto thebacteriologicalwarfarecharges,
the deprivationof ordinarysocial stimulationand relations markedly
strengthened the dependency.Althoughwe shall notdwellon thisaspect of
the situation,the effectiveness of Communistmethodswas undoubtedly
greatlyenhancedby theircontrolofthe means forsatisfying nuclear social
needs for recognition,status, communication,and so on. The captors'
condemnationand misunderstanding of Americansocial values, in con-
nectionwith the withdrawalof accustomedsocial supports,e.g., reliable
sources of informationand communicationwith others as a means of
testingrealityand of appraisingmoralstandards,played a significant part
in the dependencyrelationship(2, 7, 10, 17).
Dread is the most expressivetermto indicatethe chronicfearthe Com-
munistsattemptedto induce. Fear of death, fear of pain, fear of nonre-
patriation,fear of deformityor permanentdisabilitythroughneglect or
inadequate medical treatment,fear of Communistviolence against loved
ones at home,and even fearofone's owninabilityto satisfythe demandsof
insatiableinterrogators-theseand many othernaggingdespairsconstitu-
ted the finalcomponentofthe DDD syndrome(2).
The interrelations of these factors,carefullycontrivedand nurturedby
the Communists,were of great importancein determining the total effect
ofDDD. Althoughthereweresomeindividualswho acceded to the demands
oftheircaptorsfairlyearlyin the game,it is clearthat the Chineserealized
the importanceof preparingthe resistantprisoner,throughDDD, forthe

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:02:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
274 SOCIOMETRY

long, drawn-outprocess designedto bringabout the desired goal-com-

plete compliance.
Beforeconsideringin greaterdetail the specificmechanismsunderlying
the role ofDDD in accomplishing thisaim, threeprefatory commentsare in
order.First, the presentanalysis lays no claim to comprehensiveness. It
deals with only a fewaspects of DDD occurringundercertainconditions.
We believe these aspects to be important,but theyare not all that is im-
portant.In this connection,the presentpaper may be consideredas an
elaboration of portions of the comprehensivediscussion of Communist
"thoughtreform"by Hinkle and Wolff(7). It is gratifying that our con-
clusions, arrived at independentlyand on somewhat more theoretical
grounds,are essentiallyin agreementwiththeirs.
Second,ouruse ofthe terminology oflearningtheory,broadlyconceived,
and our use of conceptsderivedfromconditioning, does not implythat we
considerlearningtheoryuniquelycompetentto explainthe effectsofDDD.
On the otherhand, we do considerfactorsinfluencing behaviorin DDD to
have somethingin commonwith factors affectingbehavior in learning
situationsgenerally,and, therefore,that it may be worthwhileattempting
to analyze some aspects of behavior associated with DDD in terms of
principlesof classical and instrumentalconditioning.But, as an eminent
conditioningtheoristhas recentlynoted (20), the view that principles
derivedfromconditioning mightapply to morecomplexbehaviordoes not
at all implythat complexbehaviorcan be explainedsolelyin termsof the
variablesaffecting conditioning.In thisinstance,it is particularlydoubtful
that the proceduresused to influencethe behavior of prisonersunder
Communismderivedfromthe methodsof Pavlov, or that the prisoners'
reactionsare generallyunderstandablein purelyPavlovian terms.On the
contrary,to the extentthat such conceptsapply at all, selectiveor instru-
mental (Thorndikean)learningwas a more prominentfeaturethan clas-
sical (Pavlovian) conditioning.Certainly, only limited aspects of the
behavior of prisonersunder Communismbear any resemblanceto the
generalizedinhibitoryor excitatorystates characterizing some of Pavlov's
dogs (14).
Finally,we shouldbeware of the "psychologist'serror."Althoughsome
of the behavior of prisonersunder Communismmay be susceptibleto
analysisin termsof learningand conditioning principles,it does not follow
that the application of these principlesby Communistcaptors was de-
liberateand self-conscious.Animaltrainersand side-showbarkersare often
extremelycompetentmanipulatorsof behavior; this does not mean they
are comparativeor social psychologists.
DDD, SELF-PERCEPTION, AND THINKING

By providinga radically changed contextDDD mightbe expected to

produce new responsesthat actively compete or interferewith wonted

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:02:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BRAINWASHING AND CONDITIONING 275

behavior.It may also producea conditionofmarkedlyreducedresponsive-

ness,not unlikethe generalizedinhibitorystates describedby Pavlov (14)
and Liddell (8), due to the reducedor monotonousstimulationassociated
withisolationand confinement, or to reducedenergy,orto thefrustrationof
previouslysuccessfultechniquesforachievinggoals. Wheneverindividuals
showextremelyselectiveresponsiveness to onlya fewsituationalelements,
or become generallyunresponsive,thereis a disruptionof the orderliness,
i.e., sequence and arrangementof experiencedevents,the process under-
lyingtime spanningand long-termperspective.By disorganizingthe per-
ceptionof those experientialcontinuitiesconstitutingthe self-conceptand
impoverishingthe basis for judging self-consistency, DDD affectsone's
habitualways oflookingat and dealingwithoneself.
This effect,whichhas elsewherebeen relatedto the collapse of certain
ego functions(22), bears an interestingresemblanceto some aspects of the
postlobotomysyndrome.The latter,too, is characterizedby apathy and
the disturbanceof the self-conceptor self-regarding tendency(15). The
frequencyand degree of flattenedaffectand self-deprecation in the con-
fessionsofprisonersunderCommunismhave probablybeen overestimated,
but to the extenttheyhave occurred,the observedbehaviorhas much in
commonwiththat of some brain-damagedindividuals.
Closelyrelatedto the foregoingconsequenceof DDD is a disturbanceof
associationand a concretenessof thinkingsimilarto that sometimesseen
in schizophrenia.The retentionof recentexperiencesand habit patterns
may be impaired, with consequent regression,i.e., primitivization,in
language, thought,and those integretativeand mediatingsymbolicpro-
cesses essential to reasoningand foresight.Conditioningperformancein
human subjects is impairedby some kinds of symbolicactivity,and con-
versely,the impoverishment of thinkingmay increase susceptibilityto
arbitraryand unsubtle trainingprocedures(cf. 3) leading to relatively
automatic and uncriticalimitativeresponses.This susceptibilitymay be
furtherenhancedby anxietyand emotionality(5, 21, 23).2
2 These assumptionsdo not implya negativecorrelation betweenintelligenceand
conditioning in normalsubjects,nor betterconditioning in feeble-mindedor brain-
damagedsubjects thanin normalindividuals.The empiricalevidencedoes not sup-
port any such views. The suggestedeffectof impoverishedthinkingrelatesonly to
that producedby debility,isolation,and such factors.One may speculate,in this
connection,on the relationbetweenthis putative effectof DDD and the kinds of
hypersuggestibility and automatismreportedamong primitivepeoples suffering
fromprolongedphysicalstressand privation.Whetherthesesymptomsresultfrom
some state of hyperconditionability is a moot question.Arctichysteriaand latah,
for instance,are presumablydissociativeand thereforehysteroidin nature (25),
and the relationbetweenhysteriaand conditioningis as yet uncertain(4, 5, 6).
Thus it is not possibleat presentto identifythe effectsofDDD withany particular
psychiatricstate.

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:02:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
276 SOCIOMETRY

REINFORCEMENT OF SOCIAL COMMUNICATION

On the assumptionthat conditioningprinciplesapply in part to the

behaviorof prisonersof war, it is importantto analyze furtherthe nature
of the conditionedstimuliand the responseselicited by them. Careful
considerationwould seem to indicate that the situationcontainsfeatures
both of selective or instrumentallearningand of classical conditioning
(20). The instrumental(i.e., Thorndikeanratherthan Pavlovian) aspect
is emphasizedby the fact that an individual must acquire a particular
set of responsesin orderto bringabout a reinforcing state of affairs.It is
our thesisthat an alleviationin the state of DDD providesthe reinforce-
mentformuchofthe behaviordesiredby the enemy.In otherwords,DDD
does not, in and of itself,producethe desiredbehavior.DDD merelypro-
vides the occasion for the selective reinforcement of certain modes of
response.
The role of DDD in the reinforcement processdependson the fact that
it is not constant.Instead, it may be assumed to fluctuatein time,partly
as a resultof spontaneouspsychophysiological processes,and partlyas a
result of deliberatemanipulationsdesigned to maintain its intermittent
nature (2), thus preventingits fall to a baseline of permanentdepression
and hopelessness.Those individualswho werereducedto completeapathy
undoubtedlyrepresentedfailuresfromthe point of view of theirCommu-
nist captors.
At the risk of considerableoversimplification, one may conceiveof two
consequencesof the occasionalmitigationof DDD. First is the condition-
ing of the "expectancy" that DDD will be alleviated. (This constitutes
the actual classically conditioned anticipatorygoal response.) Relief,
whetherdue to spontaneousfactorsor deliberatemanipulations,is inter-
mittent,temporary, and unpredictable.Far fromweakeningthe expectancy
of relief,however,this tends to maintain the expectancyand rendersit
less susceptibleto extinction.In nontechnicalterms,this processservesto
keep hope alive, permittingsome degree of adaptive behavior, and in-
hibitingself-destructive tendencies,which would frustratethe enemy's
purpose.
This aspect of the learningprocess throwssome light on the frequent
practicein Communistprisonsof having prisoners"punish themselves."
Thus, a captive mightbe instructedto stand or kneelin a certainposition
until he should decide to cooperate. This emphasis on the self-inflicted
nature of the prisoner'spunishment,and his ability to mitigatehis con-
dition "voluntarily,"is clearly calculated to increase the intensityof
expectanciesof the possibilityof relief.At the same time,it is evidentthat
the prisoner'sbeliefthat he actually exercisescontrolis delusory,so far

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:02:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BRAINWASHING AND CONDITIONING 277

as the objective facts are concerned,since the captor may select any be-
haviorhe chooses as the conditionforrelievinga prisoner'sdistress.
The alleviationofDDD at the timeof occurrenceofthe desiredbehavior
leads to the second consequence-the learningof instrumentalacts. This
is not so difficult
to arrangeas one mightsuppose and is certainlynot the
resultof any mysteriouspowerof the manipulator.Veryoften,the desired
behavioris verbal in nature.Verbal behavioris in a generalway already
stronglyconditionedto DDD in all humanadults. One learnsfrominfancy
to use verbal behavior as a means of relievingor avoiding many of the
componentsof DDD. And, as the foregoingdiscussion indicates, the
aperiodic and unpredictablenature of the selectivereward of particular
language responsesmay be one of its chiefstrengths.If one may extra-
polate fromthe resultsof numerouslaboratoryexperiments,this is the
very procedurecalculated to produce the maximumnumberof responses
and also to make themhighlyresistantto extinction,even in the absence
of rewards(19).
The nature of the rewardsused needs no elaboration.Relief of hunger,
fatigue,isolation,or pain, even temporarily, servesas an automaticreward.
Even the verbal and empty promise of alleviation of DDD leads to
appropriateanticipatorygoal responses,keepinghope alive. Paradoxically,
interrogation, harangues,threats,and contumelymay also have a reward-
ing aspect,so greatis the acquiredreinforcement value of social communi-
cation and speech underconditionsof isolation,dependency,and physical
debility.
Since the habits of social communicationassociated with DDD are
initiallystrong,and are furtherstrengthened by selectivereinforcement,
it is not strangethat prisonersoftenshow considerablesocial responsive-
ness in the presenceof theircaptors. Despite the impoverishment of the
self-conceptand primitivizationof thinkingreferredto earlier,prisoners
could enjoy in some degree a much needed social relationshipin the in-
terrogationand indoctrinationsituations.It may be hypothesizedthat
some prisonersbecame the victimsof the very socializationprocess that
under ordinarycircumstancesis regardedas a desirableand, indeed, es-
sential aspect of civilized living. It is of interestin this connectionto
recordthe findingof Lifton,who explicitlynoted among a group of re-
patriatedprisonerswho had most aggressivelyresistedcollaborationwith
the Communists,a large portionof individualswith significant antisocial
tendencies(9). We do not suggestthat collaborationand confessionby
prisonersunderCommunismare signsof desirablesocial attitudes.We do
suggest that socializationtrainingfacilitatesthe tendencyto engage in
social communication,even with a recognizedenemy,particularlyunder
conditionsin whichthe behavioris reinforced by the satisfactionofpower-

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:02:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
278 SOCIOMETRY

ful driveswhile at the same time interfering or inhibitorytendenciesare

markedlyreduced.
There are some analogies betweenthe conditionof an individualunder
such circumstancesand that of a hypnotizedsubject. The hypnotized
subject also tends to respondautomatically,especiallyto verbal stimuli,
to be greatlyinfluencedby the attitudeof the hypnotist,and to be highly
selectivein his social responsiveness.Furthermore,thereis generalagree-
mentregardingthe susceptibilityof most normalindividualsto hypnosis,
exceptin the case ofstrongdeliberateresistance.UnderconditionsofDDD,
the possibilityof resistanceover a very long period may be vanishingly
small.As soon as resistanceappears,the intensityofDDD can be increased,
thus at one and the same time punishingresistanceand increasingthe
influenceofthe rewardwhenreliefoccurs.It mustbe remembered that the
strengthening effectsof rewards-in this instance the alleviation of an
intenselyunpleasantemotionalstate-are fundamentally automatic.They
occur because of the kind of nervoussystemwe have, and not in any es-
sentialway because of the mediationof consciousthoughtprocesses.
RETENTION OF PRISON EXPERIENCES AND BEHAVIOR

What is the aftermathofsuchexperiences?The evidenceclearlyindicates

that,exceptin the case of organicbraindamage such as mightresultfrom
avitaminosis,the behaviorofthe typicalreturneefromCommunistprisons
is "normal,"in the specialand importantsensethathe behavesin a manner
that would be predictedon the basis of ordinarylaws of behavior.There
is nottheslightestevidenceforthe necessityofpostulatingnew orunknown
factorsor conditions.This does not mean the experienceof imprisonment
leaves no trace. Such a circumstancewould in itselfbe abnormal,i.e., in-
consistentwith the knownprinciplesof behavior.In termsof normative
criteria,many ex-prisonersare more than ordinarilyanxious, defensive,
dependent,suspicious,insecure.Pressed to explainany possiblydiscredit-
able acts, they often exhibit a very considerabledegree of hesitancy,
vagueness,paramnesia,and rationalization.In a word,theybehave exactly
as one would expect of any individualrequiredto explain and defendhis
behavior,many determinantsof whichhe is not aware.
Most returneesremembera great deal of what occurredduringtheir
imprisonment. They do not remembereverythingand may be unable to
give a veryclearaccountoftheirownbehavior.Some behaviormay appear
as strangeand inexplicableto the personconcernedas to anyoneelse. The
explanationof whateverimpairmentof memoryoccurs may be foundin
the laws of forgetting,derivingfromboth clinicand laboratory.There is
no need to expatiatehere on the role of repressionin forgetting
when the
materialto be recalledelicits anxietyand guilt. But it may be usefulto

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:02:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BRAINWASHING AND CONDITIONING 279

note brieflysome of the factorsthat would influenceretentioneven in the

absence of these emotions.
In an earliersection,it was pointedout that the state ofDDD produces
responsesthat activelycompetewith ordinaryresponsesto environmental
stimuli.By the same process,the comforting and familiarstimuliof home
and friendsare associated with a whollydifferent set of responsesfrom
those producedby DDD. The changedcontextmay activelyinhibitrecall
of the prison experiences.This phenomenonis nothingmore than the
familiarpsychologicalexplanation of forgettingin terms of associative
interference.
Amongthe most importantof these competingresponsesare the affec-
tive ones. The returneesimplydoes not feelas he did as a prisoner.He may
be able to talk about how he felt,althoughthis too offersdifficulties be-
cause ourterminology fordescribingemotionalstatesis woefullyinadequate
and vague (3), but he does not currentlyrespondaffectively in the same
of
way. Similarly,the familiarstimuli home reinstate different verbal
responses,both overt and implicit,that affectrecall. The returneefeels
different,talks differently,and thinksdifferently than he did in the former
context.Since,like all ofus, he is unawareofmanyofthe cues to his former
behavior (as well as his currentbehavior), it is as useless to ask him to
explain his earlierreactionsas it is to ask a personwhy he once disliked
olivesor is forthemomentunableto recallthename ofan old acquaintance.
The particularreactionsand attitudesconstituting patriotism,bravery,
loyalty,and so on, depend on the appearance of particularcues, symbolic
or other.Such qualitiesare tendenciesto respondpositivelyor negatively,
in varyingdegreesand combinations,in the presenceof certaincombina-
tionsof cues. From thispointof view,unwontedreactionsoccurringunder
DDD do not representa different attitude; rather,the habitual attitude
does not appear because the appropriatecues have been removed.Back
home in the presenceof adequate cues, the returneetends to act and feel
as he did priorto imprisonment.
Finally,one must considerthe effecton retentionof the adequacy of the
originalimpression.Occasionally the returneedoes not remembermuch
because he did not observemuch.The impoverishedstimulation,impaired
responsiveness,reduced symbolicactivity, and disorganizationof time-
spanningcharacteristicof DDD reduce the clarityand strengthof im-
pressionsat the timeofthe originalexperience,and thusdecreaseabilityto
recall.
In the lightof all these factors,whose pejorativeinfluenceon retention
is well knownby studentsof human learning,it is clearlyto be expected
that the recall of returneeswould be somethingless than completeand
whollyaccurate as regardstheiractual prisonexperiencesand behavior.

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:02:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
280 SOCIOMETRY

RESISTANCE TO EFFECTS OF DDD

Despite our opinionthat the most undesirable effectsof DDD are not
necessarilypermanent,or, given appropriatesocial conditionsafter re-
patriation,even particularlylong-lived,the generalpictureof DDD pre-
sentedin the foregoingdiscussionis rathergloomy.This is in part because
we have emphasized its stressfulaspects rather than the considerable
resourcesmost persons can musterto oppose them. The many environ-
mental,social, and motivationalvariablesthat produceresistanceto these
effectshave not been discussed,but theirpotencyshould certainlynot be
underestimated.As we have observedearlier,the resistanceof American
prisonersunder Communism,in the face of the objective circumstances
detailed above, was in most instancesnotable, and in some nothingless
than heroic (2, 24, 28).
It is evidentthat thereare great individualdifferences in susceptibility
to DDD even under conditionsin which the level of DDD itselfcould
reasonablybe regardedas constant,i.e., not a differential factor.To state
the point somewhat differently, there are unquestionablya number of
variables,whose values differfrompersonto person,affectingthe degree
of resistanceto the effectsof DDD. The question may then be raised
whetherthe potency of these variables might not be increased in any
given individual.We believe they can.
The statement,"Every man has his breakingpoint," containsa germ
of truth,but like otherbromides,is liable to misinterpretation.It does not
mean the "breakingpoint" is fixedforany givenindividual,so that nothing
can affectit. Such a view is scientifically if not meaningless,
indefensible,
since it impliesthat some kindsof behaviorare unlawful,i.e., not affected
by variations in any kinds of antecedent conditions. Furthermore,the
term "breakingpoint" is itselfmisleading.Susceptibilityto DDD or any
other stressfulconditionis not an all-or-noneaffair.We are discussing
behavior,and behaviorvaries in degree and in kind. It may be possible
to define"breaking" in the mannerthat one definesa right or wrong
responsein arithmetic,but it should be recognizedthat such a definition
would be arbitraryat best and of doubtfulconceptual significance.As
Bidermanhas pointed out, a prisoner'sphysicaland moral strengthmay
be sapped by Communistcoercivemethodsto a degree that resistance
appears insignificant.But, howeverfeeblehis performance, motivationto
resistusually persistsand showsitselfas circumstancespermit(2).
It is not the purposeofthe presentdiscussionto considerall the possible
personalor social variables of whichresistanceto the effectsof DDD may
be a function,or indeedto considerany ofthemin detail. We mentiontwo,
not because they are necessarilyof particularimportance,but because
they throwfurtherlight on the nature of the DDD state. First, thereis

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:02:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BRAINWASHING AND CONDITIONING 281

the factorof physicalhealth.Otherthingsequal, thereis probablya nega-

tive relationbetweendegreeof physicalhealth and vigoron the one hand
and susceptibilityto DDD on the other.Debility can be postponedlonger,
dependencyfoughtagainst, and the self-conceptmaintainedmore easily
if bodilywell-beingobtains.Second, thereis the factorof initialor chronic
anxiety.No matterwhat anxietyis due to, the higherthe anxietylevel,
the greateris the possibilityof rewardingbehavior by its momentary
reduction.Contrariwise,a low level of initial anxiety should retard the
growthof the "dread" componentof DDD, and at least indirectlyaffect
some of its antecedents,e.g., the reactivityto pain (27).
Thus, techniquesforpromotinghealth and decreasinganxietyin those
who may becomeprisonersare probablyofgreatimportance.Nevertheless,
one should not expect factorssuch as these to block the effectsof DDD
indefinitely.Physical health, for instance,may be of utmost value over
the shorthaul, e.g., duringearly interrogation. But on a long-termbasis
it may be relativelyinsignificant.Health can be brokendown by a deter-
minedand informedenemyin a very shorttime.And althougha healthy
individualcan betterresistthe effectsof debilitatingvariables,thereis no
evidencethat, once illnessand physicaldebilityoccur,previouslyhealthy
individualscan toleratethis conditionbetterthan those who mighthave
become habituatedto it. In some cases, indeed,the reversemightobtain.
A somewhatsimilarreservationmay be expressedconcerningprocedures
calculatedto reduceinitialanxiety,i.e., trainingindividualsto be generally
nonanxious.The fear componentof DDD, unlikeneuroticanxietyor neu-
rotic fears (phobias), is quite realisticfor the most part. Realistic fears
are not easily extinguishableand, if they were, the desirabilityof extin-
guishingsuch fearsis not altogethercertain.For instance,fear of punish-
ment fordisplayinghostilitytoward one's captors is adaptive. Wolf and
Ripley (26) quote one prisonerof the Japanese in World War II in this
regard: "I had to make a consciouseffortnot to resentthingsbecause I
realized that my bones are brittle."
On the otherhand, certainanticipatoryfearsmay be modifiedthrough
trainingprocedures.Alleviationofunrealisticfearsoftheunknown(through
accurate indoctrinationregardingenemymethods)undoubtedlyimproves
the abilityof the individualto deal with those fearsthat are realistic.It
may make it possibleforhim to admit his fearto himself,as a reasonable
and expectedreaction,thusmodifying its influenceas a covertforcetoward
compliance.Furthermore,an expectationof the probable psychophysio-
logical effectsof stress may rob them of some of their "shock" value.
Finally, a certain amount of transfermay be expected from stressful
trainingexperiencesin whichadaptive modalitieshave been learned,thus
permittingthe prisonerto conceptualizehis currentstressfulexperience

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:02:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
282 SOCIOMETRY

in terms of previous (and at least partly successful)transactionsunder

stress.
Still,it would be foolishto disregardthe fact that some of the elements
of DDD representa pathological organic state, some consequences of
which are probablyinnatelydetermined.To the extentthis is true, one
cannot expect to achieve a great degreeof prophylacticsuccess in regard
to the effectsof DDD, any more than one can reasonablyexpect at the
presentstate ofknowledgeto preventsomeofthe undesirableconsequences
of lobotomy.
Though many of the behavioralconsequencesof DDD are not innately
determined,the conditioningof certaintypes of responsesdesiredby the
enemy may eventuallyoccur, even in the face of superlativeresistance.
One of the conclusionsthat may legitimatelybe drawn fromthe present
analysis of the circumstancesof imprisonment under Communismis that,
if a prisoner'sstate of DDD reaches a trulyextremedegree of severity
(and it cannot now be predictedwhose abilityto resistwill be the most
effectivein combatingDDD), and if he lives,he probably cannot be ex-
pected to resistindefinitely.This predictiondoes not requirethe assump-
tion that Communistshave mysteriouspowers,or that theirprisonersare
subjected to some strangeprocess of "brainwashing"negatingthe effects
of their previous trainingand attitudes. It is based, rather,on the as-
sumptionthat under the physical, social, and emotional conditionsof
extremeDDD, some degree of ultimatecompliancemay be considereda
natural consequence of the operation of ordinaryprinciplesof human
behavior.
SUMMARY

Althoughthe behaviorof some prisonersunder Communism,including

collaboration,conversion,and self-denunciation, appears to suggest that
Communistsare able to "brainwash"theirprisonersin a mysteriousway,
a considerationof the physical, emotional,and social conditionsof the
prisonerin conjunctionwith the ordinaryprinciplesof human behavior
reveals that such behavior may be readily explained. The state of the
prisonermay be describedin termsofthe conceptsofdebility,dependency,
and dread (DDD), and some of the behavioral principlesexplainingthe
effectsoftheDDD state derivefromlearningand conditioning phenomena.
It is assumed that DDD operatesin part to producea generalizedstate
ofhyporesponsiveness, time-spanning
disrupting processesand disorganizing
the self-concept.Anotherconsequenceof DDD is the impairmentof sym-
bolic processes,perhaps renderingthe prisonersusceptibleto relatively
simple conditioningtechniques. The intermittent nature of DDD leads
both to the expectancyof relief(i.e., hope) and to the reinforcement of

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:02:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BRAINWASHING AND CONDITIONING 283

specifickinds of verbal behavior. The latter effectis facilitatedby the

fact that social communicationis already stronglyconditionedto cues
such as thoseproducedby DDD, as a resultofnormalsocializationtraining.
The typical prisonerreturneeexhibitsno extraordinary peculiaritiesof
memory.The degree of forgetting of prisonexperiencesis such as would
be expected as a result of the inhibitionof anxiety-producing thoughts
(repression),change of situational contextduringrecall, and the inade-
quacies of originalimpressionsduringimprisonment.
Resistance to the undesirable consequences of DDD is a matter of
degreeand may be modifiedby such factorsas physicalhealth and level
of initialanxiety.Nevertheless,factorssuch as these cannotreasonablybe
expected to provide more than temporaryrespite.Through various de-
fenses,a prisonermay postpone the developmentof extremeDDD fora
longtime,perhapsindefinitely. But ifa prisoner'sstate ofDDD is extreme,
and if he lives, he probablycannotresistindefinitely.Far fromfurnishing
proofof the operationof some unnaturalprocess of "brainwashing,"this
eventualityis a predictableconsequenceof the operationof laws of normal
human behavior.
Manuscriptreceived:May 17, 1957
Revisedmanuscriptreceived:July12, 1957
1. E. Farber
Department ofPsychology
State University
ofIowa
Iowa City,Iowa

REFERENCES
1. Bauer, R. A., "Brainwashing-Psychologyor Demonology,"AmericanPsycho-
logical AssociationSymposium,September3, 1956.
2. Biderman,A. D., "CommunistTechniques of Coercive Interrogation,"Air
ForcePersonneland TrainingResearchCenterDevelopment ReportTN-56-
132,Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, 1956.
3. Dollard,J.,and N. E. Miller,Personality
andpsychotherapy,New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1950.
4. Eysenck,H. J., "Cortical Inhibition,Figural AfterEffect,and Theoryof Per-
sonality," Journalof Abnormaland Social Psychology,1955,51, 94-106.
5. Farber,I. E., K. W. Spence,and H. P. Bechtoldt,"Emotionality,Introversion-
Extraversion,and Conditioning,"MidwesternPsychologicalAssociation,
May 3, 1957.
6. Franks,C. M., "Conditioningand Personality:a StudyofNormaland Neurotic
Subjects," Journalof Abnormaland Social Psychology, 1956,52, 143-150.
7. Hinkle,L. E., and H. G. Wolff,"CommunistInterrogationand Indoctrination
of 'Enemies of the State,' " Archivesof Neurologyand Psychiatry,1956,
76, 115-174.
8. Liddell, H. S., "ConditionedReflexMethods and ExperimentalNeurosis," in
J. McV. Hunt (ed.), Personalityand theBehaviorDisorders,New York:
Ronald, 1944.

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:02:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
284 SOCIOMETRY

9. Lifton,R. J., "Home by Ship: Reaction Patternsof AmericanPrisonersof War

RepatriatedfromNorth Korea," AmericanJournalof Psychiatry,1954,
110,732-739.
10. Lifton,R. J., " 'ThoughtReform'of WesternCivilians in ChineseCommunist
Prisons,"Psychiatry,1956,19, 173-196.
11. Lilly,J. C., "Effectsof PhysicalRestraintand of ReductionofOrdinaryLevels
of Physical Stimulion Intact, Healthy Persons," Groupfor theAdvance-
mentof Psychiatry,SymposiumNo. 2, IllustrativeStrategiesfor Research
on Psychopathology in MentalHealth,New York: GAP PublicationOffice,
1790Broadway.
12. Meerloo,J. A. M., "Pavlovian Strategyas a Weapon of Menticide,"American
JournalofPsychiatry, 1954,110,809-813.
13. Pasley, V., 21 Stayed,New York: AmericanBook-Stratford Press, 1955.
14. Pavlov, I. P., ConditionedReflexesand Psychiatry, W. H. Gantt (trans.), New
York: International,1941.
15. Robinson,M. F., and W. Freeman,Psychosurgery and theSelf,New York: Grune
and Stratton,1954.
16. Santucci, P. S., and G. Winokur,"Brainwashingas a Factor in Psychiatric
Illness," Archivesof Neurologyand Psychiatry,1955, 74, 11-16.
17. Schein, E. H., "The Chinese IndoctrinationProgramfor Prisonersof War,"
Psychiatry,1956,19, 149-172.
18. Segal, J. "Factors Related to the Collaborationand Resistance Behavior of
U. S. ArmyPW's in Korea," TechnicalReport33, Human ResourcesRe-
searchOffice,
The GeorgeWashingtonUniversity, Washington,D. C., 1956.
19. Skinner,B. F., Behaviorof Organisms,New York: Appleton-Century, 1938.
20. Spence, K. W., BehaviorTheoryand Conditioning, New Haven, Conn.: Yale
UniversityPress, 1956.
21. Spence, K. W., and I. E. Farber, "Conditioningand Extinctionas a Function
of Anxiety,"Journalof ExperimentalPsychology,1953,45, 116-119.
22. Strassman,H. D., M. B. Thaler,and E. H. Schein,"A PrisonerofWarSyndrome:
Apathyas a Reaction to Severe Stress," AmericanJournalofPsychiatry,
1956,112,998-1003.
23. Taylor, J. A., "The Relationshipof Anxietyto the ConditionedEyelid Re-
sponse," JournalofExperimental Psychology, 1951,41, 81-92.
24. West, L. J., "U. S. Air Force Prisonersof the Chinese Communists,"Group
for the Advancementof PsychiatrySymposiumon Prisoners of War,
Nov. 11, 1956.
25. West, L. J., "Hypnosis and the Dissociative Reactions," Journalof Clinical
and Experimental Hypnosis (in press).
26. Wolf,S., and H. S. Ripley, "Reactions amongAllied PrisonersSubjected to 3
Years of Imprisonment and Tortureby Japanese," AmericanJournalof
Psychiatry,1947,104,180-193.
27. Wolff,H. G., and S. Wolf,Pain (3d ed., 1952),New York: Charles C. Thomas,
1952.
28. "CommunistInterrogation,Indoctrinationand Exploitationof AmericanMili-
taryand CivilianPrisoners,"HearingsBeforethePermanentSubcommittee
on Investigationsof theCommittee on Government Operations,U. S. Senate,
84thCongress, 2ndSession,Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing
Office,1956.

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:02:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BRAINWASHING AND CONDITIONING 285

29. "Factors Used to Increasethe SusceptibilityofIndividualsto ForcefulIndoctri-

nation: Observationsand Experiments,"Groupfor the Advancement of
Psychiatry,SymposiumNo. 3, New York: GAP PublicationsOffice,1790
Broadway.
30. "POW: The Fight ContinuesAfterthe Battle," Reportof theSecretaryof De-
fense'sAdvisoryCommittee on Prisonersof War,Washington,D.C.: U. S.
GovernmentPrintingOffice,1955.

This content downloaded from 155.69.24.171 on Mon, 01 Jun 2015 02:02:35 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions