Coercive persuasion comprises social influences capable of producing substantial changes in behavior, attitude, and ideology through the use of coercive tactics and persuasion, via interpersonal and group-based influences.
The term was coined by Edgar Schein in 1961 in relation to his study of Chinese POWs' indoctrination. According to Schein, the essence of coercive persuasion, ..., is to produce ideological and behavioral changes in a fully conscious, mentally intact individual. Schein notes that elements of coercive persuasion exist in many areas of human endeavor, such as college fraternities, established religion, social rehabilitation programmes, the armed forces, and other conventional institutions. Schein also suggests that the popular image of brainwashing as entailing "extensive self-delusion and excessive [mental] distortion [...] is a false one." 
Martyn Carruthers has the following definition: "Coercive persuasion attempts to force people to change beliefs, ideas, attitudes, or behaviors using psychological pressure, undue influence, threats, anxiety, intimidation, and/or stress. (Coercive persuasion has been called mind control and brainwashing.) 
Some scholars such as Michael Langone or J.K. Ungerleider use the term coercive persuasion in the same sense as brainwashing, thought reform or mind control  and connect it to methods of cultic groups in acquiring and retaining members. This view is disputed by scholars such as James Gene and Bette Nove Evans , among others, while the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion stated in 1990 that there was not sufficient research to permit a consensus on the matter and that "one should not automatically equate the techniques involved in the process of physical coercion and control with those of nonphysical coercion and control". A similar statement was made by the American Psychological Association in 1987 when they rejected the report produced by the "APA taskforce on Deceptive and Indirect Techniques of Persuasion and Control" (DIMPAC))., stating that "the brainwashing theory espoused lacks the scientific rigor and evenhanded critical approach necessary for APA imprimatur." See also Brainwashing controversies.
- CESNUR — APA Brief in the Molko Case. [t]he methodology of Drs. Singer and Benson has been repudiated by the scientific community [... the hypotheses advanced by Singer comprised] little more than uninformed speculation, based on skewed data [...] [t]he coercive persuasion theory ... is not a meaningful scientific concept. [...] The theories of Drs. Singer and Benson are not new to the scientific community. After searching scrutiny, the scientific community has repudiated the assumptions, methodologies, and conclusions of Drs. Singer and Benson. The validity of the claim that, absent physical force or threats, "systematic manipulation of the social influences" can coercively deprive individuals of free will lacks any empirical foundation and has never been confirmed by other research. The specific methods by which Drs. Singer and Benson have arrived at their conclusions have also been rejected by all serious scholars in the field.
- ^ Schein, Edgar, Coercive Persuasion: A socio-psychological analysis of the "brainwashing" of American civilian prisoners by the Chinese Communists (1961), W. W. Norton (publishers), (1971 edition ISBN 0-393-00613-1)
- ^ Schein, Edgar, Brainwashing and Totalitarianization in Modern Society (1959)
- ^ Carruthers, Martyn, Prevent Coercive Persuasion & Mind Control (online) Retrieved November 2005
- ^ Cimbala, Stephen The Politics of Warfare (2004) pp. 144–5 , Penn State Press, ISBN 0-271-02592-1
- ^ Langone, Michael, Cults Questions and Answers] (Online) Retrieved November 2005
- ^ Ungerleider and Wellish, Coercive persuasion (brainwashing), religious cults, and deprogramming American Journal of Psychatry, 1979
- ^ Gene G. James, Brainwashing: The Myth and the Actuality Fordham University Quarterly, Volume LXI, June 1986
- ^ Novit Evas, Bette Interpreting the Free Exercise of Religion: The Constitution and American Pluralism, () pp. 91–3, UNC Press, ISBN 0-8078-4674-0
- "For legal purposes, the term coercive persuassion [as it pertains to the acquisition of religious beliefs] is both conceptually flawed as well as unworkable within the limits of the First Amendment"
- ^ Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, council meeting on the 7th of November 1990 (Online)
- ^ APA Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology, Memo re Final Report of DIMPAC Task Force, Board of Social and Ethical Responsibility for Psychology, May 11, 1987 (online)
- ^ Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 C3d 1092 (online)
- ^ Document presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Wollersheim vs. Churchof Scientology How does mind control work?: A technical overview of mind control tactics (Online) Retrieved November 2005
- Academic References from Coercive Persuasion and Attitude Change
- Bardin David J., Psychological coercion and human rights
- Carruthers, Martyn: Prevent Coercive Persuasion & Mind Control
- Fingarette, Herbert, Coercion, Coercive Persuasion, and the Law in Robbins, Shepherd, and McBride, (ed), Cults, Culture, and Law: Perspectives on New Religious Movements, Scholars Press, California 1985.
- Hunter, Edna: Coercive Persuasion: The Myth of Free Will
- Ofshe, Richard J. Coercive Persuasion and Attitude Change Encyclopedia of Sociology Volume 1, Macmillan Publishing Company, New York
- Schein, Edgar: Organizational Learning as Cognitive Re-definition: Coercive Persuasion Revisited
- Singer, Margaret Coercive Persuasion and the Problems of Ex-Cult Members
- Singer, Margaret Coercive Mind Control Tactics