Nobody hands over a life’s savings on day one. The path there is almost always a series of individually reasonable-sounding steps — a suggested tithe, a course fee, a “level up” investment — each one small enough to agree to without much resistance.
The escalation pattern
Organizational psychologist Barry Staw’s classic research on “escalating commitment” — sometimes summarized by its original title, “Knee-deep in the Big Muddy” — found that once people have committed resources to a course of action, they tend to commit more, even in the face of negative outcomes, in part to justify the resources already spent (Staw, 1976). That dynamic isn’t unique to high-control groups, but it’s something these groups are often structured to exploit: an early small financial ask makes a later, larger ask feel like a continuation rather than a new decision. Each installment makes the previous ones feel more “worth it,” which makes the next one easier to justify.
The language that makes it feel voluntary
The framing matters as much as the amount. “Tithing” borrows the legitimacy of an established religious practice. “Course fees” and “certification levels” borrow the legitimacy of professional development. “Investment” borrows the legitimacy of finance — implying a future return that reframes an outgoing payment as a forward-looking choice rather than a loss. Steven Hassan’s BITE model names control of finances as one of the behavioral-control tactics common across high-control groups, operating alongside — not separately from — the group’s control of information and thought (Hassan, 2020). The financial ask rarely stands alone; it’s usually reinforced by teaching that frames sacrifice as devotion, or hesitation as a lack of commitment.
“Once someone has organized their housing, work, and sense of purpose around a group, walking away isn’t a single decision — it’s a decision to lose all of it at once.”
— from ICAM’s Week 3 kickoff article
Why the sunk cost feels unbearable
Janja Lalich’s “bounded choice” concept describes how, inside these systems, continuing to pay can feel like the only sane option — not because someone is being irrational, but because the belief system and social structure make the alternative (acknowledging the loss, and leaving) feel unthinkable (Lalich, 2004). This is why financial harm in these situations is rarely resolved just by pointing out the math. The person involved usually already senses, on some level, that the numbers don’t add up. What keeps the payments going is the surrounding structure of belief, belonging, and fear of loss — which is exactly what makes outside support, rather than outside judgment, so important when someone starts to question it.
References
Hassan, S. A. (2020). The BITE model of authoritarian control: Undue influence, thought reform, brainwashing, mind control, trafficking and the law [Doctoral dissertation, Fielding Graduate University].
Lalich, J. (2004). Bounded choice: True believers and charismatic cults. University of California Press.
Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(1), 27–44.
Leave a Reply