Undue Influence: Definitions and Applications - California Courts ...

The Building Blocks of Undue Influence
Although the psychology of undue influence is not yet well understood, a framework for
understanding it seems to be emerging, which highlights the following features:
1) Factors affecting susceptibility or vulnerability;
2) Roles and relationships between victims and abusers;
3) Psychological manipulations and techniques; and
4) Outcomes.
1. Victims’ Vulnerability
The literatures on undue persuasion and mind control contain numerous examples of
“normal” people being induced or persuaded into doing things they would not have done
otherwise. There is no evidence to suggest, for example, that prisoners of war who renounced
their governments or turned on comrades were different from those who did not in terms of their
cognitive functioning. Similarly, there is no reason to believe that hostages, victims of domestic
violence, or cult inductees fall outside the boundaries of normalcy. Some experts in fact have
posited that “virtually anybody can be unduly influenced if the influencers or techniques used
against them are powerful enough” (Singer, 1992). However, certain conditions are believed to
render certain people more vulnerable or susceptible. These include either permanent or
temporary impairments that result from illness, accidents, or decline, or induced states (e.g, by
withholding food, water, medications, or care). Some conditions, such as debilitating grief
reactions, are related to situations or circumstances.
Perhaps the most commonly cited vulnerability associated with undue influence is
diminished mental capacity. In fact, some analysts believe that there must be some level of
cognitive impairment for undue influence to occur. Others concede that while diminished
capacity is not a requirement for undue influence, it is easier to unduly influence those who have
impairments.
Courts, in evaluating undue influence, have tended to focus on victims’ cognitive
capacity and lawyers have noted that it is easier to prove undue influence in cases where victims
have cognitive impairments (American Bar Association and American Psychological
93