Imagine being told that leaving a group could mean losing contact with the people you love most.
Your family. Your friends. Your community. Your support network.
For people who have grown up within high-control groups, this may not be an abstract fear. It can be a very real consequence of questioning beliefs, challenging authority or choosing to leave.
Our recently published Psychology Today article highlights emerging research into mandated shunning, examining how the practice can operate as a powerful form of psychological control within high-control religious and other membership groups.
What is mandated shunning?
Mandated shunning occurs when members of a group are required, either formally or through social pressure, to cut off contact with someone who has left, been excluded, disagreed with the group or is considered to have challenged its authority.
It may be described using different language, including discipline, disfellowshipping, disconnection, excommunication or even loving correction.
But the underlying behaviour can be similar: withdrawal of contact, social exclusion and emotional separation. This distinction is important.
Shunning can appear to be an individual’s personal decision. A member may believe they are simply following their own religious or moral principles. However, research into high-control groups suggests that the wider social environment can make that choice far less voluntary than it appears.
Members may feel pressure to comply because refusing to do so could put their own standing, relationships or sense of belonging at risk.
In this way, shunning becomes more than the rejection of one individual. It can become part of the social structure of the group.
The threat can be powerful even before someone leaves
One of the most significant points emerging from the research is that the psychological impact of shunning does not necessarily begin when someone is actually excluded.
The possibility of being shunned can be enough to influence behaviour.
If leaving could mean losing contact with parents, children, partners or lifelong friends, the perceived consequences of making an independent decision become enormous.
Someone may therefore remain within a group despite privately questioning its beliefs or practices, because the social cost of leaving feels too high.
This is where mandated shunning can become a mechanism of control.
The individual does not necessarily need to be physically prevented from leaving. The fear of what will happen if they do may be enough to keep them there.
For people who were born or raised within these environments, that pressure can be particularly profound. Their entire social world may be connected to the group, meaning that leaving can feel less like walking away from an organisation and more like losing an entire identity and support network.
When belonging becomes conditional
Human beings have a fundamental need to belong.
Our relationships provide emotional support, identity and a sense of security. Consequently, the threat of losing those relationships can be a powerful psychological pressure.
Within a high-control environment, belonging may become conditional on obedience.
Follow the rules and you remain part of the community.
Question the authority or leave, and you risk losing it.
Research from the Mandated Shunning Research Project, involving more than 1,000 participants, is beginning to explore these dynamics and the psychological consequences associated with them. Early findings suggest that shunning can become embedded within the wider culture of a group, reinforced not only by formal rules but also by family expectations, conformity, authority and fear of rejection.
This makes mandated shunning particularly difficult to recognise.
There may be no obvious physical signs of harm. Instead, the consequences can be social, emotional and psychological.
The impact of social isolation
For someone who is shunned, the consequences can extend far beyond losing friendships.
They may lose contact with family members, their home, financial support, community connections and other sources of practical assistance.
The resulting isolation can be profound.
It can also make it more difficult for someone to seek help outside the group. If an individual has been taught to distrust outsiders, or fears that speaking to professionals could be interpreted as disloyalty, they may be less likely to disclose what is happening.
This creates an important safeguarding concern.
The emerging research suggests that fear of shunning may discourage people from reporting situations such as abuse or domestic violence because doing so could be perceived as challenging the group or its authority.
Looking beyond the individual
Perhaps one of the most important implications of this research is the need to look beyond the individual act of shunning.
It is easy to see one person refusing to speak to another and regard it as a private matter.
But when that behaviour is shaped by group rules, authority structures, social pressure and fear of sanctions, it becomes part of a much larger psychological system.
The ongoing Mandated Shunning Research Project is now looking at whether the coercive dynamics associated with these environments can be measured systematically, including their effects on mental health, wellbeing, safeguarding and quality of life.
The research is still developing, but it is beginning to provide a stronger evidence base for understanding experiences that have often been viewed as private or purely religious matters.
Understanding coercive control
Mandated shunning provides an important example of how psychological control does not always need to involve overt threats or physical force.
Sometimes, the most powerful form of control is the threat of losing the people and relationships that matter most.
Understanding these dynamics can help professionals, families and communities recognise why leaving a high-control environment can be so difficult, and why someone may remain in a group even when they no longer agree with its beliefs.
It also reinforces an important principle: freedom of choice is difficult to exercise when the consequences of making that choice are deliberately tied to the loss of belonging, relationships and support.
As research continues, a greater understanding of mandated shunning could help improve safeguarding, clinical practice and support for people recovering from coercive and high-control environments.