Fear, Obligation, and Guilt (FOG): A Field Manual for Detecting, Disrupting, and Defeating Coercive Influence: A White Paper

MK3|Oct. 8,2025


Executive summary

FOG is a compact label for a broad class of coercive tactics that exploit three levers of human behavior: fear, obligation, and guilt. The term was popularized in Susan Forward’s work on “emotional blackmail,” where manipulators corral targets into compliance by triggering these states and narrowing the target’s perceived choices.

This white paper gives you the cookbook: precise definitions, mechanisms, diagnostic indicators, decision trees, counter-measures, training drills, and a research agenda. It integrates classic influence science (reciprocity, fear appeals, guilt appeals) with adjacent patterns you’ll see in the wild (gaslighting, DARVO, drama triangles, and cultic undue influence).

1) Definitions and scope

  • FOG (Fear, Obligation, Guilt): A patterned use of threat arousal, debt-framing, and guilt-induction to constrain another person’s options and extract compliance. The phrase traces to Forward’s framework for “emotional blackmail.”

  • Emotional blackmail: A coercive strategy where the agent escalates demands, leverages personal knowledge of the target’s vulnerabilities, and pairs conditional threats with moral pressure.

Where FOG shows up: intimate relationships, families, workplaces, political messaging, sales funnels, cultic settings, and online subcultures. The levers are ancient; the packaging varies.

2) The three levers, with mechanisms and evidence

A. Fear

Mechanism: Fear narrows attention, accelerates heuristic decision-making, and pushes behavior toward immediate threat reduction. The Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) predicts fear appeals work only when the target perceives both high threat and high efficacy; otherwise you get denial, reactance, or message avoidance

FOG deployment patterns:

  • Catastrophic predictions (“If you don’t do X, Y disaster”).

  • Time pressure that blocks deliberation.

  • Ambiguous threats that keep the target guessing.

Diagnostic tells: spikes in arousal with unclear risk specifics; “either/or” ultimatums; repeated references to irreversible harm. Map against EPPM: is the threat high and the remedy actionable, or is efficacy being suppressed?

B. Obligation

Mechanism: The reciprocity norm is a universal social rule: people feel obliged to return favors. Influence research shows even small gifts or concessions increase compliance, especially when the benefit seems tailored.

FOG deployment patterns:

  • “After all I’ve done for you…” accounting.

  • Manufactured debts (unsolicited “help” later used as leverage).

  • Quid-pro-quo framing around identity (“A good partner/employee would…”).

Diagnostic tells: disproportionate debt tallies, moving goalposts, and obligation invoked to shut down negotiation rather than settle it

C. Guilt

Mechanism: Guilt appeals increase compliance and prosocial intentions up to a point; excessive guilt backfires. Multiple reviews and meta-analyses document reliable, moderate effects on attitudes and behavior when messages specify harm, agency, and a feasible remedy.

FOG deployment patterns:

  • Moral indictment of character (“If you cared, you’d…”).

  • Leveraging role identities (parent, soldier, employee) to convert preferences into duties.

  • Withholding affection or access until penance is performed.

Diagnostic tells: persistent appeals to make amends without clear end state; demands for self-abnegation unrelated to the original “harm.”

3) Adjacent tactics that amplify FOG

  • Gaslighting: Distorting a target’s perception of reality to erode confidence and increase dependency. Term originates from the 1938 play and 1944 film Gaslight; it’s become a generic label for severe reality manipulation

  • DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender): Common response pattern when abusers are confronted; swaps roles to induce guilt and social confusion in observers. Strongly linked to credibility distortions.

  • Drama Triangle (Karpman): Conflict cycles where actors rotate through Victim, Rescuer, Persecutor roles; FOG often fuels the rotations. Useful for mapping interaction scripts and exit points.

  • Undue influence (BITE model): In authoritarian groups, FOG sits inside broader behavior, information, thought, and emotional control tactics

4) Operational indicators: “Is this FOG?”

Use the checklist below as a quick triage. If you tick several boxes in one column, you’re probably in a FOG zone.

Threat/Fear

  • Threats or warnings escalate when you hesitate.

  • Deadlines are arbitrary and compressed to cut off consultation.

  • Efficacy is suppressed: you’re told “nothing else will work.”

Debt/Obligation

  • Ledger talk: favors recounted as invoices.

  • Help you didn’t request is used as leverage.

  • Identity-based duty invoked to override consent.

Guilt

  • You’re responsible for the other person’s emotions or outcomes.

  • Apologies never close the account; penance expands over time.

  • Vague “harms” with no specific, reasonable remedy.

Amplifiers

  • Your memory or sanity is questioned when you note inconsistencies (gaslighting).

  • Pushback triggers role-reversal claims of persecution (DARVO).

5) Decision tree: Responding in the moment

  1. Name the lever you suspect (fear, obligation, guilt).

  2. Test for specificity and efficacy. Ask: “What exactly is the risk/debt/harm, and what concrete, proportional remedy ends this?” EPPM predicts that if a valid remedy exists, the agent should welcome specificity; manipulators avoid it

  3. Slow the tempo. Legitimate requests tolerate time; coercion uses urgency.

  4. Boundary statement (neutral tone): “I’m willing to do X under Y conditions. I won’t continue this discussion under threats/score-keeping/moral shaming.”

  5. Document patterns. Gaslighting and DARVO thrive in foggy records; write it down

  6. Escalate or exit. If patterns persist, move to third-party mediation or separation. In institutional contexts, consult policies on coercion and psychological safety.

6) Counter-measures and drills

A. Anti-fear protocols

  • Threat audit: Separate likelihood, severity, and scope; demand credible evidence; list alternatives. Align to EPPM: increase your own efficacy by generating multiple responses.

  • Tempo control: Default 24-hour rule for non-emergencies; no commitments in adrenaline windows.

B. Anti-obligation protocols

  • Receipt policy: No automatic debts for unsolicited favors.

  • Reciprocity normalization: Convert “you owe me” into transparent exchange or a polite no. Evidence shows reciprocity works best when the target perceives choice

C. Anti-guilt protocols

  • Harm-remedy matching: Require the accuser to specify harm, your specific agency, and a finite remedy. Excessive or moving penalties signal manipulation. Research shows guilt works within moderate bounds; force it outside that window.

D. Pattern breakers for amplifiers

  • Gaslighting: Keep a contemporaneous log; verify facts with third parties; avoid debate about your sanity.

  • DARVO: When accused of “hurting the real victim,” redirect to verifiable behaviors and timelines; avoid the blame tennis match.

E. Team/Org practices

  • Psychological safety policies that forbid threat-based deadlines, demand documentation for sanctions, and define proportional discipline.

  • Training modules: EPPM-based message design for leadership and compliance teams so legitimate risk communication doesn’t shade into FOG.

7) Use-case playbooks

Intimate/family: Expect stacked levers and history-based guilt. Prioritize safety, third-party support, and low-contact boundaries if change fails. Forward’s pattern of demand → resistance → pressure → threat → compliance → repetition predicts the cycle; plan interrupts at resistance/pressure stages.

Workplace: Obligation and fear of loss (job, reputation) dominate. Institutionalize transparent criteria for performance, appeal pathways, and bans on “unrecoverable” deadlines without documented risk.

Cults and high-control groups: FOG integrates into BITE: behavioral schedules, information control, thought-terminating clichés, and engineered guilt. Exiting requires staged restoration of alternative information sources and social supports.

Media and political messaging: Fear appeals can be legitimate when paired with high-efficacy actions; look for credible data and realistic steps. If the only “solution” is allegiance or donation, assume FOG.

8) Measurement and assessment toolkit

  • FOG Exposure Inventory (draft):

    • F1: Number of explicit threats in last 30 days

    • F2: Urgency without justified timelines

    • O1: Ledger statements per interaction

    • O2: Unsolicited favors later converted to debts

    • G1: Frequency of moral indictments without specifics

    • G2: Remedies with no clear endpoint

    • A1: Evidence of gaslighting claims against your memory/sanity

    • A2: DARVO occurrences during confrontation

  • Scoring: Each item 0–3; investigate sustained totals >8 with a neutral third party.

  • Context add-ons: Drama Triangle role-rotation count per week; BITE domain checklist for groups.

9) Implementation plan (90 days)

Days 1–7

  • Train stakeholders on EPPM, reciprocity, and guilt-appeal boundaries to separate legitimate influence from coercion.

  • Deploy FOG Exposure Inventory baseline.

Days 8–30

  • Rewrite high-stakes communications to include explicit efficacy steps; prohibit open-ended guilt framings.

  • Introduce boundary scripts and “cooling-off” windows in policies.

Days 31–60

  • Establish confidential reporting for gaslighting/DARVO patterns; mandate contemporaneous notes.

Days 61–90

  • Audit outcomes; run tabletop exercises with realistic scenarios and role swaps (Victim/Rescuer/Persecutor) to practice exits.

10) Research agenda (ongoing)

  1. Quantify FOG stacks: How do combinations of fear, obligation, and guilt compare to single-lever messages in effect size and durability? Build on fear and guilt meta-analyses.

  2. Boundary conditions: Map curvilinear effects for guilt intensity across cultures and roles.

  3. Counter-narratives: RCTs testing boundary scripts, tempo control, and documentation prompts on coercion resistance.

  4. Observer effects: How DARVO shifts third-party judgments; integrate with bystander training.

  5. Digital dynamics: Algorithmic amplification of FOG patterns in virality; interventions that add efficacy and reduce manufactured urgency.

11) Quick reference: red-flag phrases

  • Fear: “Only one chance,” “You’ll regret this forever,” “Don’t tell anyone.”

  • Obligation: “After everything I’ve done,” “You owe me,” “A real friend/employee/spouse would…”

  • Guilt: “You made me do this,” “If you loved me, you would,” “You’re selfish unless…”

  • Amplifiers: “You’re crazy; that never happened” (gaslighting). “I’m the real victim here” after confrontation (DARVO).

12) Bibliography and further reading

  • Forward, S. Emotional Blackmail: When the People in Your Life Use Fear, Obligation, and Guilt to Manipulate You. (Primary popular source on FOG.) Amazon

  • Witte, K. “The Extended Parallel Process Model.” (Fear appeals and efficacy.) Communication Cache+2TerpConnect+2

  • Cialdini, R. “Reciprocity” and the principles of persuasion. (Obligation as social norm.) Influence at Work+1

  • Boster, F. J., et al. “A meta-analytic review of the effect of guilt on compliance.” (Guilt effects.) Taylor & Francis Online

  • Graton, A., et al. “A Theory of Guilt Appeals.” (Mechanisms and boundaries.) PMC

  • Freyd, J. “DARVO.” (Role reversal tactic.) Jennifer Joy Freyd, PhD.

  • Karpman, S. “Drama Triangle.” (Conflict role cycling.) Wikipedia

  • Hassan, S. “BITE Model of Authoritarian Control.” (Undue influence framework.) Freedom of Mind Resource Center

  • Overviews of gaslighting’s origins and uses. Wikipedia

13) Appendices

A) Boundary scripts (plug-and-play)

  • Fear script: “I don’t make decisions under threat or deadline. If this is legitimate risk, send me the specifics and three concrete options. I’ll decide tomorrow.”

  • Obligation script: “I appreciate what you chose to do. I didn’t agree to a debt. If you want an exchange, propose terms.”

  • Guilt script: “Describe the harm, my specific role, and a finite remedy. If you can’t, I’m not accepting blame.”

B) One-page FOG incident report template

  • Event description, quotes, channel, witnesses

  • Lever classification (F/O/G) and amplifiers (gaslighting/DARVO)

  • Requested remedy and whether it had a clear end state

  • Your response, timeline, and outcome

C) Training drill: Drama Triangle rotation

  • Role-play five-minute conflicts; rotate V/R/P every 60 seconds. Debrief: Which lever did you reach for? What boundary statement shut it down? Wikipedia

Bottom line

FOG is not mysterious. It’s a short menu of pressure tactics running on predictable psychology. Once you can name the lever, slow the tempo, and force specificity, the spell breaks. If the other party wants collaboration, the conversation improves. If they wanted control, they’ll hate the light. Either way, you get clarity.



Posted

views