|
This article is an electronic version of an article originally
published in Cultic Studies Journal, 1998, Volume 15, Number 2, pages 192-221.
Please keep in mind that the pagination of this electronic reprint differs from
that of the bound volume. This fact could affect how you enter bibliographic
information in papers that you may write.
Cult Experience: Psychological Abuse, Distress, Personality
Characteristics, and Changes in Personal Relationships Reported by Former
Members of Church Universal and Triumphant
Irene Gasde,
M.S.
Fielding Institute
Richard A.
Block, Ph.D.
Montana State University
Abstract
Do cultic groups, such as the Church Universal
and Triumphant (CUT), differ from benign groups in their use of
unethical means of
persuasion, control, and exploitation? We investigated 61 former members
of CUT, evaluating their perceptions of the group’s abusiveness, level of
psychological distress, personality characteristics, and reported quality of
close personal relationships. Respondents reported non-abusive pre-involvement
perceptions of CUT, but post-involvement perceptions reflected high abusiveness.
Many respondents reported a relatively high level of psychological distress,
which was reduced by strong spousal relationships during and after CUT
involvement and which decreased after leaving CUT. Respondents’ scores on a
personality questionnaire were mostly normal. Personal relationships tended to
deteriorate during CUT involvement. These findings suggest that cult involvement
may adversely affect members’ lives.
Some theorists (e.g., Langone, 1996; Lifton, 1987, 1991;
Singer & Lalich, 1995) have proposed that cults use a systematic program of
psychological manipulation to convince people to join cults and remain in them.
These manipulations may take a severe toll. Nevertheless, not all cults exercise
the same level of abusiveness. If one accepts that cults use deception in the
recruitment and indoctrination process (Andersen, 1985),
one cannot rely on their self-portrayal or any comparisons one may draw from
such self-portrayals. Additionally, comparisons with benign groups are useful,
especially for educational purposes.
The
Group Psychological Abuse Scale (Chambers, Langone, Dole, &
Grice, 1994) is the first scientifically developed instrument designed to
measure group abuse ascribed to cultic environments. It is based on research by
Dole and
Dubrow-Eichel (1985), Langone’s (1992) theoretical analysis
of psychological abuse, and a review of the clinical literature. Chambers et al.
conducted a factor analysis of 112 descriptive items to identify four distinct
factors associated with cultic environments: Compliance, Exploitation,
Mind Control, and Anxious Dependency.
Adams (1993) administered the scale (which she called the
cultism scale–the scale had recently been derived and had not yet been named
by Chambers et al., 1994) to former members of the
Boston Church of Christ (BCC) and former members of a
mainstream campus-based Christian Fellowship. Langone (1995) replicated Adams’
study, adding a group of former Roman Catholics to expand the comparison. The
results of both studies suggested a definite split in the scoring pattern
between the former members of the controversial BCC and their mainstream
comparison groups: BCC scores clearly fell into the abusive range, but none of
the other groups (although different from each other) approached that range.
Personality and Psychiatric Symptomatology
Langone (1996) concluded that cult members’ personality
profiles fall within the normal range. Walsh et al. (1995) found that although
ex-cult members had elevated scores on the neuroticism scale of the Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire, their scores approached normal as a function of time
since leaving the cult.
Yeakley (1988) gave the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to
members of the BCC. He asked them to respond to each item one time as they would
have responded before their
conversion, a second time as they perceived themselves at
the time the study was conducted, and a third time as they imagined themselves
answering after five more years of discipling. Nearly all respondents tended to
change their psychological type scores across the three versions. According to
Yeakley, the direction in which these changes occurred was toward the
personality of the leader.
A common phenomenon among cult members, which is usually
witnessed by their families and friends but not widely recognized among
clinicians, is what West and Martin (1994) called pseudo-identity or
altered persona. It appears to be a dissociative coping response to
extraordinary circumstances such as profound changes in an individual’s life,
prolonged environmental stress, or both. The pseudo-identity, which is induced,
strengthened, and maintained by the cult environment, becomes superimposed upon
the original personality, which is suppressed while the individual remains in
the new stressful environment. Although a person who is removed from the cult
environment may abandon or snap out of the pseudo-identity and revert to his or
her original personality, this process does not usually happen without severe
psychological problems (Conway & Siegelman, 1995). The symptoms associated with
the pseudo-identity syndrome, which are usually triggered by environmental cues,
are
dissociative,
trance-like states, depersonalization, derealization,
emotional numbness, and floating, which is a "switching back and forth between
behaviors characteristic of the two separate personalities" (West & Martin,
1994, p. 274). The restoration of the original identity "usually requires
treatment for the residual post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which is the
legacy of the stress that produced the pseudo-identity syndrome" (West & Martin,
1994, p. 279).
Some additional commonly
experienced aftereffects of cult involvement are:
-
depression;
-
loneliness and a sense of
alienation;
-
low self-esteem and low
self-confidence;
-
difficulty explaining how
they could have joined such a group;
-
phobic-like constriction of
social contacts;
-
fear of joining groups or
making a commitment;
-
apprehension about their
own idealism and altruism (which the cult had manipulated);
-
distrust of professional
services and distrust of self in making good choices;
-
problems in reactivating a
value system by which to live;
-
guilt, shame, and
self-blaming attitudes;
-
excessive doubts, fears,
and paranoia; and
-
panic attacks (Langone,
1995; Singer, 1979; Singer & Lalich, 1995).
Perceptions of Cult Members and Ex-members
Singer (1978) and Clark (1979) first recognized that
dissociative defenses are a mechanism by which cult members (much like political
captives and hostages) adapt to the intense demands of the environment in which
they find themselves. As we have mentioned, the syndrome associated with this
stressful adaptation has since been called pseudo-identity (West &
Martin, 1994). While members are under the group’s psychological control and are
not in a state of questioning or rebellion, the pseudo-identity can appear to be
normal and well adjusted. However, if an event or outside influence is strong
enough to fracture the pseudo-identity, which until then has enveloped the
original self, the underlying pain and
psychological harm become apparent. Langone (1995)
insightfully remarked that the reason why cult members generally do not return
to the cult after the floodgates of recognition and emotion have opened is
"because the suffering they experience after leaving [the
cult] is more genuine than the ‘happiness’ they experienced while
in it. A painful truth is better than a pleasant lie. . . . If this analysis is
correct, ex-members may indeed provide more accurate information about cults
than would current members" (pp. 8-9).
Former members, however, are often reluctant to participate
in scientific studies. Several factors may motivate this reluctance, such as
fear of retaliation from the cult, embarrassment at having been manipulated,
ridicule from those who lack understanding, and a need for closure. For this
reason, the
methodology of the present study was designed with an
awareness of these potential sensitivities.
Background: Church
Universal and Triumphant
Church Universal and Triumphant (CUT) is a
New Age apocalyptic cult with roots in Theosophy and
various splinters of the I AM Movement. Its core belief is that a pantheon of
Gods, Goddesses, Angels, and Ascended Masters communicate via their messenger
(Elisabeth Claire Prophet) to teach, prophesize, reprimand, and direct devotees.
Ascended Masters are considered enlightened heavenly beings who have "graduated
from earth’s schoolroom" by balancing their karma, thereby having escaped the
cycle of reincarnation. They are seen as exemplars and teachers to assist their
followers to do the same. Obedience to the dictates of these heavenly beings is
seen as a guaranteed path to the individual’s ascension. Although Prophet is
still "inhabiting a physical body," years ago it was announced that she has
balanced all of her personal karma and voluntarily remains in embodiment. Her
mission is one of "balancing world-karma," of being the one and only mouthpiece
of God, and of being a guru and spiritual teacher in the flesh. Thus, her word
and position are beyond reproach, and her power over CUT members is absolute.
One of the major identifying practices used by CUT is that of
decreeing, which is also referred to as the "science of the spoken word." It is
a fast and repetitious form of chanting affirmations and commands in the name of
the individual’s own Christ Self and by the authority of any divine being whose
power the individual seeks to invoke. Decreeing can last many hours each day,
and it can be done in solitude, in small groups, or in very large groups. It is
seen as the all-powerful tool to influence not only present and future events
but also personal and global history, including events from past incarnations.
Experts on thought reform have noted that fast, repetitive chanting, such as
decreeing, may serve as a thought-stopping technique (Conway & Siegelman, 1995;
Hassan, 1988). In the context of
Lifton’s (1987, 1991) theory of ideological totalism, CUT
not only qualifies as a totalistic environment but also exemplifies all eight
criteria identified by Lifton.
Many cults show elitism, a very strong "us-versus-them"
mentality (often underlying militant activities) and much secrecy surrounding
their actual practices and beliefs. For this reason, cults generally do not
readily submit to scientific investigation. CUT may seem to be an exception to
this rule, because it apparently welcomed scientific investigation in the form
of an interdisciplinary study (Lewis & Melton, 1994). The study painted a
picture of a benign religious movement that has been unjustly maligned and
persecuted because of the public’s xenophobia. A close review of the study,
however, may leave the informed reader wondering whether these investigators
were familiar with the dynamics of cults and the manipulative tactics used by
their leaders and well-trained devotees. Perhaps these researchers were naive in
believing what was orchestrated for them, thereby allowing themselves to be used
as unwitting tools of church propaganda. After elaborating on examples of
groupthink (Janis, 1972), two members of the research team which studied CUT
asserted that the overriding problem was the study’s lack of objectivity, which
permeated every aspect of the data collection process. For the most part, the
scholars turned a blind eye to the controversies surrounding the church because
the real intent of the study was not to investigate, but to exonerate (Balch &
Langdon, 1998). Balch and Langdon also explained that the study had been
conducted hastily in an effort to defend CUT because it had publicly been
likened to a cult in
Waco, Texas. Thus, according to Balch and Langdon, the
researchers saw their mission as one of defending freedom of religion rather
than investigating whether any of the myths they sought to dispel were actually
true.
Research Questions
For a selected group of former members of CUT, we
investigated the following four main questions:
- Perceived
abusiveness and deception. To what extent do former members of CUT
perceive the group to be abusive (as measured by the
Group Psychological Abuse Scale), and how does this
current perception compare to the understanding they had at the time they
first considered themselves members of the group? (If these two are
different, they may provide insight into the level of deception other
researchers have ascribed to cultic environments.) In addition, how do scale
scores, obtained from a sample of former CUT members, compare with
previously investigated samples of ex-members from other groups?
- Psychological distress. What level of psychological distress (as
measured by the revised Symptom Checklist 90) do former CUT members report,
and what factors are correlated with these scores? Do people who experienced
higher levels of psychological distress rate the group as more abusive than
those who experienced lower levels of psychological distress?
- Personalities of former CUT members. Do the personalities of
former CUT members differ from established norms (as measured by the revised
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire), and is there any indication that these
scores may change over time?
- Changes in
close personal relationships. To what extent was the reported
quality of close personal relationships, such as with one’s spouse, affected
by involvement in CUT? This and other information was obtained on a
background questionnaire.
Method
The present survey used several instruments: (a) two copies
of the
Group
Psychological Abuse scale (Chambers et al., 1994); (b) the revised
Symptom Checklist 90 (Derogatis, 1994); (c) the revised Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1994); and (d) a 29-item background
questionnaire, an adaptation and expansion of a form used by Langone (1995) in a
study investigating the BCC.
Group
Psychological Abuse Scale. We used the Group Psychological Abuse (GPA)
scale to assess ex-members’ current and pre-involvement (retrospective)
perceptions of CUT. The two GPA copies were identical except for the
introductory paragraphs.
One copy asked respondents to respond according to "your
current understanding of CUT," whereas the other requested that they respond
according to "the way you would have responded when you first joined the group."
To control for order effects, half of the surveys were sent out with the
post-involvement version to be filled out before the pre-involvement
(retrospective) one, and the other half of the surveys had the two versions
stapled together in reverse order. The instructional paragraphs to both versions
requested that responses reflect respondents’ personal experiences and
observations. The GPA scale consists of 28 items, 7 on each of four factors
(subscales), which identify Compliance, Exploitation,
Mind Control, and Anxious Dependency as specific dimensions
of group psychological abuse. Scores on the Compliance subscale reflect beliefs
about the degree to which an individual must accede to group norms (e.g.,
"Members must abide by the group’s guidelines regarding dating and intimate
relationships"). Scores on the Exploitation subscale reflect beliefs about the
degree to which a cult manipulates, abuses, and uses people (e.g., "The group
advocates or implies that breaking the law is okay if it serves the interests of
the group"). Scores on the Mind Control subscale reflect beliefs about the
degree to which the cult leadership uses deceptive and manipulative means to
sustain membership (e.g., "People who stay in the group do so because they are
deceived and manipulated"). Scores on the Anxious Dependency subscale reflect
beliefs about the degree to which members depend in an absolute and possibly
also anxious way on the group (e.g., "Members believe that to leave the group
would be death or eternal damnation for themselves or their families"). On each
item, respondents rated the target group on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not
at all characteristic) to 5 (very characteristic). Thus, the range
for each subscale is 7-35, and the range for the overall (composite) score is
28-140. Scores above the midpoint (21 for each subscale, 84 for the composite)
indicate that the respondent rated the group as being abusive (Langone, 1994).
Previously obtained Cronbach’s alpha (reliability) coefficients for the GPA
ranged from .70 to .81 on the four subscales (Chambers et al., 1994).
Symptom
Checklist 90, Revised. The Symptom Checklist 90, Revised (SCL-90-R), a
multidimensional self-report inventory widely used in psychiatric screening to
measure psychological distress levels, offers four normative scoring versions
for both males and females. The norms have been established for psychiatric
inpatients, psychiatric outpatients, nonpatient adults, and nonpatient
adolescents. The present study used nonpatient adult norms. A total of 90 items
measure the severity of symptoms on nine distinct dimensions: (a) somatization,
(b) obsession-compulsion, (c) interpersonal sensitivity, (d) depression, (e)
anxiety, (f) hostility, (g) phobic anxiety, (h) paranoid ideation, and (i)
psychoticism. The instrument includes seven additional items that are reflected
only in the three global scores: the Global Severity Index, the Positive Symptom
Distress Index, and the Positive Symptom Total. Their inclusion is based on
their clinical significance. The function of the global measures is to express
the level or depth of psychological distress in a single score.
Because the SCL-90-R is used to screen various
non-psychiatric populations (e.g., Derogatis & DellaPietra, 1994; Derogatis &
Lazarus, 1994), an operational definition of what constitutes a positive case
seems appropriate and helpful. Derogatis (1994) defined caseness by an
operational rule which states that the individual is considered a positive risk
if the person has a Global Severity Index score on the nonpatient norm greater
than or equal to a standardized score of 63 (or scores 63 or above on two
primary dimensions). Previously obtained Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the
SCL-90-R ranged from .77 to .90 on the various symptom dimensions and from .83
to .90 for test-retest coefficients (Derogatis, Rickels, & Rock, 1976; Horowitz,
Rosenberg, Baer, Ureno, & Villasenor, 1988). Criterion validity studies, in
particular with MMPI scales, showed high convergent validity and peak
correlations on eight of the nine scales of the SCL-90 (Derogatis et al., 1976).
Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire Revised. The Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire, Revised (EPQ-R) is a self-report instrument that uses 73 items to
determine the strengths of three dimensions of personality: psychoticism or
"tough-mindedness," neuroticism or "emotionality," and extroversion. A fourth
subscale, the Lie scale, uses 21 additional items to measure dissimulation or
social desirability. Norms for the EPQ-R have been established for American
males and females (see Results section). Previously obtained Cronbach’s alpha
coefficients for the subscales range from .66 to .86 (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1994).
Background Questionnaire
(personal information and reported quality of personal relationships).
Background Questionnaire
(personal information and reported quality of personal relationships).
The background questionnaire asked respondents for such information as year of
birth, marital status, religious background, level of involvement, and so on.
Respondents were also asked to report about perceived benefits of the group, as
well as about factors that influenced their decision to leave. The background
questionnaire also contained 12 items on which respondents were asked to report
the quality of personal relationships with parents, spouse, and one other
significant individual such as a friend, sibling, or other relative (referred to
as other) before, during, and after
CUT involvement. For example, one item asked respondents to
"indicate the quality . . . of your relationship with your father BEFORE you
were in the group." The relationship rating scale ranged from 1 (poor) to
5 (excellent).
Procedure
From a mailing list for a newsletter that is primarily sent
to former members and some families of current members, 90 former members of CUT
were identified. The survey materials were sent to all of them. In order not to
violate people’s trust by revealing their names and addresses, the investigator
never had access to the mailing list. Instead, the newsletter’s editor affixed
address labels to the sealed and stamped envelopes and delivered them to the
post office. Survey materials were also sent to 6 former members who had not
been aware of the newsletter, but who heard of the study by word of mouth and
requested a copy of the survey materials.
We did not ask survey recipients for their names or other
information that would have violated their anonymity. To obtain their
approximate ages, we asked them their birth year. Respondents were informed that
by completing and returning the forms, they consented to have their responses
included in the study.
A total of 61 individuals returned questionnaires that were
useable for statistical analysis. The response rate (63.5%) is unusually high
for survey research, which may be partially attributable to the fact that survey
recipients were encouraged to pass on the materials to other former members if
they themselves did not wish to respond. (We excluded one questionnaire because
more than 50% of the items on each instrument were unanswered.) Of the 61
returned surveys, 60 included both GPA forms, 58 included the EPQ-R, 55 included
the SCL-90-R, and 60 included the background questionnaire.
A total of 35 (57.4%) of the respondents were female, and 26
(42.6%) were male. In addition, 57 (93.4%) respondents were White, 2 (3.3%) were
Black, and 2 (3.3%) were of mixed ethnicity.
Respondents’ religious upbringing was as follows: 31.1% Roman
Catholic, 24.6% Protestant liberal, 16.4% Protestant fundamental, 9.8% CUT, 3.3%
Jewish, 1.6% Mormon, and 1.6%
New Age (other than CUT). An overwhelming 80.3% reported
having no specific religious affiliation at the time the study was conducted,
8.2% identified themselves as being Roman Catholic, 6.6% as fundamental
Protestant, and 4.9% as liberal Protestant.
The median annual household income was $50,000. The mean
number of years of education was 15, and 87% had completed at least one year of
higher education.
The age of respondents ranged from 18 to 79 years, with a
mean of 45.1 (SE = 1.4). Age at the time of joining CUT ranged from 0 (born into
the group) to 58 years, with a mean of 25.7 (SE = 1.4). Nearly 60% had joined
between the ages of 18 and 28.
The length of time respondents reported having spent in CUT
ranged from 1.8 to 22.2 years, with a mean of 11.4 (SE = 0.7). The level of
involvement varied widely, ranging from "Keeper
of the Flame," which may be considered the lowest level of
affiliation or commitment, to attending the leader and her family as their
personal staff. The length of time between exiting CUT and completing the survey
ranged from 0.6 to 20.0 years, with a mean of 7.8 (SE = 0.7).
Four individuals (6.6%) reported that they had received
outpatient counseling before their involvement with CUT. Three (4.9%) reported
that they had received counseling during their involvement. A total of 21
(34.4%) reported that they received counseling after leaving the group, and 38
(62.3%) reported that they had never received any counseling. (Percentages add
up to more than 100% because some individuals had received therapy during more
than one of these periods.)
Thirty-eight (62.3%) respondents were involved in a formal or
informal support group or network at some time since their exit. Most comments
relating to that involvement affirmed the benefits of receiving validation that
come from sharing with those who understand the effects of cult involvement and
the benefits of reducing their isolation.
Thirty-five respondents (57.4%) rated the overall CUT
experience as very harmful, 16 (26.2%) as harmful, 4 (6.6%) as neutral, 3 (4.9%)
as mildly beneficial, and another 3 (4.9%) as very beneficial. Several
individuals falling into the latter two categories qualified their responses by
stating that they had learned to recognize abuse for what it was, learned that
they had the right and power not to subject themselves to it any longer, or
both.
A total of 36 respondents (59.0%) reported that CUT
doctrine had made it very difficult for them to leave, 8(13.1%) rated it as
difficult, 3 (4.9%) as mildly difficult, 2 (3.3%) were not sure, and 12 (19.7%)
reported no difficulties with respect to leaving the group. A total of 32
respondents (52.5%) reported that group pressure was a very difficult force to
counter in their leaving process, 10 (16.4%) found it difficult, 6 (9.8%) mildly
difficult, and 11 (18.0%) reported no difficulty related to group pressure.
Results
Pre- and Post-involvement Perceptions of Abuse
Table 1 shows the mean and standard error for each subscale,
as well as for the composite score, on both versions of the GPA. It also shows
corresponding alpha coefficients. In Table 1 and hereafter, the GPA filled out
retrospectively, responding as if at the time of joining CUT (pre-involvement),
is referred to as GPA1, and the
GPA responding as to current perceptions of abuse
(post-involvement) is referred to as GPA2.
Paired-sample t tests revealed that compared to the
GPA1, reported abusiveness was greater on each of the GPA2 subscales, as well as
on the composite score, all t(59) > 12.2, p < .001.
Comparison of GPA ratings for CUT and BCC.
With only means and standard deviations of previous studies
available for statistical analysis, a comparison of the GPA2 (post-involvement)
ratings of former CUT members with those of former BCC members was conducted
using one-sample t tests for each of the subscale means, as well as the
composite mean. The means assumed according to the null hypothesis for these
t tests were those from Langone’s (1995) investigation of the BCC. Although
Langone published the means from two separate samples of BCC ex-members, we used
the higher values to make a more conservative comparison. As shown in Table 1,
GPA2 means were higher than the corresponding BCC means on each subscale, as
well as on the Composite, all t (60) > 7.7, p < .001. A comparison
with other groups investigated by Langone was unnecessary, because their mean
scores were significantly lower than those for
BCC.
A comparison using the means of the original GPA study (Chambers et al., 1994)
was also significant for each subscale rating and the composite rating, all t
> 6.48, p < .001.
Evidence of discriminant validity for the GPA scale comes
from the nonsignificant correlations between the lie scale of the EPQ-R and GPA1
and GPA2 Composite scores, both p > .05.
We assessed the reported psychiatric symptomatology of
ex-members by calculating two measures derived from responses to the SCL-90-R.
The overall severity of reported psychiatric symptomatology was assessed by the
typically used measure, the Global Severity Index (GSI). To assess the breadth
of elevated scales in addition to their overall severity, we also created
another variable, the number of high scores. It is the number of SCL-90-R
subscales on which an individual scored a standardized value of 63 or above.
Numerical values for this variable ranged from 0-9 (9 subscales). We then
investigated correlations between these two measures and other measures
concerning pre-involvement, involvement, and post-involvement periods (see Table
2). We also created multiple regression models to determine whether any other
variable predicted the severity of psychiatric symptomatology.
Table 1
Mean Scores on GPA1 and GPA2, along with BCC Data
| |
GPA1 (Pre-Involvement)a |
GPA2 (Post-Involvement)a |
BCC
Datab |
|
Compliance |
|
M (SE) |
17.03 (0.80) |
33.98 (0.26) |
31.86 (0.85) |
|
Alpha coefficient |
.78 |
.82 |
--- |
|
Exploitation |
|
M (SE) |
13.45 (0.73) |
29.26 (0.98) |
21.79 (0.73) |
|
Alpha coefficient |
.61 |
.63 |
--- |
|
Mind Control |
|
M (SE) |
11.70 (0.60) |
34.33 (0.20) |
30.43 (1.17) |
|
Alpha coefficient |
.81 |
.78 |
--- |
|
Anxious Dependency |
|
M (SE) |
19.72 (0.73) |
31.67 (0.33) |
24.43 (0.84) |
|
Alpha coefficient |
.69 |
.63 |
--- |
|
Composite |
|
M (SE) |
62.90 (2.47) |
129.23 (1.31) |
108.50 (2.91) |
|
Alpha coefficient |
.90 |
.84 |
--- |
Note. Scores above the midpoint (21 for each subscale, 84
for the composite) indicate that the respondent rated the group in the abusive
range. Standard error (SE) of each mean is shown in parentheses. BCC data are
from Langone (1995), who did not provide alpha coefficients. All means in the
same row differ at p < .001.
a n = 60. bn = 15
Responses to the SCL-90-R revealed that 27 (49.1%) of the
respondents met Derogatis’s (1994) definition of caseness or positive
risk. Thus, nearly half of the respondents reported clinically relevant
psychiatric symptomatology. Responses were internally consistent: Cronbach’s
alpha coefficients for the nine subscales of the SCL-90-R ranged from .75 to
.95, and for the entire instrument (all 90 items) alpha was .97.
Group Psychological Abuse Ratings
As shown in Table 2, there was no significant relationship
between either pre-involvement (GPA1) or post-involvement (GPA2) ratings of
psychological abuse and either measure of psychiatric symptomatology. Thus,
respondents who perceived CUT as most abusive were not necessarily those who
reported the greatest psychiatric symptoms.
Duration of Involvement and Post-involvement Periods
Although the GSI was not significantly correlated with time
in
CUT, it was negatively correlated with time out of CUT.
However, the number of high scores was positively correlated with time in CUT
and negatively correlated with time out of CUT. Thus, reported psychiatric
symptoms tended to increase with the length of time during which a person was a
member of CUT and to decrease with the length of time since the person had
become an ex-member of CUT.
Relationship with Spouse
The GSI was not significantly correlated with the reported
quality of the relationship with one’s spouse before CUT involvement, but it was
negatively correlated with the reported quality during and after CUT
involvement. Similarly, the number of high scores was not significantly
correlated with the quality of the relationship with one’s spouse before CUT
involvement, but it was negatively correlated during and after CUT involvement.
In other words, respondents who reported better relationships with a spouse
during and after CUT involvement tended to report less severe psychiatric
symptoms. No other relationship category was significantly correlated with
either the GSI or the number of high scores.
Table 2
Correlations between Measures of Psychiatric Symptomatology (SCL-90-R) and
Other Measures
|
Involvement Period |
Global Severity Index (GSI) |
Number of High Scores |
|
Group Psychological Abuse Ratings |
|
Pre-involvement(GPA1) |
-.15 |
-.16 |
|
Post-involvement(GPA2) |
-.16 |
- 03 |
|
Duration of Involvement and Post-Involvement
Periods |
|
Time in CUT |
.27 |
.39*** |
|
Time out of CUT |
-.51*** |
-.53*** |
|
Ratings of Relationship with
Spouse |
|
Before Involvement |
-.26 |
-.19 |
|
During Involvement |
-.38* |
-.39* |
|
After Involvement |
-.48*** |
-.56*** |
*p < .05. ***p < .001.
Multiple Regression Models
When the GSI was used as the dependent variable in a multiple
stepwise regression model, time out of
CUT and quality of the relationship with spouse during CUT were
significant predictors, p < .001 and p < .017, respectively.
Neither time in CUT nor the relationship with one’s spouse after CUT entered
into the model. The overall R2 = .46 was significant, F(2,
40) = 13.49, p < .001, and the standardized regression coefficients (b
s) were -.55 for time out of CUT and -.33 for relationship with spouse during
CUT. A second multiple regression model was constructed to predict the number of
high scores. An initial stepwise multiple regression also revealed that both
time out of CUT and the reported quality of the relationship with one’s spouse
after CUT involvement were significant predictor variables, p = .005 and
.011, respectively. Neither time in CUT nor the relationship with one’s spouse
during involvement with CUT entered into the model. Next, each other variable
was combined with time out of CUT, using a simultaneous entry procedure, in
order to determine whether any increased the proportion of variance explained (R2).
Again, only the quality of the relationship with one’s spouse after CUT and time
out of CUT were significant predictors. The overall R2 = .45
was significant, F(2, 40) = 14.67, p < .001, and the standardized
regression coefficients (b s) were -.40 for
relationship with spouse after CUT and -.39 for time out of CUT. In short, these
analyses both show that respondents who reported a relatively good relationship
with their spouse after CUT involvement and who had left CUT a relatively long
time ago tended to report fewer psychiatric symptoms.
Comparisons of Ex-Members’ Personalities with Established Norms (EPQ-R)
Responses to the EPQ-R showed good internal consistency:
Alpha coefficients for the four subscales ranged from .67 to .89. One-sample
t tests were used to compare respondents’ mean score with the normative mean
on each of the subscales (as provided in the manual for the EPQ-R; Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1994). As shown in Table 3, neither male nor female ex-CUT members
differed from the norm on the Psychoticism scale or on the Neuroticism scale.
Scores on the Extroversion scale, however, were significantly lower than the
norm for females and marginally lower for males. On the Lie (dissimulation)
scale, there was no significant difference for females. For males, the
difference was significant: Male respondents scored lower (exhibited less
dissimulation) than the norm.
For present purposes, we treated the 95% confidence interval
around the normative subscale means for the EPQ-R (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1994) as
the range of scores that is considered normal. If this sample as a whole falls
within the normal range, on each subscale no more than three individuals (5%)
should have scores outside this range. On the Psychoticism scale, only one male
and one female scored above the normal range. On the Neuroticism scale, one male
scored above the normal range. On the Lie (dissimulation) scale, one male scored
above the normal range. On the Extroversion scale, three males and seven females
scored below the normal range; this collectively represents 17% of the sample.
Thus, more than the expected 5% of individuals scored outside the normal range.
In particular, these ten scores all reveal abnormal introversion.
Table 3
Comparison of Former CUT Members’ Personalities with Established Norms
(EPQ-R)
|
Subscale |
Former CUT Members |
Established Norm |
|
Psychoticism |
|
Females |
4.64 (0.46)a |
4.61 (0.52)a |
|
Males |
6.00 (0.74)a |
5.72 (0.64)a |
|
Neuroticism |
|
Females |
11.45 (1.25)a |
13.66 (0.96)a |
|
Males |
9.04 (1.38)a |
10.55 (1.09)a |
|
Extroversion |
|
Females |
11.52 (1.03)a |
14.44(0.85)b |
|
Males |
12.84 (1.01)a |
14.90 (0.95)b |
|
Lie (dissimulation) |
|
Females |
7.54 (0.63)a |
7.62 (0.68)a |
|
Males |
4.48 (0.74)a |
6.22 (0.76)b |
Note. Standard error of each mean is shown in parentheses. Means in the
same row that do not share subscripts differ at p < .05. For former CUT
members, n = 33 females and 25 males.
The correlation between extroversion and time out of CUT was positive, r
= .31, p = .019. Neuroticism and time out of CUT were negatively
correlated, r = -.55, p < .001. The correlation between
neuroticism and extroversion was also negative, r = -.62, p <
.001. Extroversion was negatively correlated with dissimulation, r =
-.33, p < .016. There were negative correlations between dissimulation
and measures of psychological distress on the SCL-90-R for both the GSI, r
= -.41, p = .002, and the number of high scores, r = -.35,
p = .009.
Table 4
Changes in the Reported Quality of Relationships Before, During, and After
CUT Involvement
|
Relationship |
Before |
n |
During |
n |
After |
n |
|
Mother |
2.71 (0.17)b |
51 |
2.72 (0.19)a |
51 |
4.17 (0.13)c |
48 |
|
Father |
3.57 (0.17)b |
49 |
2.42 (0.20)a |
45 |
4.05 (0.11)c |
40 |
|
Spouse |
4.05 (0.22)b |
21 |
2.51 (0.24)a |
37 |
3.50 (0.26)c |
44 |
|
Other |
4.47 (0.12)c |
49 |
2.43 (0.21)a |
48 |
3.71 (0.25)b |
48 |
Note. Ratings were made on 5-point scales (1 = poor, 5 =
excellent). Standard error of each mean is shown in parentheses. (Different
ns in each column reflect such factors as deaths of parents, divorces,
and remarriages; see text.) Means in the same row that do not share subscripts
differ at p < .05.
Reported Quality of
Personal Relationships
Table 4 shows the mean reported quality of personal
relationships before, during, and after CUT involvement. Paired-sample t
tests across all relationships revealed higher ratings before than during CUT
involvement. In addition, all after ratings were higher than
corresponding during ratings. For spouse relationships, ratings were
higher before and after than during CUT involvement, and
for other relationships, ratings were higher before than after;
during ratings were the worst. In short, the reported quality of all
relationships was consistently worse during CUT involvement.
Discussion
This study investigated a sample not examined by previous
research: former members of CUT. It used the first, and as yet only, objective
measure designed to assess the level of group abusiveness, the
GPA Scale (Chambers et al., 1994). A novel use of the
instrument made it possible to measure reported discrepancies between initial
and post-involvement perceptions of abusiveness, thereby assessing the extent to
which individuals’ interpretation of events may have changed or to what extent
misrepresentation on the part of the group may have influenced their
perceptions. Although the study used no comparison groups—a design feature that
may be regarded as a weakness—whenever it was appropriate and possible, we made
use of established normative values and comparative data from previous research
to evaluate the findings. They clarify the major four research questions posed
earlier.
No previous study using the GPA scale has found mean values
for the composite score and each subscale score that were as high as those found
here. The difference between the overall GPA means for another cultic group, the
BCC (Langone, 1995), and the CUT sample exceeded two standard deviations. The
overall GPA mean in the initial study (110.7), which surveyed former members of
101 different cults, was only 2.2 points higher than the mean score of the BCC
sample (Langone, 1995). The present findings suggest that among groups perceived
as abusive by their former members, CUT is at the high end of reported
abusiveness. Even if sampling bias is taken into account and one assumes that
the mean score of former members who do not subscribe to the newsletter were two
standard deviations below that of subscribers, ex-CUT members’ GPA means would
be similar to those obtained from former members of other allegedly cultic
groups.
A comparison of retrospective GPA scores reflecting
ex-members’ recollections of their perceptions when they first joined the group
with their post-involvement perceptions revealed profound differences (see Table
1). Several studies have investigated retrospection biases (Marcus, 1986; for a
review, see Dawes, 1988). These studies argue that recollections of past beliefs
are biased toward current beliefs. The large discrepancies between retrospective
perceptions and current perceptions of former CUT members suggest that any such
bias did not eliminate the differences found here. The perceptions these
ex-members remember having had at the time they joined CUT match the image CUT
tries to portray, which is clearly a nonabusive one. Respondents’ current
perceptions reflect a highly abusive environment. If a retrospection bias toward
current views operated in this study, the retrospective scores were
conservative. If we had been able to measure abusiveness while respondents were
actually joining CUT, the reported abusiveness might have been even lower. Other
studies suggest that peoples’ investment (e.g., in time, money, or emotion) in
something biases them to exaggerate the differences between pre- and
post-involvement if there is an unconscious desire to justify the investment by
viewing the change as a positive one. In the present study, the change in
perception was negative. Thus, given the conditions and findings of this
particular study, neither of these conclusions offers an adequate explanation.
If false recollections are not a likely cause of the
discrepancies between the two sets of scores, one might conclude that CUT
misrepresents itself and deceives its prospective and current members. Support
for this interpretation comes from the finding that the greatest discrepancy
between pre- and post-involvement was on the
Mind Control subscale, and the next greatest was on the
Compliance subscale. These two subscales also showed the highest
post-involvement means, and each of them was near the highest possible score
(35) on the subscale.
Another possible interpretation for the discrepancies between
GPA1 and GPA2 is that individuals changed their interpretation of reality when
they first came in contact with CUT and then again when they left it. While a
person is still in a cultic group and subscribes to the group’s interpretation
of reality, he or she may not perceive abusive actions or attitudes as abusive.
Instead, a person may interpret what outsiders might consider being abuse as a
need to atone for past transgressions or deserving chastisement for
imperfections. In CUT terms, this is an individual’s karma, and "bad
karma" may stem from past deeds of a previous or several previous
embodiments. This belief allows the leader to interpret current events,
including being abused, by attributing them to a past of which the follower may
have no knowledge and which may be impossible to verify. Additionally, if one
subscribes to the belief that "God chastises those most whom he (or she) loves
most," abuse may be interpreted as a privilege of "the chosen." A belief that a
follower’s devotion or unquestioning commitment must be tested so that his or
her spiritual attainment may be assessed also provides a formidable tool to
change the meaning of events. Clinicians who are familiar with issues of
domestic abuse may find interesting parallels between what is referred to as
mystical manipulation (Lifton, 1987, 1991) in a cult context and the mind
games with which victims of domestic abuse are manipulated.
The high discrepancies between GPA1 and GPA2 may also be
attributable to individuals’ changes in the interpretation of events that took
place during the conversion process, throughout involvement, and since exiting
CUT, as well as misrepresentations on the part of CUT. These explanations may be
two sides of the same coin. To an outsider, a reinterpretation of reality may
appear to be deceptive (and not necessarily abusive), but to the new recruit and
long-term follower it may be a "higher form of knowledge." Former members who
have shed their pseudo-identity (West & Martin, 1994), however, are not merely
outsiders. Their personal experiences may cause them to view the former
interpretation of their realities as deceptive and abusive. They may often
prefer even stronger terms, such as spiritual betrayal.
The evidence of discriminant validity with respect to the GPA
scores strengthens the credibility of these findings. Moreover, we found no
relationship between the extent to which respondents’ ratings reflected group
abusiveness (both current and retrospective perceptions) and the extent to which
they portrayed themselves in a socially desirable light. Additionally, the
sample’s low-to-average scores on the lie, or social desirability, scale suggest
that their responses were not influenced by motives to misrepresent the
abusiveness.
A large percentage of former CUT members (almost 50% of the
respondents) reported experiencing such high levels of psychological distress as
to be categorized as positive risks (Derogatis, 1994). However, only 6.6% of the
respondents had received psychotherapy or counseling prior to their involvement
in CUT. This low percentage may partly be attributable to the relatively young
age at which many of them joined (57.4% joined before the age of 25 and 72.1%
before the age of 30).
Although the percentage of ex-members experiencing such high
levels of psychological distress to qualify as a psychiatric risk is large, as
time away from CUT increased, distress levels decreased. Time out of CUT
explained a significant proportion of the variability in both regression models
(one using Global Severity Index scores as dependent variable, the other using
the number of subscales on which an individual had scored 63 or above). Two
additional variables that had significant predictive value in one or the other
of the two regression models were the quality of spousal relationship during and
after CUT involvement. Individuals who reported a higher quality of relationship
with their spouse after exiting CUT also reported lower levels of psychological
distress than those who had poor spousal relationships. The same is true for the
quality of spousal relationship during CUT involvement. This is not surprising
if one considers that a relationship which can be maintained at a qualitatively
high level while the spouses undergo high levels of environmental stress may be
a source of strength for the partners. This will reduce the overall
stressfulness of the experience and the
psychological harm inflicted. Although time in CUT was
excluded from the multiple regression model, it was positively correlated with
psychological distress. This suggests that there is a positive relationship
between the time an individual spent in CUT and the psychological problems
experienced later.
Most theorists think that people who are in pain
(psychologically or otherwise) try to attribute that pain to an outside source,
which then leads to an unfair negative evaluation of that source. What if those
not in pain share the negative evaluations? Nearly half of the present
respondents met the criteria for being a positive risk. Some reported high
levels of psychological distress, but others were virtually symptom-free. The
lowest individual post-involvement GPA rating given to CUT in this study,
however, was 109. According to Langone (1995), ratings suggestive of
non-abusiveness range from 28 to 84. Moreover, there was no relationship between
the reported level of psychological distress and respondents’ perceptions of
group abusiveness.
There was a negative relationship between reported
psychological distress and the extent to which respondents portrayed themselves
in a socially desirable light: Those who reported higher levels were less
inclined to answer according to what is considered socially desirable.
Respondents who scored relatively high on the lie scale may have underreported
psychological distress, perhaps because they did not want to be seen as having
problems.
The present evidence suggests that former members of CUT do
not differ from the norm on the psychoticism and neuroticism dimensions. Females
did not differ from the norm in their desire to be socially acceptable (as
measured by the lie scale of the EPQ-R), but males appeared to be less concerned
with their social desirability than one expects of males in the general
population. This may be a reaction to the manipulation they experienced during
their involvement in CUT. If these scores are, however, representative of a
condition present before cult involvement, they may reflect a stronger than
average desire for honest self-evaluation. This desire, in turn, may have
contributed to the vulnerability of these individuals to manipulation. Honest
people often assume honesty in others. If either or both of these proposed
explanations are valid, it is unclear why females in this sample did not differ
from the norm. Is it possible that females in general feel more pressure in this
society to represent themselves in a more socially desirable light?
Extroversion was the only personality dimension on which both
males and females differed from the norm, although the difference was slightly
greater for females than males. If one takes into account the intense alienation
from the outside world former cultists experienced during their involvement and
the fact that many, upon their exit, think they were betrayed by the thought
reform program to which they were subjected, it makes sense that they became
more introverted. The significant positive correlation between extroversion and
years out of CUT suggests that with increased time away from the cult
environment, extroversion scores approach the norm.
Although the sample’s neuroticism scores did not
significantly differ from established norms, there was a significant negative
correlation between neuroticism and time since leaving CUT: Respondents who were
out longer scored lower on neuroticism.
The ratings respondents gave to the quality of their close
relationships reveal a clear pattern across all relationship categories. The
rated quality of relationships was consistently lowest during CUT involvement. A
comparison of before and after ratings showed higher ratings for
the quality of post-CUT parental relationships. This was not the case for spouse
relationships, which were about the same before and after CUT, nor for other
relationships, which were worse after than before CUT. Based on additional
comments that respondents made on the survey, it appears that some individuals
had rated their relationships with friends who had joined the group with them or
someone they had met during their involvement. In either case, these
relationships may, as a result of their exit, be strained at best and
non-existent at worst. This may be the reason why the post-involvement mean for
the category other is lower than the pre-involvement mean.
Several respondents commented that divorces were related to
their cult involvement. Some indicated that they were completely cut off from
their former spouse and therefore did not give a post-involvement rating for the
spouse category. Others who remarried since their exit rated their
current marriage. Thus, the relatively high mean for post-cult ratings of
spousal relationships appears to be partly attributable to post-CUT marriages.
Unfortunately, we did not ask respondents to indicate the year they divorced.
This prevented an exact determination of how many marriage dissolutions might
have been related to CUT involvement, which marriages dissolved prior to CUT
involvement, and which dissolved considerably later.
Respondents’ ratings of the quality of their relationship
with a spouse after CUT involvement probably reflect the relationship with the
individual’s current spouse (whether or not the individual refers to the same
spouse in each time period). As far as having used the variable as a predictor
for one of the regression models, when the marriage was entered into seems less
of an issue than whether or not a good relationship with one’s spouse after cult
involvement is likely to contribute to a decrease in psychological distress.
One weakness of the present study was the sample itself,
because the majority of the respondents were recipients of a newsletter
primarily sent to former CUT members. In this newsletter, grievances about the
group and its leadership are freely expressed. Additionally, each issue of the
newsletter includes a list of recommended publications about CUT as well as more
general cult educational materials. Thus, the sample’s representativeness of
ex-members may be questioned. Sixty-one individuals represent a small proportion
of the hundreds who have left CUT during the 29 years since it was founded. The
majority of those who participated in the study had been exposed to the
newsletter’s anti-CUT and anti-cult stance. Although this is a legitimate
concern, a lack of understanding about cult-related issues does not necessarily
mean that people’s perceptions are more valid. Put differently, more information
and education, which is generally regarded as an advantage in discovering the
truth, may be a desirable quality in respondents. The present sample offered
just that. Additionally, one cannot assume that former members who may not be
aware of the newsletter or fear being on its mailing list perceive the group as
any less abusive. Representativeness with regard to the level of past group
involvement and commitment to the group, as well as the time spent in the group,
was remarkably good.
As with most surveys, it is impossible to ascertain what
distinguishes respondents from non-respondents. Are non-respondents likely to be
more or less distressed than those who participated in the study? Do they hold
more or less favorable views of CUT? These questions remain unanswered. Also,
research that focuses on children who have left cults is virtually nonexistent.
The development of instruments and methodologies that permit such investigation
without causing additional harm should be among the goals for future work.
Nevertheless, this study illustrates a useful way to obtain
such important evidence on the impact of cultic groups (cf. Yeakley, 1988). It
also sheds light on a number of questions about one cultic group, CUT, and some
of its former members. We found that at the time the ex-members joined CUT, they
did not consider it an abusive group, but after they had left, they considered
it very abusive. Although their personalities were generally quite normal and
remain so, the reported quality of their close personal relationships
deteriorated during their membership in CUT. This evidence contributes to the
larger body of research on cults and their impact on the lives of those who were
once affiliated with them. Considering the large number of cultic groups that
are currently active, similar studies investigating other groups are critically
needed.
References
Adams, D.
(1993). The Cincinnati Church of Christ: How former members rate the group on
a cultism scale. Unpublished master’s thesis, Xavier University, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Andersen, S. (1985).
Identifying coercion and deception in social systems. In B. Kilbourne (Ed.),
Scientific research and new religions: Divergent perspectives (pp. 12-23).
San Francisco: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Balch, R. W., &
Langdon, S. (1998). How the problem of malfeasance gets overlooked in studies of
new religions: Examination of the AWARE study of The Church Universal and
Triumphant. In A. Shupe (Ed.), Wolves within the fold: Religious leadership
and abuses of power (pp. 191-211). New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Chambers, W.,
Langone, M. D., Dole, A., & Grice, J. (1994). The Group Psychological Abuse
Scale: A measure of the varieties of cultic abuse. Cultic Studies Journal, 11
(1), 88-117.
Clark, J. G. (1979).
Cults. Journal of the American Medical Association, 242, 179-181.
Clark, J. G.,
Langone, M. D., Schecter, R. E., & Daly, R. C. (1981). Destructive cult
conversion: Theory, research, and treatment. Weston, MA: American Family
Foundation.
Conway, F., &
Siegelman, J. (1995). Snapping: America’s epidemic of sudden personality
change (2nd ed.). New York: Stillpoint Press.
Dawes, R. M. (1988).
Rational choice in an uncertain world. San Diego: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Derogatis, L. R.
(1994). SCL-90-R: Administration, scoring, and procedures manual.
Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Derogatis, L. R., &
DellaPietra, L. (1994). Psychological tests in screening for psychiatric
disorder. In M. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment
planning and outcome assessment. (pp. 22-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Derogatis, L. R., &
Lazarus, L. (1994). SCL-90-R, Brief Symptom Inventory, and matching clinical
rating scales. In M. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for
treatment planning and outcome assessment (pp. 217-248). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Derogatis, L. R.,
Rickels, K., & Rock, A. (1976). The SCL-90 and the MMPI: A step in the
validation of a new self-report scale. British Journal of Psychiatry, 128,
280-289.
Dole, A. &
Dubrow-Eichel, S. (1985). Some new religions are dangerous. Cultic Studies
Journal, 2 (1), 17-30.
Eysenck, H. J., &
Eysenck, S. B. G. (1994). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.
San Diego, CA: Edits.
Goldberg, L., &
Goldberg, W. (1982). Group work with former cultists. Social Work, 27,
165-170.
Group for the
Advancement of Psychiatry. (1992). Leaders and followers: A psychiatric
perspective on religious cults. Washington, DC: Committee on Psychiatry and
Religion, Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry.
Hassan, S. (1988).
Combating Cult Mind Control. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.
Horowitz, L. M.,
Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, R. A., Ureno, G., & Villasenor, V. S. (1988). Inventory
of Interpersonal Problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 885-892.
Janis, I. L. (1972).
Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Lalich, J. (1997).
Dominance and submission: The psychosexual exploitation of women in cults.
Cultic Studies Journal, 14 (1), 4-21.
Langone, M. D.
(1992). Psychological abuse. Cultic Studies Journal, 9(2),
206-218.
Langone, M. D.
(1993). Introduction. In M. D. Langone (Ed.), Recovery from cults: Help for
victims of psychological and spiritual abuse (pp. 1-21). New York: W. W.
Norton.
Langone, M. D.
(1995). An investigation of a reputedly psychologically abusive group that
targets college students (Tech. Rep.). Boston: Boston University, Danielson
Institute.
Langone, M. D.
(1996). Clinical update on cults. Psychiatric Times, 7, 14-18.
Lewis, J. R., &
Melton, J. G. (Eds.). (1994). Church Universal and Triumphant in scholarly
perspective [Special issue]. Syzygy: Journal of Alternative Religion and
Culture. Stanford, CA: Center for Academic Publication.
Lifton, R. J. (1987).
The future of immortality and other essays for a nuclear age. New York:
Basic Books.
Lifton, R. J. (1991).
Cult formation. Harvard Mental Health Letter, 7, 1-4.
Marcus, G. B. (1986).
Stability and change in political attitudes: Observe, recall, and "explain."
Political Behavior, 8, 21-22.
Maron, N. (1989).
Family environment as a factor in vulnerability to cult involvement. Cultic
Studies Journal, 5(1), 23-43.
Martin, P. R. (1989).
Dispelling the myths: The psychological consequences of cultic involvement.
Christian Research Journal, 11, 9-14.
Schwartz, L. L., &
Kaslow, F. W. (1979). Religious cults, the individual and the family. Journal
of Marital and Family Therapy, 5, 15-26.
Singer, M. T. (1978).
Therapy with ex-cult members. Journal of the National Association of Private
Psychiatric Hospitals, 9, 15-18.
Singer, M. T. (1979,
January). Coming out of the cults. Psychology Today, 72-82.
Singer, M. T. (1986).
Consultation with families of cultists. In L. I. Wynne, S. H. McDavid, & T. T.
Weber (Eds.), The family therapist as systems consultant (pp. 270-283).
New York: Guilford Press.
Singer, M. T. &
Lalich, J. (1995). Cults in our midst. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spero, M. H. (1982).
Psychotherapeutic procedures with religious cult devotees. The Journal of
Nervous and Mental Disease, 170, 332-344.
Walsh, Y., Russell,
R. & Wells, P. (1995). The personality of ex-cult members. Personality and
Individual Differences,19, 339-344.
West, L. J., &
Martin, P. R. (1994). Pseudo-identity and the treatment of personality change in
victims of cults. In S. J. H. Lynn & J. Rhue (Eds.), Dissociation: Clinical
and theoretical perspectives (pp. 268-280). New York: Guilford.
Yeakley, F. (Ed.).
(1988). The disciplining dilemma. Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate.
Acknowledgements
We are sincerely
grateful to the individuals who responded to the mailing, as well as to Peter
Arnone, who mailed the surveys to recipients of the Focus newsletter. We thank
Arthur A. Dole,
Michael D. Langone, Wesley C. Lynch, Charles A. Pierce, and
Kath Williams for their comments on a draft of this manuscript and Bruce Bacon
for his encouragement and support.
|