International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010 9
pressure, but the pressure is essentially self-
inflicted because the group norms have been
internalised to become part of who the person
is—the “psychological group,” to use Turner’s
phrase. Every group act or behaviour backs up
that big part of you that is the group. In fact,
“doing” the group—acting as a prototypical
good group member—carries with it benefits in
terms of collective self-esteem (the emotional
and value significance again), and at the same
further reinforces the group identity. This
process leaves the person in the position of
identifying more with, and being more
dependent on, the group than ever, and desiring
still further the gratification that comes from
being the best that the group is and could
possibly be. Once more, this is the circular
double-bind.
So when you are in the cult, whom do you let
down if you don’t do what the cult leader asks?
Not just the cult leader. You also let yourself
down because there is no more important
exemplar of yourself than the group—including
its most powerful embodiment, its leader. Cults
therefore appear to demonstrate referent
informational influence par excellence—they
take it to the infinite degree—and in the case of
violent terrorist cults, they do so with the tragic
consequences that are inflicted on so many.
Now the image this evokes is itself the
stereotype of the zombie brainwashed cult
member who cannot tell right from wrong —and
sometimes this undoubtedly may be the case.
Often, however, ex-members speak of the many
struggles they went through inside themselves
when they were in the group, to decide what
they should do at various moments. But while
they remained in the group, the group identity
continued to be dominant or relatively dominant.
When I speak to families about loved ones who
appear lost to them in groups of this kind, it is
important to help them recognise that, from time
to time, and sometimes quite often, doubts will
surface in their loved ones ideas discordant to
the group will emerge the next group demand
might feel like a step too far—all are junctures at
which the dominance of the group identity is
vulnerable to intrusion, all are opportunities for
members’ normal range of identifications and
categorisations to kick back in. For many, that
floodgate is eventually opened. For others, it
appears to be permanently closed but who
knows? There are examples of people walking
out of cult-like groups after 50 or 60 years.
Evidence in Support of the Totalistic
Identity Theory
So far, I have presented the Totalistic Identity
Theory to you as an extension of the Self-
Categorisation Theory and as a corollary to the
work of Lifton and others, to explain on a
cognitive and psychological level the
phenomenon of undue influence and of cult
identity and influence. In the final section of this
lecture, I will briefly turn to some of the
evidence that we have so far brought to light in
support of this theory. I say we because at this
point I must acknowledge and pay tribute to a
research team that spans different continents.
This research has been done in partnership with
many colleagues over the years, most
importantly with Dr. Paul Martin, the founding
Director of the Wellspring Retreat and Resource
Center, Linda Dubrow-Marshall and Ron
Burks but also Carmen Almendros, Lindsay
Orchowski, Peter Malinoski, and Lois Kendall.
There are also others.
It is important to acknowledge the very
important work at the Wellspring Retreat and
Resource Center in Ohio, USA, which is the
only residential treatment programme of its kind,
dedicated to the recovery of former members of
abusive groups, or of cult and abusive
relationships with the same qualities. Using the
Lifton model as its theoretical basis, Paul Martin
and his colleagues have crafted a unique
treatment programme that is highly effective at
treating a complex pattern of psychopathology
in ex-members, which can include a mix of
depression, anxiety, dissociation, and other
symptoms including aspects of post-traumatic
distress. Every ex-member has a unique set of
problems—as in all clinical work—but there are
also commonalities and patterns. More than
eight years ago, Paul Martin and I decided to
look in more detail at these patterns to see
whether we could discern a model of the
psychopathology amongst this population that
related to the group experience they had had.
pressure, but the pressure is essentially self-
inflicted because the group norms have been
internalised to become part of who the person
is—the “psychological group,” to use Turner’s
phrase. Every group act or behaviour backs up
that big part of you that is the group. In fact,
“doing” the group—acting as a prototypical
good group member—carries with it benefits in
terms of collective self-esteem (the emotional
and value significance again), and at the same
further reinforces the group identity. This
process leaves the person in the position of
identifying more with, and being more
dependent on, the group than ever, and desiring
still further the gratification that comes from
being the best that the group is and could
possibly be. Once more, this is the circular
double-bind.
So when you are in the cult, whom do you let
down if you don’t do what the cult leader asks?
Not just the cult leader. You also let yourself
down because there is no more important
exemplar of yourself than the group—including
its most powerful embodiment, its leader. Cults
therefore appear to demonstrate referent
informational influence par excellence—they
take it to the infinite degree—and in the case of
violent terrorist cults, they do so with the tragic
consequences that are inflicted on so many.
Now the image this evokes is itself the
stereotype of the zombie brainwashed cult
member who cannot tell right from wrong —and
sometimes this undoubtedly may be the case.
Often, however, ex-members speak of the many
struggles they went through inside themselves
when they were in the group, to decide what
they should do at various moments. But while
they remained in the group, the group identity
continued to be dominant or relatively dominant.
When I speak to families about loved ones who
appear lost to them in groups of this kind, it is
important to help them recognise that, from time
to time, and sometimes quite often, doubts will
surface in their loved ones ideas discordant to
the group will emerge the next group demand
might feel like a step too far—all are junctures at
which the dominance of the group identity is
vulnerable to intrusion, all are opportunities for
members’ normal range of identifications and
categorisations to kick back in. For many, that
floodgate is eventually opened. For others, it
appears to be permanently closed but who
knows? There are examples of people walking
out of cult-like groups after 50 or 60 years.
Evidence in Support of the Totalistic
Identity Theory
So far, I have presented the Totalistic Identity
Theory to you as an extension of the Self-
Categorisation Theory and as a corollary to the
work of Lifton and others, to explain on a
cognitive and psychological level the
phenomenon of undue influence and of cult
identity and influence. In the final section of this
lecture, I will briefly turn to some of the
evidence that we have so far brought to light in
support of this theory. I say we because at this
point I must acknowledge and pay tribute to a
research team that spans different continents.
This research has been done in partnership with
many colleagues over the years, most
importantly with Dr. Paul Martin, the founding
Director of the Wellspring Retreat and Resource
Center, Linda Dubrow-Marshall and Ron
Burks but also Carmen Almendros, Lindsay
Orchowski, Peter Malinoski, and Lois Kendall.
There are also others.
It is important to acknowledge the very
important work at the Wellspring Retreat and
Resource Center in Ohio, USA, which is the
only residential treatment programme of its kind,
dedicated to the recovery of former members of
abusive groups, or of cult and abusive
relationships with the same qualities. Using the
Lifton model as its theoretical basis, Paul Martin
and his colleagues have crafted a unique
treatment programme that is highly effective at
treating a complex pattern of psychopathology
in ex-members, which can include a mix of
depression, anxiety, dissociation, and other
symptoms including aspects of post-traumatic
distress. Every ex-member has a unique set of
problems—as in all clinical work—but there are
also commonalities and patterns. More than
eight years ago, Paul Martin and I decided to
look in more detail at these patterns to see
whether we could discern a model of the
psychopathology amongst this population that
related to the group experience they had had.
