2 International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 1, No. 1, 2010
the belief system, and sometimes even is self-
defined as a god figure.
Sometimes an illustration or example best
defines this phenomenon, and here I will use the
following quote:
When you meet the friendliest people
you have ever known, who introduce
you to the most loving group of people
you’ve ever encountered, and you find
the leader to be the most inspired, caring
and compassionate and understanding
person you’ve ever met, and then you
learn that the cause of the group is
something you never dared hope could
be accomplished, and all of this sounds
too good to be true—it probably is too
good to be true! Don’t give up your
education, your hopes, and ambitions to
follow a rainbow.
This is a quote from Jeannie Mills, an ex-
member of the Peoples Temple—she was later
found murdered (this quote is also included in
Singer and Lalich’s seminal book, Cults in Our
Midst [1995]). This is an example of a
dangerous and extremist cult that, under the
leadership of Jim Jones, relocated to Guyana and
set up the Peoples Temple—a group with a
curious mix of religious and political ideology at
its core.
So this quote painfully exemplifies how, as a
psychologist and social psychologist, I am much
more concerned with what happens
psychologically to and in the person in such
group settings. I am very concerned also with
whether a group appears to cause harm to
individuals as a consequence of the way the
group operates (as well as the harm the group
can cause to people outside). One could say
these are the psychological characteristics of
cults or sects, as opposed to the sociological
definition of a cult or sect.
This focus is perhaps less newsworthy than that
of calling “x” group a dangerous cult that should
be banned or broken up. But I am clear that
dangerous behaviour by any group or individual
should be banned or stopped in whatever
context. There should be no religious or political
exemption for such harmful activity. Indeed, the
most recent atrocities by extremist terrorist
groups, whether in Tokyo, New York,
Pennsylvania, Madrid, London, or Mumbai,
show that religious zealotry can be no cloak of
protection as the bullets fly and bombs explode.
Throughout history—and these more recent
terrorist attacks are part of a much longer history
of such violence—extremist religious or political
ideology is often cited as the underlying reason
or justification for such inhuman attacks.
Psychologically, how can it be that apparently
loving family members can be so quickly
transformed into apparently murderous
psychopaths? What is going on? These are
questions, I know, that concern many policy
makers, law enforcers and lawyers, and
psychologists, and that actually concern all of us
as we look at the aftermath of the carnage and
murders in India.
My thesis is that to help explain the most
extreme examples, we must look at the
psychological processes of influence across a
variety of settings to better understand influence
overall as a phenomenon. I am concerned with
the effect of influence on members of extremist
groups, both to understand how we can best
intervene to reduce undue influence and harm,
and because I believe this is the best way to
prevent extremist groups or cults from pointing
their psychopathology outward toward the rest
of the world. My approach uses as a starting
point that which is perhaps a little akin to a
health and safety inspectorate: Is there harm
taking place, to whom, and why—in terms of the
process, cause, and effects and, if so, what can
we do to reduce it or stop it?
If any organisation fails to act in response to
such an intervention, then it should face the
consequences in legal terms. So my starting
point, in what is clearly a form of “action
research,” is one of protecting the human rights
of our citizens who are members of groups or
organisations that have typically fallen outside
the reach of the health and safety inspectors or
the employment tribunals, so that these members
don’t do harm to themselves or to others. These
are groups that the law has, to varying degrees,
ignored or held on a long leash, and they include
churches, new religions, political groups,
psychotherapy groups, training programmes,
the belief system, and sometimes even is self-
defined as a god figure.
Sometimes an illustration or example best
defines this phenomenon, and here I will use the
following quote:
When you meet the friendliest people
you have ever known, who introduce
you to the most loving group of people
you’ve ever encountered, and you find
the leader to be the most inspired, caring
and compassionate and understanding
person you’ve ever met, and then you
learn that the cause of the group is
something you never dared hope could
be accomplished, and all of this sounds
too good to be true—it probably is too
good to be true! Don’t give up your
education, your hopes, and ambitions to
follow a rainbow.
This is a quote from Jeannie Mills, an ex-
member of the Peoples Temple—she was later
found murdered (this quote is also included in
Singer and Lalich’s seminal book, Cults in Our
Midst [1995]). This is an example of a
dangerous and extremist cult that, under the
leadership of Jim Jones, relocated to Guyana and
set up the Peoples Temple—a group with a
curious mix of religious and political ideology at
its core.
So this quote painfully exemplifies how, as a
psychologist and social psychologist, I am much
more concerned with what happens
psychologically to and in the person in such
group settings. I am very concerned also with
whether a group appears to cause harm to
individuals as a consequence of the way the
group operates (as well as the harm the group
can cause to people outside). One could say
these are the psychological characteristics of
cults or sects, as opposed to the sociological
definition of a cult or sect.
This focus is perhaps less newsworthy than that
of calling “x” group a dangerous cult that should
be banned or broken up. But I am clear that
dangerous behaviour by any group or individual
should be banned or stopped in whatever
context. There should be no religious or political
exemption for such harmful activity. Indeed, the
most recent atrocities by extremist terrorist
groups, whether in Tokyo, New York,
Pennsylvania, Madrid, London, or Mumbai,
show that religious zealotry can be no cloak of
protection as the bullets fly and bombs explode.
Throughout history—and these more recent
terrorist attacks are part of a much longer history
of such violence—extremist religious or political
ideology is often cited as the underlying reason
or justification for such inhuman attacks.
Psychologically, how can it be that apparently
loving family members can be so quickly
transformed into apparently murderous
psychopaths? What is going on? These are
questions, I know, that concern many policy
makers, law enforcers and lawyers, and
psychologists, and that actually concern all of us
as we look at the aftermath of the carnage and
murders in India.
My thesis is that to help explain the most
extreme examples, we must look at the
psychological processes of influence across a
variety of settings to better understand influence
overall as a phenomenon. I am concerned with
the effect of influence on members of extremist
groups, both to understand how we can best
intervene to reduce undue influence and harm,
and because I believe this is the best way to
prevent extremist groups or cults from pointing
their psychopathology outward toward the rest
of the world. My approach uses as a starting
point that which is perhaps a little akin to a
health and safety inspectorate: Is there harm
taking place, to whom, and why—in terms of the
process, cause, and effects and, if so, what can
we do to reduce it or stop it?
If any organisation fails to act in response to
such an intervention, then it should face the
consequences in legal terms. So my starting
point, in what is clearly a form of “action
research,” is one of protecting the human rights
of our citizens who are members of groups or
organisations that have typically fallen outside
the reach of the health and safety inspectors or
the employment tribunals, so that these members
don’t do harm to themselves or to others. These
are groups that the law has, to varying degrees,
ignored or held on a long leash, and they include
churches, new religions, political groups,
psychotherapy groups, training programmes,
