Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2002, Page 40
side effects in the other 10%, medical researchers do not simply discount the complaints of
the minority. The FDA and the courts do not accept these kinds of percentages, either.
Rather, these researchers work hard to determine what is causing the harmful effects, and
if the effects cannot be remedied, the drug may be pulled off the market. Although First-
Amendment rights preclude ―pulling cults off the market,‖ these rights certainly do not, as
some researchers seem to imply, ban criticisms of cults. Indeed, the added protection the
First-Amendment gives to religious cults obligates us to be forthright and bold in our
criticisms in order to safeguard the rights of cult victims.
I wish to end my comments with some thoughts that might allow for future cooperation in
our respective fields of research and study. I believe anyone who studies highly
controversial and polarizing social movements needs to be especially respectful of how prior
biases impact on subsequent research strategies and interpretations of data. In fact, I go
so far as to state that it is not enough to rely on ourselves and our like-minded peers we
need to routinely employ critical consultants from ―the opposing side‖ to keep us honest.
This advice applies to cult critics as well as so-called cult apologists. It is time for us to
admit that we have all probably been misled and perhaps even duped a few times. I know
of at least one instance in which I jumped to a conclusion about a group without examining
all of the facts. We need to be more careful about our research designs and tentative with
conclusions that employ one paradigm when others may also be applied. I have worked as
a forensic psychologist, so let me shock you by saying that people sometimes lie!
Sometimes research subjects are deceptive even after we ask them to tell the truth!
Sometimes people even learn how to deceive themselves, and sound as though they really
believe their own lies. I want to remind us all that, in the field of parapsychological
research, deception and outright fraud--and the inability of scholars and scientists to
accurately detect them--are so rampant that the Parapsychological Association itself has
officially recognized the need to have psi experiments reviewed by magicians and other
illusionists skilled at detecting sleight-of-hand and other forms of trickery. I wonder what
we would discover in the field of cultic/NRM studies if our own research were subjected to
analogous procedural checks and balances.
References
Baron, R. A., &Byrne, D. (1991). Social psychology: Understanding human interaction (6th ed.).
Boston: Allyn &Bacon.
Bloomfield, R., Libby, R., &Nelson, M. W. (1996). Communication of confidence as a determinant of
group judgment accuracy. Organizational Behavior &Human Decision Processes, 68, 287-300.
Brown, D., Scheflin, A. W., &Hammond, D. C. (1998). Memory, trauma, treatment, and the law: An
essential reference on memory for clinicians, researchers, attorneys, and judges. New York: W.
W. Norton.
Cerone, Daniel. (1993, October 30). Admitting ‗Noah‘s Ark‘ Hoax, Los Angeles Times, p. F-1.
Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: The new psychology of modern persuasion. New York: Quill.
Farias, Victor (Ed.) 1987. Heidegger and Nazism (translated from the French by Paul Burrell, German
material translated by Gabriel R. Ricci). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Feder, Kenneth L. (1998). Frauds, myths and mysteries -Science and pseudoscience in archaeology,
3rd ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Gottlieb, A. (1990, January 7). Heidegger for fun and profit. The New York Times.
Hammond, P., &Machacek, D. (1999). Soka Gakkai in America: Accommodation and conversion.
New York: Oxford University.
Innes, J. M., &Fraser, C. (1971). Experimenter bias and other possible biases in psychological
research. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 297-310.
Kelman, H. C. (1974). Attitudes are alive and well and gainfully employed in the sphere of action.
American Psychologist, 230, 310-324.
Koehler, J. J. (1993). The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality.
Organizational Behavior &Human Decision Processes, 56, 28-55.
side effects in the other 10%, medical researchers do not simply discount the complaints of
the minority. The FDA and the courts do not accept these kinds of percentages, either.
Rather, these researchers work hard to determine what is causing the harmful effects, and
if the effects cannot be remedied, the drug may be pulled off the market. Although First-
Amendment rights preclude ―pulling cults off the market,‖ these rights certainly do not, as
some researchers seem to imply, ban criticisms of cults. Indeed, the added protection the
First-Amendment gives to religious cults obligates us to be forthright and bold in our
criticisms in order to safeguard the rights of cult victims.
I wish to end my comments with some thoughts that might allow for future cooperation in
our respective fields of research and study. I believe anyone who studies highly
controversial and polarizing social movements needs to be especially respectful of how prior
biases impact on subsequent research strategies and interpretations of data. In fact, I go
so far as to state that it is not enough to rely on ourselves and our like-minded peers we
need to routinely employ critical consultants from ―the opposing side‖ to keep us honest.
This advice applies to cult critics as well as so-called cult apologists. It is time for us to
admit that we have all probably been misled and perhaps even duped a few times. I know
of at least one instance in which I jumped to a conclusion about a group without examining
all of the facts. We need to be more careful about our research designs and tentative with
conclusions that employ one paradigm when others may also be applied. I have worked as
a forensic psychologist, so let me shock you by saying that people sometimes lie!
Sometimes research subjects are deceptive even after we ask them to tell the truth!
Sometimes people even learn how to deceive themselves, and sound as though they really
believe their own lies. I want to remind us all that, in the field of parapsychological
research, deception and outright fraud--and the inability of scholars and scientists to
accurately detect them--are so rampant that the Parapsychological Association itself has
officially recognized the need to have psi experiments reviewed by magicians and other
illusionists skilled at detecting sleight-of-hand and other forms of trickery. I wonder what
we would discover in the field of cultic/NRM studies if our own research were subjected to
analogous procedural checks and balances.
References
Baron, R. A., &Byrne, D. (1991). Social psychology: Understanding human interaction (6th ed.).
Boston: Allyn &Bacon.
Bloomfield, R., Libby, R., &Nelson, M. W. (1996). Communication of confidence as a determinant of
group judgment accuracy. Organizational Behavior &Human Decision Processes, 68, 287-300.
Brown, D., Scheflin, A. W., &Hammond, D. C. (1998). Memory, trauma, treatment, and the law: An
essential reference on memory for clinicians, researchers, attorneys, and judges. New York: W.
W. Norton.
Cerone, Daniel. (1993, October 30). Admitting ‗Noah‘s Ark‘ Hoax, Los Angeles Times, p. F-1.
Cialdini, R. B. (1984). Influence: The new psychology of modern persuasion. New York: Quill.
Farias, Victor (Ed.) 1987. Heidegger and Nazism (translated from the French by Paul Burrell, German
material translated by Gabriel R. Ricci). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Feder, Kenneth L. (1998). Frauds, myths and mysteries -Science and pseudoscience in archaeology,
3rd ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Gottlieb, A. (1990, January 7). Heidegger for fun and profit. The New York Times.
Hammond, P., &Machacek, D. (1999). Soka Gakkai in America: Accommodation and conversion.
New York: Oxford University.
Innes, J. M., &Fraser, C. (1971). Experimenter bias and other possible biases in psychological
research. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 297-310.
Kelman, H. C. (1974). Attitudes are alive and well and gainfully employed in the sphere of action.
American Psychologist, 230, 310-324.
Koehler, J. J. (1993). The influence of prior beliefs on scientific judgments of evidence quality.
Organizational Behavior &Human Decision Processes, 56, 28-55.
