Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 22
There have certainly been changes within the critical community, although only some of
these changes can be attributed to the academic dialogue. Changes in the population of
people seeking information and assistance from the critical community has also contributed
significantly to the growing recognition that the cult issue is much more complex and
nuanced than was once thought. Two surveys (see Table 1) strikingly reveal these
population changes (Conway, Siegelman, &Coggins, 1986 Langone, 1992). Both surveys
used similar snowball methods. Conway et al.‘s subjects had closer ties to the parent
organizations, demonstrated by the fact that about 70% had been deprogrammed. In my
study 60% of the subjects had left on their own without any outside intervention, 9% had
been ejected from their groups, and only 13% had been deprogrammed. Although Conway
et al. had 426 subjects and I had only 308, their 426 subjects came from a total of 48
groups, whereas my smaller number of subjects came from a total of 101 groups. Seventy-
six percent of their subjects came from only 5 of the 48 groups (the Unification Church,
Scientology, The Way, Divine Light Mission, and ISKCON), and 44% of their subjects came
from the Unification Church. The five largest groups in my sample comprised only 33% of
the total subject population. Of the ―big five‖ in Conway et al.‘s survey, only Scientology
had a significant representation in my sample (16%).
Thus, nearly half of the Conway et al. subjects were former Moonies. Moreover, because
the Unification Church focused on college recruitment during this period, the average age of
joining for Conway et al.‘s subjects was less than in my survey and still in the college years:
21 vs. 24.8. Many, if not most, of the Conway and Siegelman Moonie subjects probably
dropped out of college after joining. In my study, 38% of those who were students when
they joined (43% of the total) dropped out of school after joining. A son or daughter‘s
sudden dropping out of college was probably one of the factors that most mobilized parents
during the late 70s and early 80s.

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 23
Table 1: Comparison of Conway, Siegelman, &Coggins with Langone
Item
Conway, Seigelman, &
Coggins
Langone
Number of Subjects 426 301
Number of Groups 48 101
Percent Deprogrammed 70% 13%
Percent No Intervention 60%
Percent Ejected 9%
Percent Top 5 Groups 76% 33%
Percent of Largest Group 44% 16%
Unification Church 44% 5%
Scientology 11% 16%
The Way 6% 2%
ISKCON 5% 2%
DLM 11% 1%
Average Age at Joining 21 24.8
Years in Group 2.7 6.7
The dominance of Unification Church members in the Conway et al. study clearly affected
how parents and helping professionals in the critical community thought about ―cult‖ issues
during the late 1970s and 1980s. The Moonie recruitment model as practiced at Booneville
in California was seen to fit the ―brainwashing‖ model far better than any other group,
mainly because their methods were systematic and relatively effective (Scharff, 1985).
Some English Moonies believed that their American counterparts were ―fanatics‖ (Donna
Collins, personal communication), so maybe Booneville reflected an extreme even within the
Unification Church. Because parents of Moonies and former Moonies constituted such a high
percentage of the early parent organizations (and so many of the parents‘ children had gone
through Booneville), it is no wonder that many people in these organizations thought
―Moonie‖ and ―brainwashed‖ when they thought ―cult.‖ Although a new psychology Ph.D.,
such as I was at the time, still has his head full of concepts such as ―random samples‖ and
―external validity‖ (I used to talk about the ―Moonification‖ of the cult phenomenon in those
days), parents without training in statistical methodology (and unfortunately some mental
health professionals who don‘t apply their research training) tended to base their
conclusions on their personal experience, rather than systematic methods of data collection
(much as, by the way, sociologists have appeared to base their conclusions about the so-
called ―ACM‖ – Kropveld, 2003).
I would like to think that the lectures and writings of people like me, who cautioned about
over generalizing from selected samples, caused the decline in power of the ―Moonie model‖
of cult recruitment and conversion. But the change in views within the critical community
probably resulted more from the decline of Moonie cases to a trickle by the late 80s and the
influx into the critical network of the ex-members represented in my survey—people who
had walked out on their own at a relatively advanced age from a large variety of groups
bearing no resemblance to the Moonie Booneville program. As these ex-members described
their group lives and talked to others, the personal experience of people within the critical
network changed, and their views on cults became more nuanced.
Hence, by the time the academic dialogue between the two ―camps‖ began in the late 1990s
most experts in the critical community knew in their bones, even if they didn‘t articulate it,