Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 28
Info-Cult/Info-Secte
American Family Foundation
Cult Information Service
Freedom of Mind Foundation
New England Institute of Religious Research
Maine Cult Information Network
Cult Hotline and Clinic of the New York Jewish Board of Family and Children‘s
Services
Cult Awareness and Information Center (Australia)
Cult Awareness Center
Cult Information &Family Support (Australia)
Edmonton Society Against Mind Abuse
Ex-Cult Resource Center
FACTNet
FAPES (Argentina)
Forum Against Cults (Israel)
Free Minds
Wellspring Retreat and Resource Center
reFOCUS
Religious Movement Resource Center
REVEAL
The Ross Institute (RI)
Saskatchewan Citizens Against Mind Control
Mind Control Research Center (Japan)
I have not listed the dozens of organizations that fall under Dr. Barker‘s
―Countercult Groups.‖ Nor have I listed European organizations that are
members of FECRIS (Fédération Européene des Centres de Recherche et
d‘Information sur le Sectarisme – European Federation of Centres of Research
and Information on Sectarianism) and other European organizations.
Moreover, I could have listed hundreds of individuals who have written about
cultic groups and/or who offer services to people believing such groups have
harmed them. Hence, scholars who generalize about ―the‖ ―anti-cult
movement,‖ when they have had at best superficial contact with only a few
organizations and individuals, make the same error as laymen and helping
professionals who generalize from their limited experience to the wide world
of cults/NRMs, in which there are thousands of groups. (Kropveld, p. 134)
I agree completely with Kropveld. I have worked in this field for over 20 years as a
member of the so-called ―anti-cult movement.‖ Yet I hardly know anything at all about
most of the organizations on Kropveld‘s list. I feel confident writing about ICSA (formerly
AFF -Langone, 2002), but I would not feel qualified to write about other organizations in
the list unless I at a minimum conducted in-depth interviews with people familiar with the

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 29
organizations. And I certainly wouldn‘t generalize from my N of 1 (ICSA/AFF) to the entire
group.
What body of evidence have sociologists used to make generalizations about the ―ACM‖?
Kropveld and a colleague searched approximately 20 databases ―for studies on individual
‗ACM‘ groups, and were unable to find even one sociological study that was systematically
researched‖ (Kropveld, 2003, p. 132). This lack of empirical data (surveys or in-depth field
work) is consistent with my own N-of-one experience at AFF. Until Eileen Barker began
attending our conferences a few years ago, the only sociologist who ever visited AFF, so far
as I can remember, was Dr. Larry Shinn, back in the early 80s, and he only stayed for a
couple of hours, mostly talking to my colleague Dr. Robert Schecter. I had some long and
interesting conversations with Dr. Thomas Robbins in the early 80s, but these were usually
about intellectual issues, not the ―ACM‖ as an organization.
Sociologists have correctly criticized my colleagues and me for sometimes over generalizing
from limited clinical observations to the broad population of ―cults.‖ But in my opinion
sociologists have had a huge blind spot when it comes to their own over generalizations
about the so-called ―ACM.‖
Scholarship on NRMs
Sociological research on NRMs has been reviewed elsewhere (e.g., Ofshe, 1991 Robbins,
1988).
Clinical experience, for the most part, has shaped the opinions of mental health
professionals, for better and worse. On the plus side, clinical experience can provide
profound insights into the dynamics of the individual case, which may sometimes illuminate
other cases. On the negative side, clinical experience tends to reflect selection factors (e.g.,
only psychologically troubled people come for counseling) that limit the generalizability of
the clinical findings.
I have argued elsewhere (Langone, 2002) that the driving force behind clinical interest in
cults/NRMs is the fact that some groups under some circumstances harm some people. We
can debate the merits of various theories advanced to explain this phenomenon. Given the
current state of empirical research in the area, we can debate the prevalence of harm within
and across groups. But that harm exists and is not inconsequential seems to me to be
beyond dispute. Collectively, my colleagues and I have worked with thousands of former
group-members. The ―bad‖ things that they report cannot all be simplistically attributed to
―face-saving‖ or ―sour grapes.‖ ―Atrocity tales‖ (a term some sociologists have used to
denigrate former member reports – Bromley, Shupe, &Ventimiglia, 1979) are often
―atrocity facts.‖ Moreover, psychological and physical pain can sometimes be severe
without being an ―atrocity.‖
During the past 10-15 years research-oriented clinicians and a few academic psychologists
have conducted empirical studies to help us better understand the nature and magnitude of
harm. There has also been some effort devoted to the question of prevalence
(Bloomgarden &Langone, 1984 Hulet, 1984 ICR Survey Research Group, 1993 Lottick,
1993 Zimbardo &Hartley, 1985.
Nature and Magnitude of Harm
In a review of the psychological literature, Aronoff-McKibben, Malinowski, &Lynn (2000)
conclude:
The available evidence warrants three conclusions: (a) persons entering cults do not
necessarily exhibit psychopathology (b) current cult members appear psychologically well-
adjusted generally, and demonstrate few conspicuous symptoms of psychopathology.
However, pathology may be masked by conformity pressures and demand characteristics