Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 40
proportion are clinical psychologists trained in programs approved by the American
Psychological Association and state-licensed or board-certified, as compared to the
proportions of professional practitioners in social work, psychiatry, mental-health
counseling, and the like, and to those with no credentials? What proportions use
unsubstantiated interventions? No contributor reports such data.
I recognize not one but several ―gaps.‖ The gap between academics such as the editors and
practicing clinical psychologists I attribute to two distinct cultures—the former demanding,
within a timeframe of years, publications, research, grants, and critical inquiry the latter
stressing immediate ethical, responsible services to clients who often present serious,
complex crises. This gap between the campus and ―the real world‖ also is found within law,
social work, psychiatry, and other professions.
Here is another gap: Well outside both these cultures are the quacks, frauds, hustlers,
popularizers, and cult leaders who feed on the gullible and often are motivated by money,
power, and sex. Both in her chapter (written with Abraham Nievod) in this book and
elsewhere, Margaret Singer and collaborators have discussed the New Age and crazy
therapies purveyed by the unqualified. Nona Wilson in her chapter on commercializing
mental-health issues describes how John Gray, Steven Covey, Tony Robbins, and Philip
McGraw profitably combine entertainment, advertising, and psychological advice. Of these
four, only ―Dr. Phil‖ has a legitimate degree in clinical psychology.
Except for the Singer-Nievod and Nona Wilson chapters, the contributors focus largely on
treatments rather than on clinicians or their patients. They stress the medical model of
research in which hypothesized cures for a specific disease are systematically controlled in a
laboratory, and sophisticated statistics are applied to precise measures. For the most part,
they ignore controversies with proponents of qualitative and longitudinal designs, and
studies that consider who does what to whom in real situations. For instance, the October
2004 Consumer Reports reported a survey of 3,079 readers who described themselves as
either depressed, anxious, or both. The article was supplemented by three, brief case
studies. ―Overall, adding talk therapy to medication produced more improvement‖ whether
the respondents saw a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker. According to Consumer
Reports, some of the many findings captured information that smaller, placebo-controlled
clinical trials cannot.
As I read Science and Pseudoscience... with its compact summaries of the hundreds of
controversial psychological tests, psychotherapies, and treatments for child and adult
problems, I realized that there are excellent opportunities for ICSA to collaborate with
psychologists such as the three editors. For example, we in the cult research area might
encourage more academic psychologists to join us in studying how destructive groups apply
psychological principles in harmful ways. Thus, a group that promotes a
pseudopsychotherapy might use personality tests in recruiting. Several cultic groups use
covert hypnosis and intensive persuasion. Some of Dr. Lilienfeld‘s contributors, for example,
might be invited to future ICSA conferences to craft a multidisciplinary study of Al Qaeda
that could contribute to the prevention of terrorism.
Deprogrammers have morphed into exit counselors and thought-reform consultants,
developed interventions by trial and error, and policed themselves with a code of ethics.
Scientific psychologists might work with them to answer such questions as 1) what specific
interventions are most effective, 2) what personal characteristics of thought-reform
consultants make a difference, and 3) over a period of months, how well do clients cope,
compared to untreated controls?
In their concluding chapter, Drs. Lilienfeld, Lynn, and Lohr, commendably, present a five-
point prescription for the field of clinical psychology: Formal training in critical-thinking
skills, identification of empirically supported and unsupported treatments, continuing
proportion are clinical psychologists trained in programs approved by the American
Psychological Association and state-licensed or board-certified, as compared to the
proportions of professional practitioners in social work, psychiatry, mental-health
counseling, and the like, and to those with no credentials? What proportions use
unsubstantiated interventions? No contributor reports such data.
I recognize not one but several ―gaps.‖ The gap between academics such as the editors and
practicing clinical psychologists I attribute to two distinct cultures—the former demanding,
within a timeframe of years, publications, research, grants, and critical inquiry the latter
stressing immediate ethical, responsible services to clients who often present serious,
complex crises. This gap between the campus and ―the real world‖ also is found within law,
social work, psychiatry, and other professions.
Here is another gap: Well outside both these cultures are the quacks, frauds, hustlers,
popularizers, and cult leaders who feed on the gullible and often are motivated by money,
power, and sex. Both in her chapter (written with Abraham Nievod) in this book and
elsewhere, Margaret Singer and collaborators have discussed the New Age and crazy
therapies purveyed by the unqualified. Nona Wilson in her chapter on commercializing
mental-health issues describes how John Gray, Steven Covey, Tony Robbins, and Philip
McGraw profitably combine entertainment, advertising, and psychological advice. Of these
four, only ―Dr. Phil‖ has a legitimate degree in clinical psychology.
Except for the Singer-Nievod and Nona Wilson chapters, the contributors focus largely on
treatments rather than on clinicians or their patients. They stress the medical model of
research in which hypothesized cures for a specific disease are systematically controlled in a
laboratory, and sophisticated statistics are applied to precise measures. For the most part,
they ignore controversies with proponents of qualitative and longitudinal designs, and
studies that consider who does what to whom in real situations. For instance, the October
2004 Consumer Reports reported a survey of 3,079 readers who described themselves as
either depressed, anxious, or both. The article was supplemented by three, brief case
studies. ―Overall, adding talk therapy to medication produced more improvement‖ whether
the respondents saw a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker. According to Consumer
Reports, some of the many findings captured information that smaller, placebo-controlled
clinical trials cannot.
As I read Science and Pseudoscience... with its compact summaries of the hundreds of
controversial psychological tests, psychotherapies, and treatments for child and adult
problems, I realized that there are excellent opportunities for ICSA to collaborate with
psychologists such as the three editors. For example, we in the cult research area might
encourage more academic psychologists to join us in studying how destructive groups apply
psychological principles in harmful ways. Thus, a group that promotes a
pseudopsychotherapy might use personality tests in recruiting. Several cultic groups use
covert hypnosis and intensive persuasion. Some of Dr. Lilienfeld‘s contributors, for example,
might be invited to future ICSA conferences to craft a multidisciplinary study of Al Qaeda
that could contribute to the prevention of terrorism.
Deprogrammers have morphed into exit counselors and thought-reform consultants,
developed interventions by trial and error, and policed themselves with a code of ethics.
Scientific psychologists might work with them to answer such questions as 1) what specific
interventions are most effective, 2) what personal characteristics of thought-reform
consultants make a difference, and 3) over a period of months, how well do clients cope,
compared to untreated controls?
In their concluding chapter, Drs. Lilienfeld, Lynn, and Lohr, commendably, present a five-
point prescription for the field of clinical psychology: Formal training in critical-thinking
skills, identification of empirically supported and unsupported treatments, continuing
