Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 23
Exhibit A
Group Psychological Abuse Scale
Groups Rated by Dole: Iraqi Rulers Iraqi Insurgents Afghan Al
Qaeda Heavens Gate
Directions:
This rating scale is designed to evaluate certain aspects of religious,
psychotherapeutic, political, commercial, and other groups. Please
rate, as best you can, the degree to which the following statements
characterize the group under consideration. Rate each group
according to your knowledge (reading, television, radio, experience,
and observation) of how the group functions. Write in the number
of the best answer, using the following ratings:
1 =not at all characteristic
2 =not characteristic
3 =can't say/not sure
4 =characteristic
5 =very characteristic
Sub Scales with Examples:
COMPLIANCE. Example: Members are expected to serve the
groups leaders.
EXPLOITATION. Example: The group approves of violence against
outsiders.
(e.g., "satanic communists," etc.)
MIND CONTROL. Example: Mind control is used without conscious
consent of members.
ANXIOUS DEPENDENCY. Example: The group believes or implies
its leader is divine.
Scores
The score for each sub scale represents the mean of the seven item
means assigned to a factor (range per item 1.0-5.0). The Total
represents the mean of all 28 ratings. See Chambers et al. (1994)
for a description of this measure of the varieties of cultic abuse by a
particular group..
For this paper, as shown in Exhibit A, I selected two terrorist groups—the secularist Iraqi
Rulers (Baath party) before the Gulf War, the current Iraqi Insurgents—and two cultic
groups—the Afghanistan based Al Qaeda (Wahabbi Muslims) and the American Heaven‘s
Gate. I chose each group primarily on the basis of my familiarity with them through
reading, television, and /or radio. Although the GPA provided me with a common framework
with which to view the groups, I make no claim to the scientific rigor and objectivity of my
findings. Comparing case studies (Isaac &Michael, 2004) is a valuable exploratory method,
although differences cannot be tested for statistical significance, and my selection of the
four groups for convenience, rather than randomly, limits generalization.
To each of the four groups I applied the Directions for the Group Psychological Abuse Scale,
modified to stress my knowledge of the group. (The original scale asked former group
Exhibit A
Group Psychological Abuse Scale
Groups Rated by Dole: Iraqi Rulers Iraqi Insurgents Afghan Al
Qaeda Heavens Gate
Directions:
This rating scale is designed to evaluate certain aspects of religious,
psychotherapeutic, political, commercial, and other groups. Please
rate, as best you can, the degree to which the following statements
characterize the group under consideration. Rate each group
according to your knowledge (reading, television, radio, experience,
and observation) of how the group functions. Write in the number
of the best answer, using the following ratings:
1 =not at all characteristic
2 =not characteristic
3 =can't say/not sure
4 =characteristic
5 =very characteristic
Sub Scales with Examples:
COMPLIANCE. Example: Members are expected to serve the
groups leaders.
EXPLOITATION. Example: The group approves of violence against
outsiders.
(e.g., "satanic communists," etc.)
MIND CONTROL. Example: Mind control is used without conscious
consent of members.
ANXIOUS DEPENDENCY. Example: The group believes or implies
its leader is divine.
Scores
The score for each sub scale represents the mean of the seven item
means assigned to a factor (range per item 1.0-5.0). The Total
represents the mean of all 28 ratings. See Chambers et al. (1994)
for a description of this measure of the varieties of cultic abuse by a
particular group..
For this paper, as shown in Exhibit A, I selected two terrorist groups—the secularist Iraqi
Rulers (Baath party) before the Gulf War, the current Iraqi Insurgents—and two cultic
groups—the Afghanistan based Al Qaeda (Wahabbi Muslims) and the American Heaven‘s
Gate. I chose each group primarily on the basis of my familiarity with them through
reading, television, and /or radio. Although the GPA provided me with a common framework
with which to view the groups, I make no claim to the scientific rigor and objectivity of my
findings. Comparing case studies (Isaac &Michael, 2004) is a valuable exploratory method,
although differences cannot be tested for statistical significance, and my selection of the
four groups for convenience, rather than randomly, limits generalization.
To each of the four groups I applied the Directions for the Group Psychological Abuse Scale,
modified to stress my knowledge of the group. (The original scale asked former group
