Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 66
When conversion occurs across religious traditions, the depth and breadth of change is
more conspicuous than conversion within a tradition because the convert typically takes on
a new language and new rituals (e.g., a person raised Christian who converts to Vedanta, a
monistic Hindu tradition). Because they are more conspicuous and deviate more from the
norm, such cross-tradition conversions are probably more likely to elicit social concern,
especially from religious authorities. Unfortunately, religious authorities might be less likely
to recognize and become concerned about within-tradition conversions to extreme or
potentially violent variants of the mainstream tradition. Or, if the religious authorities do
recognize the risk, they may not know how to deal with it effectively.
After people experience the fundamental worldview shift of conversion, their behavior,
thinking, and feelings will tend to accommodate to the fundamental assumptions of the new
worldview because of the normal human tendency to seek consonance among one‘s
behaviors, thoughts, and feelings (see Festinger‘s theory of cognitive dissonance—Festinger
&Carlsmith, 1959). Moreover, as time passes and they experience daily life within their new
worldview the converted become more comfortable in it (i.e., ―practice makes perfect‖).
Other group members, sometimes without realizing it, provide rewards and punishments
that tend to strengthen new converts' loyalty to the group. This is the ―acculturation‖ phase
of conversion.
Of course, the process of conversion and acculturation may occur with or without the
manipulative, directive presence of a cultic group.
The term ―backsliding‖ attests to the fact that conversions do not necessarily last, nor do
they maintain their initial level of intensity. The seeker who fervently commits to a religious
system might over time watch the fire within him turn to an ember or die. That is perhaps
the reason why so many religions are social affairs. Seekers need the reinforcement of their
fellows to maintain commitment as the fire of conversion cools. Moreover, the social bonds
people form within an ashram, church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or other group over
time provide new incentives to maintain the seeker‘s commitment to the group, incentives
that may come to be more important than the conversion experience. For people who are
born into a religious tradition and do not have the deepening experience of conversion,
social bonds are probably the primary affiliation motive.
Leaving Groups
Backsliding, paradoxically, is probably more of a problem in high-control cultic groups than
in mainstream traditions. Research (Barker, 1984 Wright, 1987) indicates that high
turnover characterizes cultic groups. Actually, this is not surprising, given the tensions and
conflicts that cultic groups tend to elicit. Because cultic groups are leader-centered and exist
essentially to fulfill the goals of the leader, they tend to place high demands on members‘
time and energy. The group‘s idealistic ideology and a collection of manipulative techniques
(e.g., guilt induction to persuade people to work harder) are used to manage the
interpersonal conflicts that arise in the demanding environment (e.g., ―God wants you to do
this. Don‘t undermine the Body of Christ by being a factious man.‖). Because the group‘s
ideology may have elements of magical thinking or may be based on an at best weakly
coherent worldview (e.g., Christian white supremacists whose racial views rest on a twisted
interpretation of the Bible), the leader must make sure that members are not exposed to
outside criticism of the group‘s worldview and do not have the time or mental energy to
think independently and critically about inconsistencies that they might observe, especially
inconsistencies concerning the leader‘s behavior. Hence, leaders tend to make sure that
their followers are hyperbusy, obsessed with completing projects vital to the salvation of the
world or some such cosmically important goal (Singer, 2003). Their exhausting participation
in the group‘s ―noble‖ efforts makes them feel part of an elite. The price they pay for the

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2006, Page 67
feeling of elitism is the suppression of their individuality, independence, and critical
thinking.
The conflict between elitism and self-suppression led one ex-member of a group to call his
cult a ―prison of specialness.‖ This conflict also helps explain why the concept of
dissociation, of internal ―splitting‖ of the self, resonates with so many ex-cult members. A
high-demand, high-control group puts members at war with themselves. Eventually, this
enduring inner conflict takes its toll and people leave their groups. Some leave feeling that
they are failures for not having had the strength to endure. Others might defect because
they are exposed to outside critical information, or they may share forbidden thoughts with
an intimate, or they may no longer be able to overlook the leader‘s inconsistencies (Wright,
1987). As one ex-member put it: ―The shelf on which I placed my rationalizations
collapsed.‖
Why Conversion to Extremist Groups?
The preceding exposition sheds light, I hope, on the conversion process. It suggests that
conversion to extremist or destructive groups is not that much different from conversion to
benign or mainstream groups. Why, then, do some join benign groups while others join
destructive groups, such as Aum Shinrikyo, which released sarin gas in the Tokyo subway in
1994?
Bad luck, in my opinion, has more to do with destructive conversions than is at first
apparent. Many people, especially adolescents and young adults, go through life transitions
or other difficulties that cause them to question the adequacy of the worldview that has
steered their lives and conclude that their lives aren‘t working for them. Such distressed
people may turn toward religion or some other cause as they seek a way out of their
difficulties. Chance factors may determine which of the myriad of available groups gets their
attention. One group member told me that he was browsing through the religion section of
a library when a book fell off the shelf and hit him in the head. He began reading it, liked
what the author said, and was captured by the idea that the book had fallen on his head
because God wanted him to follow this particular guru (which he later did). Other people
have joined groups because of chance encounters with recruiters on the street, or because a
friend in a group said ―come and check us out,‖ or because of a book, article, or Web site
they stumbled across. Rarely is the choice of a group affiliation the result of diligent
research and informed consideration of many alternatives. Since few groups present a
negative face to prospective members, luck may determine whether or not a seeker enters
a conversion pathway into a benign or a destructive group.
Cultural factors and trends might influence which groups or which types of groups a seeker
is most likely to encounter. In the 1960s and early 1970s, for example, many young
Americans searching for purpose and meaning were swept up in the revolutionary political
fervor of the time, a fervor that was religious in form, even though it may have been secular
in content. Most became involved in relatively benign organizations, while others got caught
up in violent groups, such as the Symbionese Liberation Army, which kidnapped and
indoctrinated heiress Patty Hearst. With the end of the Vietnam War, alternative political
groups lost their appeal and spiritual groups became more prominent (Kent, 2001). Social
commentators talked about the ―Jesus Revolution‖ and young people ―turning East‖ to refer
to conversions to Christian and Hindu/Buddhist groups, respectively. Although the cultural
climate does not determine what group a person will join, it can alter the probabilities with
regard to the kind of group he or she is likely to encounter and, hence, consider.
The personality, values, needs, and goals of seekers can also narrow the range of options to
which seekers might remain open. Thus, a practicing Christian youth going through a
troubled time may be open to groups that claim to be more ―authentic‖ Christians than
mainstream churches but be uninterested in guru or New Age groups. Similarly, a