Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 5, No. 6, 2006, Page 34
It might be possible that social environmental effects tend to contribute to the emergence of
DPD in susceptible individuals.
Ex-cult members who have just exited a cult environment have been observed to exhibit a
higher-than-normal incidence of dependent behaviors, anxiety, and depressiveness. Several
possible contributing factors in the development of dependency, anxiety, and
depressiveness in cult members can be identified. But first, as background, several possible
paths for the development of dependency are described below.
Dependency is explained by cognitive theorists as a cognitive style ―...in which an individual
perceives him- or herself as powerless, helpless, and unable to influence the outcome of
events‖ (Bornstein, 1993, p. 8). The inception of dependency is described by Bornstein as
occurring during infancy and early childhood. Possible influences for the development of
dependency are (1) overly authoritarian parents—who block development of autonomy by
taking away the child‘s decision-making power, and thereby prevent the child from
developing independent, autonomous behaviors (Bornstein, 1993, p. 41) or (2) overly
permissive, child-gratifying parents, who encourage dependence by overindulgence of every
whim and desire. If childhood dependency continues into adolescence and adulthood,
―[d]ependent behaviors may be directed toward any number of people who represent, in the
eyes of the dependent person, potential nurturers, protectors, or caretakers‖ (Bornstein
1993, p.13).
As adults, dependent persons tend to be more strongly influenced by authority figures than
their peers (Bornstein, 1993, p. 59), and they also tend to acquiesce to majority group
opinion more readily than nondependents (Bornstein, 1993, p. 58). In a very interesting
experiment that measured ―...whether dependent individuals would be more sensitive than
non-dependent individuals to warm versus cold treatment by a confederate‖ (Masling et al.,
1982, as cited by Bornstein, 1993, p. 66), the electrodermal skin responses of dependents
indicated that they responded more positively to ―cold‖ than to ―warm‖ treatment by a
confederate. And, by extension, ―cold‖ treatment of cult members by a cult leader could be
expected to be tolerated with little resistance by a dependent cult member.
Simpson and Gangestad (1991, as cited by Bornstein, p. 69) found that dependent
individuals perceive their relationship partners as being ―...highly committed to the
relationship and even tend to have a self-serving bias (i.e., distortion) ...perceiving greater
commitment in the partner than actually exists.‖ Extending this finding to cult members
might mean that dependent cult members tend to perceive the cult leader as being more
committed to them than the leader actually is. And so perhaps when the novice cult
member entering the cult is surrounded by an artificially created ―pink cloud‖ created by the
cult leader through the techniques of ―love bombing‖ and ―focused attention,‖ relatively
rapid attachment to the cult occurs.
Additionally, within group settings, Yalom states that groups exhibit an almost irrational
desire to find an authority figure, a parent, a rescuer—what Freud in 1955 (as cited by
Yalom, 1995, p. 296) referred to as the group‘s ―...need to be governed by unrestricted
force ...its extreme passion for authority ...its thirst for obedience.‖ Quite possibly, within
the cult, the cult leader, when he observes the behavior of novice cult members, intuitively
comes to understand that the group has a need for a strong leader, and then exploits this
need for his own illicit purposes.
Another possible influence on the emergence of DPD comes from evidence of a genetic
contribution this evidence comes from studies of identical twins who scored more similarly
on scales of submissiveness and dominance than did dissimilar twins (Gunderson &Philipps,
1995, p. 1451). However, even though there is some influence from genetic sources, most
researchers still believe that under normal circumstances, the strongest influence toward
It might be possible that social environmental effects tend to contribute to the emergence of
DPD in susceptible individuals.
Ex-cult members who have just exited a cult environment have been observed to exhibit a
higher-than-normal incidence of dependent behaviors, anxiety, and depressiveness. Several
possible contributing factors in the development of dependency, anxiety, and
depressiveness in cult members can be identified. But first, as background, several possible
paths for the development of dependency are described below.
Dependency is explained by cognitive theorists as a cognitive style ―...in which an individual
perceives him- or herself as powerless, helpless, and unable to influence the outcome of
events‖ (Bornstein, 1993, p. 8). The inception of dependency is described by Bornstein as
occurring during infancy and early childhood. Possible influences for the development of
dependency are (1) overly authoritarian parents—who block development of autonomy by
taking away the child‘s decision-making power, and thereby prevent the child from
developing independent, autonomous behaviors (Bornstein, 1993, p. 41) or (2) overly
permissive, child-gratifying parents, who encourage dependence by overindulgence of every
whim and desire. If childhood dependency continues into adolescence and adulthood,
―[d]ependent behaviors may be directed toward any number of people who represent, in the
eyes of the dependent person, potential nurturers, protectors, or caretakers‖ (Bornstein
1993, p.13).
As adults, dependent persons tend to be more strongly influenced by authority figures than
their peers (Bornstein, 1993, p. 59), and they also tend to acquiesce to majority group
opinion more readily than nondependents (Bornstein, 1993, p. 58). In a very interesting
experiment that measured ―...whether dependent individuals would be more sensitive than
non-dependent individuals to warm versus cold treatment by a confederate‖ (Masling et al.,
1982, as cited by Bornstein, 1993, p. 66), the electrodermal skin responses of dependents
indicated that they responded more positively to ―cold‖ than to ―warm‖ treatment by a
confederate. And, by extension, ―cold‖ treatment of cult members by a cult leader could be
expected to be tolerated with little resistance by a dependent cult member.
Simpson and Gangestad (1991, as cited by Bornstein, p. 69) found that dependent
individuals perceive their relationship partners as being ―...highly committed to the
relationship and even tend to have a self-serving bias (i.e., distortion) ...perceiving greater
commitment in the partner than actually exists.‖ Extending this finding to cult members
might mean that dependent cult members tend to perceive the cult leader as being more
committed to them than the leader actually is. And so perhaps when the novice cult
member entering the cult is surrounded by an artificially created ―pink cloud‖ created by the
cult leader through the techniques of ―love bombing‖ and ―focused attention,‖ relatively
rapid attachment to the cult occurs.
Additionally, within group settings, Yalom states that groups exhibit an almost irrational
desire to find an authority figure, a parent, a rescuer—what Freud in 1955 (as cited by
Yalom, 1995, p. 296) referred to as the group‘s ―...need to be governed by unrestricted
force ...its extreme passion for authority ...its thirst for obedience.‖ Quite possibly, within
the cult, the cult leader, when he observes the behavior of novice cult members, intuitively
comes to understand that the group has a need for a strong leader, and then exploits this
need for his own illicit purposes.
Another possible influence on the emergence of DPD comes from evidence of a genetic
contribution this evidence comes from studies of identical twins who scored more similarly
on scales of submissiveness and dominance than did dissimilar twins (Gunderson &Philipps,
1995, p. 1451). However, even though there is some influence from genetic sources, most
researchers still believe that under normal circumstances, the strongest influence toward
