Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2009, Page 26
patient herself provided, there is no clear way to ascertain what, if anything, may have
further influenced the results. There are certainly many more important issues that one also
should address when treating exiting cult members (Langone, 1993 Robinson, Frye, &
Bradley, 1997). Certain family dynamics (Whitsett &Kent, 2003) and significant group-
oriented interventions must be taken into account (Perlado, 2003 Burghoffer, 2004) with
exiting members. A multi-modal approach may ultimately prove necessary to effectively
intervene with this unique population.
I had no way to accurately determine any premorbid characteristics or symptomatology with
Susan and she may have sustained a unique impact by having been raised in a cult
(Goldberg, 2006). Finally, despite the remission of the targeted symptoms, previously
mentioned, I interviewed Susan several times throughout the years following EMDR, and
she described ensuing difficulties. She is an exceptional woman who returned to college and
is currently enrolled (at the time I am writing this article). Since the EMDR treatment, Susan
has participated in more groups for exiting cult members. Unfortunately she lost primary
custody of her child, and she remains in supportive counseling through the present.
The results of this case, however, should lead clinicians to seriously consider the use of
EMDR as a protocol, or at least an adjunct, in successfully treating any exiting cult
members. And there is certainly a need for additional, well-controlled studies that explore
this seemingly effective intervention technique.
End Notes
[1] Francine Shapiro, originally a cognitive behavior therapist, developed EMDR as the result of her own
scare with cancer.
[2] Go to http://www.emdr.com/efficacy.htm for a more extensive efficacy/validation overview of
EMDR.
[3] Interviews with ex-JWs clarify that a detailed record of hours spent going door-to-door, as well as
of pieces of literature distributed, must meet certain standards otherwise, members are reprimanded
by the elders, and privileges are removed.
[4] For a summary of prevalence, see http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_topic/tp_prevalence.htm.
[5] You can access this information, and more, via the reFOCUS network Website at
http://www.refocus.org/postcult.html.
[6] The patient‘s identity, as well as any other distinguishing characteristics, have been changed to
protect confidentiality.
[7] The BDI-II is a popular, reliable, and valid measure of depression it has a test-retest stability of
.93 when taken at 1-week intervals, and the Total Scores are interpreted as follows: 0–13 minimal
14–19 mild 20–28 moderate and 29–63 severe.
[8] A 0–10 scale, on which 0 represents no disturbance, to 10, which represents the worst disturbance
the patient can imagine. J. Wolpe, M. D., originally developed this concept (Wolpe, 1974).
[9] A self-report scale from 1 to 7, on which 1 represents totally unbelievable, to 7 which represents
totally believable. F. Shapiro, Ph. D., developed this concept
[10] A self-report Likert-type scale, developed by M. Horowitz, N. Wilmer, and W. Alvarez, is a measure
of subjective stress and ranges from 1—―not at all‖ to 4—―often‖ the scores are interpreted as
follows: 0–8 Sub Clinical 9–25 Mild 26–43 Moderate more than 43 Severe.
[11] Note that the first measurement was taken just before the first EMDR session.
References
The American Heritage Dictionary (2001). (4th ed., Rev.). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.
patient herself provided, there is no clear way to ascertain what, if anything, may have
further influenced the results. There are certainly many more important issues that one also
should address when treating exiting cult members (Langone, 1993 Robinson, Frye, &
Bradley, 1997). Certain family dynamics (Whitsett &Kent, 2003) and significant group-
oriented interventions must be taken into account (Perlado, 2003 Burghoffer, 2004) with
exiting members. A multi-modal approach may ultimately prove necessary to effectively
intervene with this unique population.
I had no way to accurately determine any premorbid characteristics or symptomatology with
Susan and she may have sustained a unique impact by having been raised in a cult
(Goldberg, 2006). Finally, despite the remission of the targeted symptoms, previously
mentioned, I interviewed Susan several times throughout the years following EMDR, and
she described ensuing difficulties. She is an exceptional woman who returned to college and
is currently enrolled (at the time I am writing this article). Since the EMDR treatment, Susan
has participated in more groups for exiting cult members. Unfortunately she lost primary
custody of her child, and she remains in supportive counseling through the present.
The results of this case, however, should lead clinicians to seriously consider the use of
EMDR as a protocol, or at least an adjunct, in successfully treating any exiting cult
members. And there is certainly a need for additional, well-controlled studies that explore
this seemingly effective intervention technique.
End Notes
[1] Francine Shapiro, originally a cognitive behavior therapist, developed EMDR as the result of her own
scare with cancer.
[2] Go to http://www.emdr.com/efficacy.htm for a more extensive efficacy/validation overview of
EMDR.
[3] Interviews with ex-JWs clarify that a detailed record of hours spent going door-to-door, as well as
of pieces of literature distributed, must meet certain standards otherwise, members are reprimanded
by the elders, and privileges are removed.
[4] For a summary of prevalence, see http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_topic/tp_prevalence.htm.
[5] You can access this information, and more, via the reFOCUS network Website at
http://www.refocus.org/postcult.html.
[6] The patient‘s identity, as well as any other distinguishing characteristics, have been changed to
protect confidentiality.
[7] The BDI-II is a popular, reliable, and valid measure of depression it has a test-retest stability of
.93 when taken at 1-week intervals, and the Total Scores are interpreted as follows: 0–13 minimal
14–19 mild 20–28 moderate and 29–63 severe.
[8] A 0–10 scale, on which 0 represents no disturbance, to 10, which represents the worst disturbance
the patient can imagine. J. Wolpe, M. D., originally developed this concept (Wolpe, 1974).
[9] A self-report scale from 1 to 7, on which 1 represents totally unbelievable, to 7 which represents
totally believable. F. Shapiro, Ph. D., developed this concept
[10] A self-report Likert-type scale, developed by M. Horowitz, N. Wilmer, and W. Alvarez, is a measure
of subjective stress and ranges from 1—―not at all‖ to 4—―often‖ the scores are interpreted as
follows: 0–8 Sub Clinical 9–25 Mild 26–43 Moderate more than 43 Severe.
[11] Note that the first measurement was taken just before the first EMDR session.
References
The American Heritage Dictionary (2001). (4th ed., Rev.). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.
