Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2009, Page 4
Leaving a cult is a matter that has received little attention and is probably the least
understood question related to the phenomenon (Wright, 1987). Empirical studies are few,
which tends to limit most works to a reiteration of the few findings actually made between
1980 and 1990. At the same time, the literature is dominated by theoretical contributions of
sociologists of religion, while very few studies have been carried out from a psychological
perspective. One of the main stumbling blocks this field of study faces is the intellectual
polarization among academics regarding such essential aspects as the denomination and
description of the observed phenomena. This fact is reflected in the frequent allusions in the
North American literature to two main stances adopted in the field (e.g., Winocur, 1996).
One of these is the so-called sociological approach, given that it is one primarily attributed
to sociologists, and above all to sociologists of religion, who in the main argue that the rise
of cults is due to the simple maturation of a trend initiated last century (Melton, 1997), and
which has been the precursor of a new era in North American religious worship (Robbins &
Anthony, 1982 Winocur, 1996). The dominant literature in this vein tends to refer to these
groups as ―new religious movements‖ and to see them as new, alternative belief systems
that, because they deviate from the dominant cultural context, are attacked. It has been
argued that claiming that individuals are drawn into cults by methods of brainwashing, or
that membership has psychopathological consequences contributes to these persons being
seen as a mental health problem (West, 1990) this supposes a ―medicalization‖ of religious
groups (Robbins &Anthony, 1982), or a pathologization of a deviation (Spilka, Hood,
Hunsberger, &Gorsuch, 2003). In general, this position holds that membership is free and
voluntary, and that the conversion and the experience of the members who commit
themselves to these groups is genuine. The studies conducted from this perspective,
primarily undertaken with active cult members whose participation has frequently been
agreed to with the full cooperation of the cultic group (Ayella, 1990), report either no or
only little evidence of psychopathology among them (Levine, 1984 Richardson, 1985,
1995). According to Saliba (1993), more than 75% of these studies tends to show that the
psychological profiles of the individuals evaluated were ―normal‖. Likewise, some authors
emphasize the existence of pro-social, functional, and adaptive consequences in these
groups (Anthony &Robbins, 2004), arguing certain beneficial effects for the health of cult
members (Anthony &Robbins, 2004 Galanter 1978 Richardson, 1995).
The second perspective, or mental health approach, has been mainly attributed to clinical
psychologists and psychiatrists (Spilka, et al., 2003). This position tends to emphasize the
manipulative practices that subordinate the health and well-being of the groups‘ members
to the benefit of the leaders or upper leadership of the groups, as elements that, unrelated
to the beliefs or doctrines of these groups, really define them. This is why, in addition to the
attribution of the name ―cult‖, a name with considerable repercussions in the media, other
names have been used that refer to the practices of these groups (e.g., psychologically
manipulative groups). Seen from this perspective, the cult member is considered a victim of
extreme forms of influence or tactics of coercive persuasion (West, 1990), both in their
recruitment and the way in which their commitment to the group is maintained (Zablocki,
1998). These studies are usually based on clinical observations and research with former
cult members, most of whom were seeking help related to their former cult experience. It is
claimed that the psychological pressure and the abuses practiced in the cultic groups result
in a certain degree of psychological distress in the members, who would be relatively
healthy in the absence of their cultic experience (Langone &Singer, 1994 Singer &Ofshe,
1990 Winocur, 1996). Special attention is paid to the findings that a high percentage of
former cult members sought psychological or psychiatric help in relation to the psychological
distress they suffered following their disaffiliation from the group (Winocur, 1996).
Significant clinical levels of distress have also been reported in various samples of former
members (for a review, see Aronoff, Lynn, &Malinoski, 2000). Based on these reports,
Leaving a cult is a matter that has received little attention and is probably the least
understood question related to the phenomenon (Wright, 1987). Empirical studies are few,
which tends to limit most works to a reiteration of the few findings actually made between
1980 and 1990. At the same time, the literature is dominated by theoretical contributions of
sociologists of religion, while very few studies have been carried out from a psychological
perspective. One of the main stumbling blocks this field of study faces is the intellectual
polarization among academics regarding such essential aspects as the denomination and
description of the observed phenomena. This fact is reflected in the frequent allusions in the
North American literature to two main stances adopted in the field (e.g., Winocur, 1996).
One of these is the so-called sociological approach, given that it is one primarily attributed
to sociologists, and above all to sociologists of religion, who in the main argue that the rise
of cults is due to the simple maturation of a trend initiated last century (Melton, 1997), and
which has been the precursor of a new era in North American religious worship (Robbins &
Anthony, 1982 Winocur, 1996). The dominant literature in this vein tends to refer to these
groups as ―new religious movements‖ and to see them as new, alternative belief systems
that, because they deviate from the dominant cultural context, are attacked. It has been
argued that claiming that individuals are drawn into cults by methods of brainwashing, or
that membership has psychopathological consequences contributes to these persons being
seen as a mental health problem (West, 1990) this supposes a ―medicalization‖ of religious
groups (Robbins &Anthony, 1982), or a pathologization of a deviation (Spilka, Hood,
Hunsberger, &Gorsuch, 2003). In general, this position holds that membership is free and
voluntary, and that the conversion and the experience of the members who commit
themselves to these groups is genuine. The studies conducted from this perspective,
primarily undertaken with active cult members whose participation has frequently been
agreed to with the full cooperation of the cultic group (Ayella, 1990), report either no or
only little evidence of psychopathology among them (Levine, 1984 Richardson, 1985,
1995). According to Saliba (1993), more than 75% of these studies tends to show that the
psychological profiles of the individuals evaluated were ―normal‖. Likewise, some authors
emphasize the existence of pro-social, functional, and adaptive consequences in these
groups (Anthony &Robbins, 2004), arguing certain beneficial effects for the health of cult
members (Anthony &Robbins, 2004 Galanter 1978 Richardson, 1995).
The second perspective, or mental health approach, has been mainly attributed to clinical
psychologists and psychiatrists (Spilka, et al., 2003). This position tends to emphasize the
manipulative practices that subordinate the health and well-being of the groups‘ members
to the benefit of the leaders or upper leadership of the groups, as elements that, unrelated
to the beliefs or doctrines of these groups, really define them. This is why, in addition to the
attribution of the name ―cult‖, a name with considerable repercussions in the media, other
names have been used that refer to the practices of these groups (e.g., psychologically
manipulative groups). Seen from this perspective, the cult member is considered a victim of
extreme forms of influence or tactics of coercive persuasion (West, 1990), both in their
recruitment and the way in which their commitment to the group is maintained (Zablocki,
1998). These studies are usually based on clinical observations and research with former
cult members, most of whom were seeking help related to their former cult experience. It is
claimed that the psychological pressure and the abuses practiced in the cultic groups result
in a certain degree of psychological distress in the members, who would be relatively
healthy in the absence of their cultic experience (Langone &Singer, 1994 Singer &Ofshe,
1990 Winocur, 1996). Special attention is paid to the findings that a high percentage of
former cult members sought psychological or psychiatric help in relation to the psychological
distress they suffered following their disaffiliation from the group (Winocur, 1996).
Significant clinical levels of distress have also been reported in various samples of former
members (for a review, see Aronoff, Lynn, &Malinoski, 2000). Based on these reports,
