Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2009, Page 9
groups was 26.75 years of age (SD: 12.26 Range: 0-60). The participants had belonged to
the group for a mean period of 9.83 years (SD: 9.55), and the mean time elapsed since
they had left the group until the day they participated in the study was 6.35 years (SD:
6.68).
At the time they completed the tests (n=99), 18 subjects (17.8%) had finished primary
education or the equivalent, 32 participants (31.7%) had finished secondary education or
vocational training programs or the equivalent, 22 subjects (21.8%) had completed a
diploma degree program, and 27 participants (26,7%) had higher educational qualifications.
Most of the participants (59.4%) described themselves as being of a Medium socio-
economic status, 20.8% of them described themselves as being Medium High (19.8%) or
High (1%), and the rest claimed to be Medium Low (12.9%) or Low (4%).
Of the 99 subjects who responded to the question that asked them to describe how they
had left the cultic group, excluding the three subjects who chose the option ―other‖, 61.5%
(59 participants) responded ―walk away, personal reflection” 25% (24) of the subjects
replied ―exit following counseling from a professional and/or family member/s and/or
friend/s” 11.5% (11) replied by “expulsion or invitation to leave by the group” and 2.1%
(2) responded that they left because of the ―dissolution of the group.” None of the
participants chose the option ―involuntary deprogramming.” We should stress that the
participants were able to choose more than one method of leaving the group, and so
frequently they chose the category ―personal reflection‖ plus another option. In such cases,
we considered the alternative option to that of personal reflection, so that the figure of
61.5% corresponds to those who responded only to this option, a total of 77 subjects. Of
the 98 participants responding as to whether they had at any time received support or
advice from a CAA, 29.6% (29 subjects) said they had, as opposed to 70.4% (69 subjects)
who responded they had not. We should stress that those who did receive such counseling
were not necessarily those who said they left the group following the counseling of a
professional, family member, and/or friend. Finally, 18.2% (18 persons n=99) were
receiving psychological attention at the time they participated in our study, although this
was not necessarily in relation to their group experience.
Reasons for Disaffiliation
A total of 91.1% of the subjects (92) completed the Cult Disaffiliation Factors scale correctly
without omitting any of the items. We calculated the item-total correlation values for all of
the items, which were, in general, adequate and greater than 0.30, with the exception of
item 4 (―actions taken by family members and/or friends‖), which had a lower correlation
value (rj(x-j) =0.19), indicating a weaker relation between this item and the scale total.
We evaluated reliability, estimated as the internal consistency of the 10-item CDF scale, by
calculating Cronbach‘s Alpha we obtained a value (alpha =0.77), which showed a
moderate degree of internal consistency for the scale. It was also noted that the only item
whose elimination would result in an increase in the scale‘s Alpha coefficient was item 4.
Thus, we discarded this item from the analysis, thereby increasing Cronbach‘s Alpha
coefficient for the CDF scale to 0.79. However, we considered this item as an independent
external factor of disaffiliation.
We next performed an exploratory factorial analysis with the nine remaining items, following
a prior analysis of the suitability of such a test, calculating Bartlett‘s sphericity test (p=0.00)
and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (0.76). The extraction method
used was that of Principal Components, and we employed the Varimax rotation method. The
analysis revealed a structure made up of two factors that accounted for 53.22% of the total
variance. The first of these factors (percentage of variance: 27.77% eigenvalue: 2.50)
consisted of the following five items: ―Questioning some of the regulations and obligations‖
(factorial load: 0.87) ―Restrictive life style in the group‖ (0.77) ―Experience of greater
groups was 26.75 years of age (SD: 12.26 Range: 0-60). The participants had belonged to
the group for a mean period of 9.83 years (SD: 9.55), and the mean time elapsed since
they had left the group until the day they participated in the study was 6.35 years (SD:
6.68).
At the time they completed the tests (n=99), 18 subjects (17.8%) had finished primary
education or the equivalent, 32 participants (31.7%) had finished secondary education or
vocational training programs or the equivalent, 22 subjects (21.8%) had completed a
diploma degree program, and 27 participants (26,7%) had higher educational qualifications.
Most of the participants (59.4%) described themselves as being of a Medium socio-
economic status, 20.8% of them described themselves as being Medium High (19.8%) or
High (1%), and the rest claimed to be Medium Low (12.9%) or Low (4%).
Of the 99 subjects who responded to the question that asked them to describe how they
had left the cultic group, excluding the three subjects who chose the option ―other‖, 61.5%
(59 participants) responded ―walk away, personal reflection” 25% (24) of the subjects
replied ―exit following counseling from a professional and/or family member/s and/or
friend/s” 11.5% (11) replied by “expulsion or invitation to leave by the group” and 2.1%
(2) responded that they left because of the ―dissolution of the group.” None of the
participants chose the option ―involuntary deprogramming.” We should stress that the
participants were able to choose more than one method of leaving the group, and so
frequently they chose the category ―personal reflection‖ plus another option. In such cases,
we considered the alternative option to that of personal reflection, so that the figure of
61.5% corresponds to those who responded only to this option, a total of 77 subjects. Of
the 98 participants responding as to whether they had at any time received support or
advice from a CAA, 29.6% (29 subjects) said they had, as opposed to 70.4% (69 subjects)
who responded they had not. We should stress that those who did receive such counseling
were not necessarily those who said they left the group following the counseling of a
professional, family member, and/or friend. Finally, 18.2% (18 persons n=99) were
receiving psychological attention at the time they participated in our study, although this
was not necessarily in relation to their group experience.
Reasons for Disaffiliation
A total of 91.1% of the subjects (92) completed the Cult Disaffiliation Factors scale correctly
without omitting any of the items. We calculated the item-total correlation values for all of
the items, which were, in general, adequate and greater than 0.30, with the exception of
item 4 (―actions taken by family members and/or friends‖), which had a lower correlation
value (rj(x-j) =0.19), indicating a weaker relation between this item and the scale total.
We evaluated reliability, estimated as the internal consistency of the 10-item CDF scale, by
calculating Cronbach‘s Alpha we obtained a value (alpha =0.77), which showed a
moderate degree of internal consistency for the scale. It was also noted that the only item
whose elimination would result in an increase in the scale‘s Alpha coefficient was item 4.
Thus, we discarded this item from the analysis, thereby increasing Cronbach‘s Alpha
coefficient for the CDF scale to 0.79. However, we considered this item as an independent
external factor of disaffiliation.
We next performed an exploratory factorial analysis with the nine remaining items, following
a prior analysis of the suitability of such a test, calculating Bartlett‘s sphericity test (p=0.00)
and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (0.76). The extraction method
used was that of Principal Components, and we employed the Varimax rotation method. The
analysis revealed a structure made up of two factors that accounted for 53.22% of the total
variance. The first of these factors (percentage of variance: 27.77% eigenvalue: 2.50)
consisted of the following five items: ―Questioning some of the regulations and obligations‖
(factorial load: 0.87) ―Restrictive life style in the group‖ (0.77) ―Experience of greater
