Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 73
Knowledge of terminology attributed to new age groups by experts is found to be one of the
determinants of accepting/rejecting prospective inducements. But, it is a case of less
knowledge leading to greater receptivity, or of move knowledge resulting in rejecting cult
invitations. Among those not approached, having heard about ―cults‖, ―communes,‖ and
―sects‖ reduces the likelihood of affiliation relative to those students with less knowledge (p
values between p .05 and p .001). A similar set of results holds for those approached,
but they are not statistically significant. Indeed, those previously contacted, who have
acquired a vocabulary of terms related to cults and new religious movements are most likely
to reject affiliation with a cult.
The knowledge students develop about cults often comes packaged with a strong evaluative
component. Therefore, we must consider the Impact of mediated and direct channels of
communication on decisions to reject or accept cult invitations in terms of the positive-
negative nature of that information. In general, students are more likely to be receptive to
cult affiliation where they perceive the information they have gotten from the media is
positive toward cults, while those who believe cults are portrayed negatively tend to reject
the invitation. This pattern is significant for TV, radio, and newspaper presentations as
judged by those not approached (p values between .05 and .001), marginally so for
magazines. Those with contact are most likely to reject the cult invitation where the radio
programs they listen to are negative toward cults (p .05). They tend to be more rejecting
regardless of how cults are presented on TV, in newspapers, or magazines. Where books
they read and other media they are exposed to (leaflets, posters, etc.) are anti-cult,
rejection is more likely, while acceptance Is greater among students who are exposed to
pro-cult views in those media (p .05). It is not possible to determine any causal direction
in these results since: a) there may be selective exposure to biased points of view that fit
the student‘s already formed attitudes, b) those attributes may lead to distortion of an
assimilative nature in evaluating the position of certain media, or c) media evaluations of
cults may influence both student attitudes and their decisions to accept/reject a cult
invitation.
A fair number of students have had some direct information about cults, that is, delivered
by other people. Among those not approached, the most powerful effect of information bias
on affiliation decision is that from friends or relatives. The majority of students who report
those portrayals as negative reject the invitation (57%), while more of those receiving
positive cult views accept the invitation (60%) (p .05). There is also a tendency to accept
the invitation by students not approached if one of their friends or relatives is positive about
cults. But negative information from such sources does not influence their decisions to
either accept or reject the invitation.
Contact variables exert a strong impact on a student‘s expressed desire to accept or
consider a cult invitation. The greater the number of prior contacts with cult members, the
larger the percentage of students who are open to further affiliation (p .05). If the initial
contact was effective in getting the student actually to go to a second event, she/he
becomes more willing to endorse the Idea of attending some future event. Although not
many students did attend an event suggested by the cult member who contacted them,
doing so reduced their resistance to further affiliation. For example, of the 41 students who
went to a general introductory meeting, 31, or 76%, would accept the hypothetical
invitation, in contrast to the 58@, of the 482 contacted students who did not go to that
event and who rejected the invitation (p .001). Similarly positive decisions were made by
those who went to a lecture (15/18, 83%, p .01), film (8/9, 89%, p .05), camp
meeting (10/15, 67%, n.s.), dinner (8/13), 62%, n.s.), or workshop (9/16, 56%., n.s.).
Where the contact took place and the recruiter‘s activities, dress, and behavioral style all
affected the student‘s decisions to accept/reject a cult invitation. The greatest facilitation of
acceptance to further affiliation occurred when the initial contact location was either one of

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 74
the student‘s private channels or the recruiter‘s private channels. The majority of those
contacted were open to invitation if the contact were made: in a friend‘s home (42/56,
72%, p .001), on school grounds (42/66, 64%, p .01), at camp (18/24, 75%. p .01),
or in an auditorium (22/30, 73%, p .01). No significant effects were found relating
contact locations to accept/reject future Invitation when the location was a public one for
both recruiter and student.
It made no difference on the decision for the future affiliation if the contact was made when
the student was alone or in a small or large group. Surprisingly, the sex and age of the
recruiter relative to that of the student also has no measurable impact in the hypothetical
decision to affiliate. There is, however, a non-significant trend for contact with same age,
peer cult members to be related to greater openness to further affiliation than when contact
was made with older recruiters.
The recruiter‘s activities that may be related to rejection of the future invitation were:
selling a product or ware (60% rejection), seeking donations (58%) rejection, or providing
information (56% rejection). When the contact was perceived as one in which the cult
member was recruiting, then that activity had most relative impact on the subsequent
decision to accept the hypothetical invitation -half of the 226 uncontacted students would
accept and half reject it. The majority of contacted students who did not think the cult
member was trying to recruit them (59%) rejected the invitation (p .05).
A systematic and strong effect emerged from the relationship between student evaluations
of recruiter impact features and the subsequent decision to attend the hypothetical cult
event, as can be seen in Table 4.
With few exceptions, the same behavior, costume, activity, and product being distributed by
the cult recruiter elicited negative reactions and subsequent rejection by many students, or,
in other students, positive reactions associated with a receptivity to further contact. What
―works‖ for some targeted students works against developing favorable attitudes in others.
This divergence is clearly apparent in the case of the recruiter‘s display of affection. A nearly
equal percentage of students react positively as react negatively--and those reactions, in
turn, are associated with approach or avoidance of future contact. The same result recurs in
much of the rest of this data set. At the same time, it is instructive to note the minority
decision, that is, many students who react negatively to the recruiter still go on to
consider/accept the future invitation, while many of those on whom the recruiter had a
positive impact decide they want no further contact--even in the hypothetical instance.
These specific reactions to the recruiter merge into more global impressions that we tried to
tap by semantic differential scales of interest/disinterest, friendly/unfriendly,
pleasant/angry, unafraid/afraid. The majority of students disinterested in the recruiter
rejected the invitation (218/318, 69%), while those who were interested (48/62, 77%)
accepted it, as did those who reacted more neutrally (72/114, 63% p .001). In like
fashion, those who felt unfriendly or angry at the recruiter were much more likely to reject
the invitation. Where the contact resulted in friendly feelings or pleasant reactions, the
majority of students were open to further association. However, students with mixed or
neutral reactions on these dimensions of friendliness and pleasantness tended to reject the
invitation (p values for these patterns of results exceed the .001 level). Regardless of how
they responded on the dimension of afraid to unafraid, the majority of students--of those
afraid, neutral, and even unafraid--rejected the future invitation. Perhaps defining oneself
on a fear dimension is sufficient to create a negative reaction to the object of that
judgment.