Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 83
composite function that predicts to the outcome of anticipated affiliation, or negotiation with
a cult-by deciding whether to consider, accept or reject a hypothetical invitation to a cult
function. What ire these variables and what do they tell us about the dynamic process
whereby a student who has been approached by a cult member is open or closed to further
contact?
The five most important contributors to the student‘s affiliation decision are: (a)
(mediational) perceiving the prototypical member as possessing more positive
characteristics, such as, wise, honest, friendly, responsible (b) (contact) noticing (and
remembering) more positive features of the cult recruiter, such as, eye contact, enthusiasm
dress, voice (c) (mediational) interpreting the purposes of cults in less negative terms,
such as, to destroy freedom and the family, to rule the world (d) (contact) having
experienced the contact with a recruiter in a location that was one of the recruiter‘s private
channels, such as, a dinner, film, camp or auditorium not on school grounds, and (e) (pre-
contact) possessing a greater familiarity with spiritual vocabulary terms, such as,
meditation, spiritual community, cosmic consciousness.
The second five predictors, in order of the amount of variance they account for in the
outcome measure are: (a) (contact) not being with a large group of friends when the
contact was made with the recruiter (b) (contact) not being contacted by a recruiter who
was older and of the opposite sex (c) (mediational) perceiving cults to have more positive
purposes, such as personal development of members, protest social Injustice, lessen
cultural differences (d) (contact) noticing (and remembering) fewer negative features
about the recruiter, and (e) (contact) being approached by the recruiter in one of the
student‘s private channels, such as, home, friend‘s home, school, at work.
The final set of five variables that contribute significantly to the outcome, though less so
than those already mentioned, are. (a) (mediational) organizing the conception of cults
around a set of more positive descriptors, such as, worthwhile, responsible, pleasureable,
charity-minded (b) (pre-contact) being slightly less able to accurately identify the names of
many groups thought to be cults (c) (pre-contact) having reported hearing about more cult
and non-cult groups (d) (contact) not being approached by a recruiter when the student
was in a family setting, and finally, (e) (mediational) developing more positive affective
bonds to the recruiter, feeling more friendly, interested, pleased, and unafraid.
Conclusions and Discussion
This final section of our report will present an overview of major conclusions, mention
reservations in over generalizing these results, and suggest some future research directions.
(See Fig. 2, which summarizes our conclusions.)
A surprisingly sizable proportion of high school youngsters report having had personal
contact with a cult member, many of them on a number of different occasions. Some of
these students have joined cults or were thinking about joining. More than half of all
students surveyed were receptive to the possibility of attending a cult function if invited to
one, whether or not they had prior contact. Indeed, the majority of those never approached
by a cult recruiter expressed an interest in having some contact with a cult activity.
This high degree of contact and receptivity to some affiliation with cults must be evaluated
within the context of the overwhelmingly negative characterization of cults that these
students receive from both the media and their direct channels of communication. Despite
that negatively biased input and their generally negative evaluation of cult activities,
purposes, and cult recruiter features, many of these students remain open to considering an
invitation to a cult meeting. This is one reason why we conclude that the subject of a cult
recruitment attempt should not be viewed as a passive target overwhelmed by coercively
compelling ―mind control tactics.‖ In this initial stage of the contact-recruitment-conversion

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 2 No. 1 1985, Page 84
process, it is important to appreciate what that ―target person‖ brings Into the contact
setting, as well as focus upon the recruiter‘s strategies and tactics. It is not so much what
the cult recruiter says, does, or how he or she looks that directly influences the decisions of
the person contacted. Rather, it is the person‘s perception, evaluation, and interpretation of
the recruiter‘s impact features that figures prominently in the decision to accept, consider,
or reject a cult invitation.
Figure 2. Variables That Predict Who is Likely to Be Contacted and Who Will be Amenable
to Negotiation. (unavailable)
Our data force us to reject the notion of a random process by which someone gets
contacted by a cult member and by which a decision is made for future contact with a cult
group. Two discriminant function analyses enable us to make a highly significant
assignment of students to categories of approached/not approached, as well as to the
categories of would reject versus would consider/accept a recruitment invitation.
Only a few of the variables that influence the contact outcome also operate to influence the
affiliation outcome. Most notable of the variables playing a dual function in these decisions
are perception of the purposes of cults, and evaluation of the characteristics of a
prototypical member. Accordingly, we need to think of these two outcomes as qualitatively
distinct and not merely as sequential phases of unidimensional process. For example, extent
and nature of media exposure affects likelihood of contact, but is not relevant for likelihood
of affiliation. The same is true of father‘s status, grades, religious practices, and several
other variables. To understand the process by which the cult affiliation decision is made by
students who have been previously contacted, we must take into account the complex
interaction of pre-contact knowledge and values of the student, recruiter impact on the
student, the contact setting, and especially the student‘s cognitive transformation of these
inputs into affective ties, perceived congruence, and empathetic associations.
Attention should also be drawn to the rather small and subtle differences between the
groups on each of the outcome measures. Contacted students who would ―consider/accept‖
are not necessarily uninformed students, with low grades, shy, poor, or gullible. They have
lots of media exposure, average grades, know what cults are, engage in a moderate amount
of religious practices, and are undogmatic about being exposed to contrary views. They are
also more likely to come from high status homes. There is also a ―socially normative‖ look
to the youngsters who are willing to admit to being open to future association with a cult.
We found nothing deviant, nor even qualitatively distinct about them--as compared to
students rejecting the invitation. The major dimensions which seem to guide them away
from the ―reject‖ decision are: a) having developed more positive attitudes and values
about cults and the cult recruiter, and b) not having the contact made in the wrong setting
by an inappropriate recruiter.
These apparently subtle features of the ―contact-prone‖ and ―affiliation-prone‖ person
contrast with the starkly drawn journalistic and clinical case portraits of the ―cult seekers‖
and ―innocents‖ deceptively manipulated to become cult converts. (U.S. News and World
Reports, 1978 Conway &Siegelman, 1978 Richardson, 1978, among others). Our sample
is much younger than those typically studied, and we are dealing only with the initial stage
in a long, complex process of cult indoctrination. Perhaps there is a filtering or tracking
mechanism at various decision stages. At each stage, from initial contact to indoctrination to
conversion, ever more extreme reactions are demanded and more unique attributes called
for in recruits, loyal members, and deployable agents, (see Hirschman‘s important analysis
of the dynamics of ―exit, voice, and loyalty‖ in organizations, 1970). This is not to question
the validity of prevailing sociological conceptions of troubled-youths-in-distress, nor of
adolescents alienated from their families (Doress &Porter, 1978). But rather, to note that