Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1989, Page 20
often occurs in the company of other recently deprogrammed cult members, and is roughly
analogous to being placed in a psychiatric half-way house or day-treatment center for
substance abusers. It is at the rehab center that the former cult member begins to reorient
for his or her return to “normal” life (Kim, 1979). To avoid confusion, I will use the term
“deprogramming” re refer only to the second step of the above process (the intense
discussion). In keeping with my intent to describe deprogramming from the point of view of
its participants, I will (where appropriate) employ the terminology most frequently
employed by deprogrammers and their clients. Therefore, I will use the terms “snatch” or
“rescue” to denote the initial involuntary separation of the cultist from his or her cultic
milieu. (The issue of whether deprogrammers are in reality kidnapping their clients during a
“snatch” is considered in a later section of this chapter.) Finally, I will refer to the third and
last stage as the “rehab.”
Most researchers consider Ted Patrick (cf. Patrick, 1976) to have been the first
“deprogrammer,” and the first to conceptualize the process of joining and exiting a
destructive cult. Patrick believed that individuals were converted through “on-the-spot
hypnosis,” and that deprogramming worked by facilitating a process in which the cultist
comes out of an extended trance-state. The methods Patrick employed have been generally
regarded as highly confrontational. In describing his style, Patrick seemed to rely heavily on
cognitive restructuring, especially the use of questioning (Conway and Siegelman, 1978):
When you deprogram people, you force them to think … the only thing I do is
shoot them challenging questions … I shoot them the right questions, and
they get frustrated when they can‟t answer (pp. 65-66) … I start challenging
every statement the person makes … pushing it with questions … and when I
hit on that one certain point that strikes home, I push it … I stay with that
question … I keep pushing and pushing … (p.68)
Streiker (1984), in summarizing Patrick‟s approach, stated that “the key element in the
reversal of brainwashing is the skillful use of interrogation, asking the cult victim questions
which he or she cannot answer on the basis of the cult-formatted programming” (p.155).
By “repetitious questioning and quotations from literature to arouse doubts about the cult in
the individual” (Schwartz and Kaslow, 1982), deprogrammers force a “re-opening [of] the
subject‟s mind” to new information input (p. 20). The presentation of new information
serves to “debunk what the cult stand for, using logic and reason to counter the irrational
beliefs which have been instilled” by the cult (p.24).
Sylvia Buford, an associate of Patrick who has assisted him on many deprogrammings,
described the five stages of deprogramming:
1. Discredit the figure of authority: the cult leader
2. Present contradictions (ideology vs. reality): “How can he preach love when
he exploits people?” is an example.
3. The breaking point: When a subject begins to listen to the deprogrammer
when reality begins to take precedence over ideology.
4. Self-expression: When the subject begins to open up and to voice some of
his own gripes against the cult.
5. Identification and transference: when the subject begins to identify with the
deprogrammers, starts to think of himself as an opponent of the cult rather
than a member of it. (Stoner and Parke, 1977, p.231).

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1989, Page 21
Rudin and Rudin (1980) also described deprogramming as a process that “consists of asking
probing questions to shake the cult member‟s beliefs and then confronting him with the
duplicity and contradictions of the cult‟s doctrines” (p.122). Randy Heller (1982), author of
a deprogramming manual, echoed this emphasis on the cognitive realm in deconverting
cultists he called deprogramming a “communication process that can be best described by
one work – dialectics” (p. 54). Deprogramming “is not used to pronounce truth” [i.e., the
deprogrammer‟s truth] but is used instead “to seek fallacy…It causes a person to think” (p.
131). Heller distinguished between the deprogramming “event” (which may or may not
include “snatching”) and the deprogramming “process,” which he defined as “a type of
dialogue” (p. 131) and “a verbal form of communication that uses conversation, non-
directive counseling, journalistic presentation, dialectics, and cognitive therapy” (p.99).
During a deprogramming, the parties involved may talk about many things, including
“topics of sports, current events, old memories, or the things that people talk about in
everyday conversation” (p. 129).
Kevin Garvey, a well-known, full-time deprogrammer and exit-counselor described
deconversion (Garvey, 1988) as a four-step process that, for the cultist, begins with (1)
hostility, then moves toward (2) questioning and (3) volunteering of information, and ends
with (4) making connections. In Garvey‟s view, once the exit-counselor or deprogrammer
has won the cultist‟s respect (if not his or her trust), the conversation moves past initial
hostility into a period of prolonged, mutual questioning. Progress at this point can be seen
when the cultist begins to engage in “secondary questioning,” when one question leads to
several more questions. Soon thereafter, the cultist begins to volunteer information, which
according to Garvey involves the “cultist sharing his own information that confirms and
connects to the exit counselor‟s information.” Finally, the cultist begins to make connections
between the various materials and facts that have been presented, and active analyzing is
present on an emotional level, this leads to “great excitement.” Garvey‟s approach
emphasizes the cognitive and information-processing aspects of deprogramming, and
acknowledges the emotionally-charged experience of making personally meaningful
connections he believes it is at this point that the cultist has broken the “tape loop” of cult
dogma.
Ross and Langone (1988) defined deprogramming as the process of “providing information
and emotional support intended to generate questions, doubts, and critical thinking about
the cult” (p.65). The cultist and the deprogrammers, according to psychiatrist john Clark
and his associates (Clark et al., 1981), “spend several intense days discussing the cult‟s
doctrines and practices, especially its coercively manipulative methods of bringing about
and maintaining conversion to the cult‟s way.” Again, cognitive change and intervention are
emphasized: “The goal of deprogramming is to put the convert back in touch with his pre-
cult beliefs, values, and goals, and to help him re-establish the capacity to think
independently and critically…” (Clark et al, 1981, p.63). To produce this change,
deprogrammers resort to a “more directive procedure than is usually considered acceptable”
by most mental health professionals (Clark et al., 1981, p.64)
In contrast to Patrick‟s confrontational approach, former full-time deprogrammer Galen
Kelly described deprogramming to sociologist Willa Apel (1983) as “evolutionary.”
Deprogrammers, he stated, must focus on building rapport in order to “overcome the initial
hostility and fear on the part of the [cultist]” and “elicit his cooperation and rapport.” While
establishing rapport, deprogrammers “impart factual information” that can be broken down
into three categories: general information about cults, information about the “science of
mind control,” and theology (Appel, 1983, p. 149). In the second phase of the
deprogramming, the cultist is taken to visit various mental health experts and clergy who
“explain the nature of mind control and psychological manipulation used by cults,” and
“reveal the flaws in cult teachings and the discrepancies between the cult theology” and the