Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1989, Page 26
Studies of Voluntary Defectors and Research Critical of Deprogramming as an
Effective Intervention
Several researchers take strong issue with claims of deprogramming effectiveness, and they
dispute the existence of a relationship between cull involvement, “mind control” and “post-
cult syndromes” (and, by logical extension, deprogramming). Shupe and Bromley (1980)
and Solomon (1981) have noted that most cult “atrocity tales” have come from former
cultists who have undergone deprogramming. Kilbourne (1983) and Lewis (1986) have
suggested that post-cult reports of mind control and cult-induced psychological damage can
be attributed to socialization during the deprogramming process, as opposed to accurate
reports of experiences during cult membership.
Wright (1984) has criticized Conway and Siegelman (1982) and Skonovd (1981) for
presenting data on former cultists without distinguishing between the responses of
voluntary defectors and deprogramming. He presented data on 45 voluntary defectors from
cults, obtained from in-depth interviews Subjects were obtained through use of the
“snowballing” technique (respondents were solicited through use of posters and newspaper
ads in several Northeast universities). They represented three well-known cults: Unification
Church, ISKCON and Children of God/Family of Love. Wright admitted that the snowballing
sampling technique had several disadvantages chief among them the inability to estimate
sampling error.
When asked to assess their post-cult attitudes and reactions, Wright‟s (1984' subjects chose
between “Indifferent,” “Angry,” “Duped/brainwashed” and “Wiser for the experience.”
Wright found that most (67%) felt “Wiser for the experience” with only 9% and 7% feeling
“Duped/brainwashed” or “Angry,” respectively. Nondeprogrammed subjects generally left
their cults for one o: four reasons: (a) there was a breakdown in the member‟s isolation
from the outside world (b) the member became involved in a dyadic relationship in
violation of the communal context (c) perceived lack of success in achieving the cults
stated goal of world transformation and (d) inconsistencies between the ideals of the cult
and its actions.
Narrative responses suggested that defectors “often indicated a sustained affection or
appreciation for certain aspects of group involvement particularly with regard to the
development and maintenance of close interpersonal relationships within the movement
(Wright, 1984, p. 178) Wright noted the qualitative differences between subjects who might
have responded identically to some of his questions:
For a few, however, this same mode of response (“wiser for the experience” was a way of
saying that they had been able to salvage some positive thing out of something essentially
seen as negative. Without question, the, perceived their choice, in retrospect, as a mistake.
Yet, they could see some redeeming value in their involvement with the movement.
However, even allowing for the variation of responses within the category “wiser for the
experience,” what is readily demonstrated in these data is the almost complete absence of
brainwashing accusations. (Wright, 1984, p 178)
Wright (1984, pp. 178-179) stated that “accounts by voluntary defectors are generally
characterized by greater tolerance and flexibility in arriving at an understanding of one's
previous involvements” which he contrasted with the presumably “less tolerant attitudes of
their deprogrammed counterparts. In interpreting his data Wright concluded that “91% of
the sample felt their participation was entirely voluntary and specifically avoided the
language an, rhetoric of brainwashing.” In his conclusion, Wright compared the stages c
voluntary cult defection to those often experienced by divorcing couples.
Beckford (1985) also attempted to describe voluntary defectors (disengagers), from a cult
(the Unification Church) and distinguish them from deprogramees. His research drew from
Studies of Voluntary Defectors and Research Critical of Deprogramming as an
Effective Intervention
Several researchers take strong issue with claims of deprogramming effectiveness, and they
dispute the existence of a relationship between cull involvement, “mind control” and “post-
cult syndromes” (and, by logical extension, deprogramming). Shupe and Bromley (1980)
and Solomon (1981) have noted that most cult “atrocity tales” have come from former
cultists who have undergone deprogramming. Kilbourne (1983) and Lewis (1986) have
suggested that post-cult reports of mind control and cult-induced psychological damage can
be attributed to socialization during the deprogramming process, as opposed to accurate
reports of experiences during cult membership.
Wright (1984) has criticized Conway and Siegelman (1982) and Skonovd (1981) for
presenting data on former cultists without distinguishing between the responses of
voluntary defectors and deprogramming. He presented data on 45 voluntary defectors from
cults, obtained from in-depth interviews Subjects were obtained through use of the
“snowballing” technique (respondents were solicited through use of posters and newspaper
ads in several Northeast universities). They represented three well-known cults: Unification
Church, ISKCON and Children of God/Family of Love. Wright admitted that the snowballing
sampling technique had several disadvantages chief among them the inability to estimate
sampling error.
When asked to assess their post-cult attitudes and reactions, Wright‟s (1984' subjects chose
between “Indifferent,” “Angry,” “Duped/brainwashed” and “Wiser for the experience.”
Wright found that most (67%) felt “Wiser for the experience” with only 9% and 7% feeling
“Duped/brainwashed” or “Angry,” respectively. Nondeprogrammed subjects generally left
their cults for one o: four reasons: (a) there was a breakdown in the member‟s isolation
from the outside world (b) the member became involved in a dyadic relationship in
violation of the communal context (c) perceived lack of success in achieving the cults
stated goal of world transformation and (d) inconsistencies between the ideals of the cult
and its actions.
Narrative responses suggested that defectors “often indicated a sustained affection or
appreciation for certain aspects of group involvement particularly with regard to the
development and maintenance of close interpersonal relationships within the movement
(Wright, 1984, p. 178) Wright noted the qualitative differences between subjects who might
have responded identically to some of his questions:
For a few, however, this same mode of response (“wiser for the experience” was a way of
saying that they had been able to salvage some positive thing out of something essentially
seen as negative. Without question, the, perceived their choice, in retrospect, as a mistake.
Yet, they could see some redeeming value in their involvement with the movement.
However, even allowing for the variation of responses within the category “wiser for the
experience,” what is readily demonstrated in these data is the almost complete absence of
brainwashing accusations. (Wright, 1984, p 178)
Wright (1984, pp. 178-179) stated that “accounts by voluntary defectors are generally
characterized by greater tolerance and flexibility in arriving at an understanding of one's
previous involvements” which he contrasted with the presumably “less tolerant attitudes of
their deprogrammed counterparts. In interpreting his data Wright concluded that “91% of
the sample felt their participation was entirely voluntary and specifically avoided the
language an, rhetoric of brainwashing.” In his conclusion, Wright compared the stages c
voluntary cult defection to those often experienced by divorcing couples.
Beckford (1985) also attempted to describe voluntary defectors (disengagers), from a cult
(the Unification Church) and distinguish them from deprogramees. His research drew from
