Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1989, Page 6
“Deprogramming” is a term applied broadly to activities and processes aimed at the
deconversion of a member of one of the controversial new religions, pseudoreligions, or
mass therapy “cults” (Clark, Langone, Schecter &Daly, 1981 Conway &Siegelman, 1978).
Deprogramming is a controversial and often secretive activity the first step (physical
separation from the cult) is sometimes conducted without the cult member‟s initial
voluntary agreement. Coercive persuasion (“brainwashing” or “mind control”) is the
justification for deconverson most often cited by deprogrammers, exit-counselors, and the
families that hire them (Barker, 1984 Beckford, 1985 Bromley, Shupe, &Ventimiglia,
1983 Shupe &Bromley, 1980 Sullivan, 1984) “mind control techniques” appear most
prominently in experts‟ definitions of destructive cult characteristics (Cole &Dubrow-Eichel,
1985 Sullivan, 1984). According to many practitioners, ex-members and several
researchers (Conway &Siegelman, 1978 Hassan, 1988 Patrick, 1976 Underwood &
Underwood, 1979 Zeitlin, 1985), cultic brainwashing may involve the induction and
maintenance of hypnotic or trance-like states of consciousness. Discussions with many
deprogrammers and ex-members indicate that they view deprogramming as a
predominantly cognitive-interpersonal process.
I began the process of systematically studying deprogramming by: (a) describing in detail
the general social contexts and interactions I observed throughout one 5-day
deprogramming (not the object of this study) (b) developing a Deprogramming Statements
Checklist, a coding strategy and manual specifically designed to study deprogramming and
(c) analyzing in detail changes in verbal content (using the Deprogramming Statements
Checklist) and cognitive processes (i.e., focus of attention, and quality of subjective
experience) during the three most significant deprogramming events.
The results of my study are presented in two issues of the Cultic Studies Journal, (this
special issue and a follow-up in a later issue).
In this issue, I first review the literature on cultic conversion, information processing,
attention, consciousness, deprogramming, and interaction analysis. I attempt to integrate
these seven research strands and relate them to the questions posed in my study. Next, I
detail my observations and review the audiotapes of Ken‟s deprogramming as a member of
the Hare Krishnas. These observations provide a qualitative context for the presentation of
quantitative data on verbal interaction, attention, and consciousness to be presented in the
subsequent Cultic Studies Journal article.
Ken‟s deconversion began as an “involuntary” deprogramming: His initial “snatch” involved
a clear message that he was not free to leave the deprogrammers‟ car. Soon thereafter,
however, he agreed to participate in the deprogramming and stated that he would not try to
leave it can be argued that the deprogramming had then become voluntary. My study
allowed for an initially involuntary process, but ultimately required the voluntary consent of
the deprogrammee before I could collect and utilize data. I began my observations of Ken‟s
deprogramming after he had agreed to stay and listen to the deprogrammers‟ information.
In addition, I obtained Ken‟s initial verbal consent to observe but later received a written
release. This method was reviewed and approved by the Committee on Studies Involving
Human Beings of the University of Pennsylvania.
Personal Experiences with Destructive Cults, “Mind Control,” and Deprogramming
Personal passions have often fueled and occasionally clouded both “sides” of the cult
controversy. It is therefore imperative to explicate clearly how personal experiences have
influenced the interpretation of information yielded from formal studies. Choosing to study a
topic related to the psychology of destructive cultism was not a difficult decision for me. As
a researcher, counselor, consultant, and psychologist I have been actively involved in this
field since April, 1975.
“Deprogramming” is a term applied broadly to activities and processes aimed at the
deconversion of a member of one of the controversial new religions, pseudoreligions, or
mass therapy “cults” (Clark, Langone, Schecter &Daly, 1981 Conway &Siegelman, 1978).
Deprogramming is a controversial and often secretive activity the first step (physical
separation from the cult) is sometimes conducted without the cult member‟s initial
voluntary agreement. Coercive persuasion (“brainwashing” or “mind control”) is the
justification for deconverson most often cited by deprogrammers, exit-counselors, and the
families that hire them (Barker, 1984 Beckford, 1985 Bromley, Shupe, &Ventimiglia,
1983 Shupe &Bromley, 1980 Sullivan, 1984) “mind control techniques” appear most
prominently in experts‟ definitions of destructive cult characteristics (Cole &Dubrow-Eichel,
1985 Sullivan, 1984). According to many practitioners, ex-members and several
researchers (Conway &Siegelman, 1978 Hassan, 1988 Patrick, 1976 Underwood &
Underwood, 1979 Zeitlin, 1985), cultic brainwashing may involve the induction and
maintenance of hypnotic or trance-like states of consciousness. Discussions with many
deprogrammers and ex-members indicate that they view deprogramming as a
predominantly cognitive-interpersonal process.
I began the process of systematically studying deprogramming by: (a) describing in detail
the general social contexts and interactions I observed throughout one 5-day
deprogramming (not the object of this study) (b) developing a Deprogramming Statements
Checklist, a coding strategy and manual specifically designed to study deprogramming and
(c) analyzing in detail changes in verbal content (using the Deprogramming Statements
Checklist) and cognitive processes (i.e., focus of attention, and quality of subjective
experience) during the three most significant deprogramming events.
The results of my study are presented in two issues of the Cultic Studies Journal, (this
special issue and a follow-up in a later issue).
In this issue, I first review the literature on cultic conversion, information processing,
attention, consciousness, deprogramming, and interaction analysis. I attempt to integrate
these seven research strands and relate them to the questions posed in my study. Next, I
detail my observations and review the audiotapes of Ken‟s deprogramming as a member of
the Hare Krishnas. These observations provide a qualitative context for the presentation of
quantitative data on verbal interaction, attention, and consciousness to be presented in the
subsequent Cultic Studies Journal article.
Ken‟s deconversion began as an “involuntary” deprogramming: His initial “snatch” involved
a clear message that he was not free to leave the deprogrammers‟ car. Soon thereafter,
however, he agreed to participate in the deprogramming and stated that he would not try to
leave it can be argued that the deprogramming had then become voluntary. My study
allowed for an initially involuntary process, but ultimately required the voluntary consent of
the deprogrammee before I could collect and utilize data. I began my observations of Ken‟s
deprogramming after he had agreed to stay and listen to the deprogrammers‟ information.
In addition, I obtained Ken‟s initial verbal consent to observe but later received a written
release. This method was reviewed and approved by the Committee on Studies Involving
Human Beings of the University of Pennsylvania.
Personal Experiences with Destructive Cults, “Mind Control,” and Deprogramming
Personal passions have often fueled and occasionally clouded both “sides” of the cult
controversy. It is therefore imperative to explicate clearly how personal experiences have
influenced the interpretation of information yielded from formal studies. Choosing to study a
topic related to the psychology of destructive cultism was not a difficult decision for me. As
a researcher, counselor, consultant, and psychologist I have been actively involved in this
field since April, 1975.
