Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1991, Page 59
Leaving Cults: The Dynamics of Defection. S. A. Wright. Society for the
Scientific Study of Religion Monograph Series, Number 7, 1987.
“What is really demonstrated in these findings,” according to author Stuart A. Wright, “is
the almost complete absence of brainwashing accusations ...” by cultists and ex-cultists.
In this monograph, sociologist Wright compared 45 voluntary defectors with 45 members of
the Unification Church, Hare Krishna, and Children of God. Wright collected responses to a
structured questionnaire and interviewed each subject in depth for one to two hours. The
two groups were rather similar with regard to such characteristics as age, gender, pre-cult
religion, and so on. Wright first used the defectors‟ open-ended replies to illustrate
precipitating “factors” --insularity, dyad exclusivity, imminence of transformation, primary
group affectivity, and leadership. For each factor he proposed a hypothesis. Consider
“dyadic exclusivity” as an example of Wright‟s sociologese --if two cultists fall in love, they
tend to leave the group. He develops an overarching and complex theory of commitment to
explain why some cultists stayed and others left their groups.
In introducing his study, Wright described himself as having “evangelical leanings” he was
disturbed by the growth of the “Therapeutic State” and critical of the medical model. In
other words, he opposes government intervention in new religions (such as the U.S.S.R. has
done by hospitalizing political dissidents) and he criticizes the concept of cult mind control
as formulated by John Clark, Robert J. Lifton, and the anti-cult “zealots.” Apparently he did
not realize that today most mental health specialists who are knowledgeable about cults
argue that cult commitment in itself is not pathological. Although he expressed these
criticisms in both introductory and closing chapters, I found very little in the data (cultists‟
replies) to support them. Though well-expressed with suitable scholarly documentation, his
attacks on the anti-cult movement seemed to be directed at straw men of his own
construction. Of course, from the anti-anti-cult point of view his theories are conspicuously
and conceptually correct.
Considered by the standards of rigorous social science, however, the study --which was
based on a doctoral dissertation at the University of Connecticut --has very serious
weaknesses. The samples were small, and he did not demonstrate that they were
representative. To find voluntary defectors he advertised on college campuses and used a
“snowball” strategy with those who replied. The three cults provided access to participants
(is this like asking Saddam Hussein to help find a representative sample of Iraqis?).
Participants‟ replies were quoted selectively --that is, not all were clearly accounted for.
Obviously, since the defectors had not experienced exit counseling or rehabilitation, and
since neither defectors nor cultists had much exposure to CAN or AFF, they did not use
terms like mind control or brainwashing. (To my knowledge there is very little evidence as
to what proportion of voluntary defectors, for how long, and to what extent, if at all, remain
unconsciously under the control of their former religion.
(How common is floating?) Although the interview is the standard method of inquiry for
investigative reporters, it can be susceptible to bias.
(According to T. X. Barber in his book, Pitfalls in Human Research, when the investigator
designs, collects, classifies, and interprets work without objective verification, she or he is
committing serious “errors.”) Wright neglected to inquire about recruitment experiences,
nor did he report how long the defectors had been out of their cults. A less serious flaw: in
comparing the two groups, most of Wright‟s tables, based on replies to the questionnaire,
presented percentages horizontally but not vertically.
Because the monograph is tempting ammunition for those who deny “brainwashing,” let me
demonstrate how, by deliberate selective bias, I can make a case for mind control from the
published statements of Wright‟s informants. First, I will define “brainwashing” here (which
Leaving Cults: The Dynamics of Defection. S. A. Wright. Society for the
Scientific Study of Religion Monograph Series, Number 7, 1987.
“What is really demonstrated in these findings,” according to author Stuart A. Wright, “is
the almost complete absence of brainwashing accusations ...” by cultists and ex-cultists.
In this monograph, sociologist Wright compared 45 voluntary defectors with 45 members of
the Unification Church, Hare Krishna, and Children of God. Wright collected responses to a
structured questionnaire and interviewed each subject in depth for one to two hours. The
two groups were rather similar with regard to such characteristics as age, gender, pre-cult
religion, and so on. Wright first used the defectors‟ open-ended replies to illustrate
precipitating “factors” --insularity, dyad exclusivity, imminence of transformation, primary
group affectivity, and leadership. For each factor he proposed a hypothesis. Consider
“dyadic exclusivity” as an example of Wright‟s sociologese --if two cultists fall in love, they
tend to leave the group. He develops an overarching and complex theory of commitment to
explain why some cultists stayed and others left their groups.
In introducing his study, Wright described himself as having “evangelical leanings” he was
disturbed by the growth of the “Therapeutic State” and critical of the medical model. In
other words, he opposes government intervention in new religions (such as the U.S.S.R. has
done by hospitalizing political dissidents) and he criticizes the concept of cult mind control
as formulated by John Clark, Robert J. Lifton, and the anti-cult “zealots.” Apparently he did
not realize that today most mental health specialists who are knowledgeable about cults
argue that cult commitment in itself is not pathological. Although he expressed these
criticisms in both introductory and closing chapters, I found very little in the data (cultists‟
replies) to support them. Though well-expressed with suitable scholarly documentation, his
attacks on the anti-cult movement seemed to be directed at straw men of his own
construction. Of course, from the anti-anti-cult point of view his theories are conspicuously
and conceptually correct.
Considered by the standards of rigorous social science, however, the study --which was
based on a doctoral dissertation at the University of Connecticut --has very serious
weaknesses. The samples were small, and he did not demonstrate that they were
representative. To find voluntary defectors he advertised on college campuses and used a
“snowball” strategy with those who replied. The three cults provided access to participants
(is this like asking Saddam Hussein to help find a representative sample of Iraqis?).
Participants‟ replies were quoted selectively --that is, not all were clearly accounted for.
Obviously, since the defectors had not experienced exit counseling or rehabilitation, and
since neither defectors nor cultists had much exposure to CAN or AFF, they did not use
terms like mind control or brainwashing. (To my knowledge there is very little evidence as
to what proportion of voluntary defectors, for how long, and to what extent, if at all, remain
unconsciously under the control of their former religion.
(How common is floating?) Although the interview is the standard method of inquiry for
investigative reporters, it can be susceptible to bias.
(According to T. X. Barber in his book, Pitfalls in Human Research, when the investigator
designs, collects, classifies, and interprets work without objective verification, she or he is
committing serious “errors.”) Wright neglected to inquire about recruitment experiences,
nor did he report how long the defectors had been out of their cults. A less serious flaw: in
comparing the two groups, most of Wright‟s tables, based on replies to the questionnaire,
presented percentages horizontally but not vertically.
Because the monograph is tempting ammunition for those who deny “brainwashing,” let me
demonstrate how, by deliberate selective bias, I can make a case for mind control from the
published statements of Wright‟s informants. First, I will define “brainwashing” here (which
