Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 36
Charismatic Group .18 -.12 .45 -.18 -.23
4. Trauma
Psychological Trauma .27 .24 -.07 .79 .13
Spiritual Trauma -.01 -.06 .09 .72 .43
Coercive Persuasion .19 .27 .48 .56 .01
5. Abuse
Spiritual Abuse .11 .05 .10 .17 .85
Psychological Abuse .34 .29 -.09 .44 .60
Trust Abuse .06 .47 .19 .09 .58
A principal components analysis was conducted in order to ascertain the structure of the
ratings. Results indicated the presence of five components with eigenvalues greater than
1. Varimax rotation suggested the following factors: Mind Control, Social Manipulation,
Group Intensity, Trauma, and Abuse (see Table 4).
In order to determine the extent to which acceptability ratings differed across the factors,
the 20 terms were partitioned into subsets corresponding to the factors. The average rating
or “total score” for each factor was calculated for each subject. For example, the total score
for subject one on the Mind Control factor consisted of the average of his or her ratings on
the terms mind control, cult, brainwashing, and psychological manipulation. This procedure
was used instead of factor scores because available computer programs did not supply non-
normalized factor scores.
The mean acceptability ratings across all subjects were: Mind Control 2.86, Social
Manipulation 2.75, Group Intensity 2.71, Trauma 2.37, and Abuse 2.33. Analysis of variance
disclosed significant differences (F=7.32, df=4, 535, P.0001) among the means. The
Duncan procedure delineated two groupings: (Abuse and Trauma) vs. (Mind Control, Social
Manipulation, and Group Intensity). No other groupings were revealed.
Among the terms suggested by subjects were: destructive cult, spiritual disillusionment,
information disease, guilt inducement, total commitment, cultic, cult-like, thought reform,
mental abuse, authoritarian groups, hierarchical groups, manipulative groups,
psychologically manipulative groups, totalitarian groups, psychological rape,
headship/submission groups, fear-inducing groups, religious abuse, religiously exploitative,
group think, enforced lifestyle, emotional abuse, authority abuse, confidence game, high
pressure groups, Bible/Scripture abusers, disciple/discipling abusers, predatory spirituality,
con games, manipulative religions, cultic trauma group, cultic abuse victim, false religions,
dysfunctional organizations, professional deceptionists, closed intense groups, spiritual
blackmail, emotional blackmail, double-message groups, elitist groups, enmeshment, mind
rape, and religious addiction.
The terms and comments in the question asking for other terms were generally consistent
with the terms that received the highest ratings/rankings. Manipulation is a common
underlying theme throughout the list. There was, however, some disagreement about the
advisability of using the word “victim.” Some subjects obviously liked
terms implying victimization, e.g., “psychological abuse,” “mind rape.” Others thought
“victim” was negative:
[a word] that implies they have been taken advantage of (their consent) but not one
that refers to them as victims which in my opinion keeps them in the “cycle of
abuse.”

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 37
I think most walk-aways are quite defensive at first. “Victim” is a very harsh
concept.
Several expressed frustration over the question of terminology:
I can‟t figure out if you are assuming the walk-away knows he was in a cult. It took
months of therapy before I could even begin to look at the possibility I had been
manipulated. These terms are premature.
This question is nearly an impossible one for me to answer because I think that the
terms listed are all poor ones to use for people who are just beginning to “think”
after coming out of a group that uses “mind control.” I have seen someone who was
questioning “the church” who literally threw the Bible help book on the floor and
stormed out of the room because she read the definition of the term “cult.”
Discussion
The frustration expressed by several subjects is not foreign to those who help ex-cultists
and their families. Explaining the subtlety and complexity of the unethical social influence
observed in cults is difficult enough when one has a person‟s attention and plenty of time,
such as in anexit counseling. It is perhaps impossible to capture the essence of the
phenomenon in one term. Nevertheless, those of us engaged in counseling, consultation,
and education must attempt to communicate with our audiences, however imperfect that
communication may be. In academia, where one‟s words may be printed in a specialized
journal actually read by no more than several dozen colleagues, it is relatively easy to
establish a consensus regarding terminology. When, however, one is attempting to
communicate with thousands of people, for whom this subject is not a “specialty,” the
matter becomes a bit more slippery.
The results of this study testify to the difficulty of achieving consensus regarding
terminology. The results also suggest that no term will suffice for all people and all
situations. Some people will respond to “cult” others will be highly offended. Some may
respond to “psychological abuse” others may rebel against any term containing “abuse.”
Some may respond to “spiritual trauma” others may see their experience as neither
spiritual nor traumatic.
The factor analysis was particularly revealing. On the whole, subjects perceive Trauma and
Abuse as more acceptable than Mind Control, Social Manipulation, and Group Intensity. The
contrast between these two groups of factors may reflect a higher-order dimension of
effects versus processes. Trauma and abuse may represent the phenomenological effects of
processes that are generally misunderstood or repressed by cult walk-aways. The processes
of Mind Control, Social Manipulation, and Group Intensity, on the other hand, may serve as
abstract explanations that help parents understand the changes they have observed in
their children. Thus, during the years in which parents constituted the largest category of
help seekers, the second group of terms was most acceptable. But now that walk-aways
are seeking help in greater numbers, the first group of terms becomes attractive to more
people. In short, walk-aways may tend to relate to terms that describe what they actually
experienced (i.e., trauma and abuse), while parents and “educated” ex-cultists (i.e.,
those who were exit counseled or deprogrammed) may tend to relate to terms that explain
what the cultists experienced (i.e., mind control).
Although individual variation may be considerable, it should be kept in mind that the spread
of mean acceptability ratings, even though statistically significant, was relatively small.
Thus, none of the terms should be perceived as necessarily unacceptable at the individual
level. The results merely suggest nomothetic dimensions worthy of further study. The
meaningfulness of the factor loadings do, however, offer strong support for the coherence of
the ratings. The ratings probably do reflect meaningful constructions that have been little