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

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 38
affected by random or systematic measurement errors. As such, the factor analysis
represents a significant step in the empirical exploration of the cult experience.
Given these conclusions, what do those of us in the trenches do? We should keep three
concepts in mind: individuality, variety, and audience.
Our communications will, for the most part, be directed at eight audiences: (1) family
members seeking help (2) cultists who are willing to talk about their group involvement
(3) former cultists requiring assistance in adapting to post-cult life (4) the general public
(5) youth (6) former cultists who are unaware of helping resources (7) professionals
and (8) academicians. Each audience has different needs and backgrounds. Professionals
and academicians, for example, may expect more precision in terminology and an explicit
connection to prior professional or scholarly work.
As this study of the ex-cult member audience demonstrated, even within a particular
audience there will be different preferences. Some think “victim” is a harsh word some
think it is on the mark. Therefore, a program of education directed at any particular
audience ought to deliberately and intelligently use a variety of terms --but in a coherent,
meaningful way. Thus, one outreach effort may formulate the message in terms of
“psychological abuse,” while another formulates the message in terms of “spiritual trauma.”
Newspaper and magazine articles and talk show appearances are fleeting opportunities to
get the attention of an audience one wishes to educate. To talk about “spiritual trauma”
when addressing the readers of Christianity Today and “psychological abuse” when
addressing the readers of Psychology Today is not necessarily inconsistent (provided one‟s
message variants are conceptually integrated and not deceptive or otherwise manipulative)
it is merely a sign of respect and concern for one‟s audience. (See Litfin, 1982 for an
interesting discussion of the ethics of persuasion.)
Sometimes the use of multiple terms may be appropriate in order to emphasize that there is
no agreement on the most appropriate label for the phenomena under study. A recently
developed draft questionnaire, for example, states:
This brief survey will inquire into your experience --personal and professional
--with cultic and related groups that use highly manipulative psychological
techniques of persuasion and control to exploit members. Such groups may
be religious, psychotherapeutic, political, or commercial. A variety of have
been applied to these groups and their psychologically manipulative
processes, including: “thought reform,” “coercive persuasion,”
“brainwashing,” “mind control,” “charismatic groups,” “spiritually abusive
groups,” “high demand groups,” “new religious movements,” and “cult.”
Groups that cause the most concern tend to be leader-centered,
highly manipulative, exploitative, and totalistic (i.e., they dictate in great
detail how members should think, act, and feel).
Variety may be desirable --most of the time. But sometimes it may be counterproductive.
Each situation should be examined individually. With professional audiences, for example,
an endless variety of terms is counterproductive, for the function of the professional
community is to advance clarity and understanding. A variety of terms and concepts can be
temporarily useful only when a weeding mechanism separates the wheat from the chaff.
In order to contribute to the development of such a weeding mechanism, we would like to
recommend particular terms for particular purposes. Doing this, however, would be
premature. This study demonstrates two important points: (1) the terms we have
traditionally used in this field are inappropriate for many people in many situations (2)
people affected by cults (and we strongly suspect the same would be true of professionals