Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1994, Page 4
Strongly Held Views About the New Age:
Critics Versus Experts
Arthur A. Dole, Ph.D., A.B.P.P.
University of Pennsylvania
Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
American Family Foundation
Abstract
In this article, one of a series based on surveys about the New Age, we compared “52
Critics” with 85 “Experts” in respect to their strongly held opinions as measured by
196 five-point Likert items. We selected for consideration those items concerning
cults, the occult, and New Age which were rated by one or both panels at the
extremes as indicated by means and percentages. Findings confirmed that defining
the New Age was difficult, but the panels agreed about its eclecticism and Eastern
origins. After redefining the New Age movement, we concluded that the most
strongly endorsed items supported and enhanced our previous findings: that the
Experts were more varied than the Critics‟ stereotype of the New Age, and that
mutual understanding and respect between the Judeo-Christian and New Age
paradigms were desirable.
In this article we compare two panels --one of Critics and the other selected as Experts” in
respect to their most strongly held opinions about the New Age. We defined a strong opinion
as an item in a survey that was endorsed at one of the extremes of a five-point Likert scale
by 80% or more of a group and which yielded an extreme group average. For example, the
term cult was rated 1.41 by the Critics and 91% considered it “harmful” or “very harmful.”
Background
This is one of a series of articles based on surveys about the New Age. We first applied a
Delphic method (Dole, Langone, &Dubrow-Eichel, 1990) to selected leaders of the American
Family Foundation (AFF) “a group critical of cults” and the Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of the Paranormal (CSICOP)”a group that is critical particularly of occult claims.
This panel of experts agreed that the New Age was cult like and somewhat harmful and that it
was “an eclectic collection of psychological and spiritual techniques that are rooted in Eastern
mysticism, lack scientific evaluative data, and are promoted by diverse ideological leaders
claiming transformative visions” (p. 69). One of the products of this study was a 196-item
questionnaire which assessed views about cultic, occult, and New Age terms, statements, and
practices.
We next reported on a survey of 58 Critics (not in the first study) and 85 Experts, selected
because of their familiarity with the New Age (Dole, Langone, &Dubrow-Eichel, 1993). When
26 factor scores were treated as dependent measures, the Expert panel differed significantly
from the Critics on 21 factors. We found that the panel of Experts on average rated New Age
terms and practices in the neutral to mildly beneficial range and agreed, but rather mildly,
with New Age beliefs. In comparison, the Critics were consistent with the previous panel (Dole
et al., 1990) in reflecting a severely negative view of the New Age. The Experts and Critics
agreed about the essential aspects of research on the New Age, the harmfulness of the occult,
and the eclectic character of the New Age, but the Experts rejected an essentially cultic
definition of it. However, the Experts were mildly negative in responding to cult items we
considered them much more tolerant of New Age practices and beliefs than the Critics.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1994, Page 5
In a separate report, Dole (1993) examined qualitatively the 86 written comments of the two
panels. In general, the findings were consistent with those yielded by the statistical analyses.
Thus, the Expert panel was much more tolerant about the New Age and cults than the panel
of Critics. The New Age was frequently characterized by the Experts as diverse, dynamic,
complex, humane, and spiritual. Dole concluded that skeptics and anticult specialists may
have to change their conceptions of the New Age.
In our reviews of the literature (Dole et al., 1990, 1993), we identified a number of
authorities in disciplines ranging from religious studies (Lewis &Melton, 1992) to clinical
psychology (Dubrow-Eichel &Dubrow-Eichel, 1988), and philosophy (Kurtz, 1989). A group of
theologians (LeBar, 1989) and an exit counselor (Garvey, 1992) have pointed out linkages
between the New Age and cults. Some writers (Ferguson, 1980 MacLaine, 1983) were
supportive and others (Gordon, 1988 Rosedale, 1989 Langone, 1989) critical of the New
Age, but few have attempted to examine systematically the opinions of informed adversaries,
neutral observers, or sympathizers. An exception is Feher‟s (1992) study of the views of
women astrologers in respect to the New Age.
In this article we analyze the two panels‟ responses to 196 items that were presented in five
groupings: characteristics defining New Age statements of importance for a scientific study
terms statements of opinion and practices associated with children, adolescents, and youth.
In order to supplement and expand the findings previously presented (Dole, 1993 Dole et al.,
1990, 1993), in this report we identify and consider critically those items that were strongly
rated by the Critics, the Experts, or by both panels, and we determine the extent, if any, to
which the two panels differ in mean ratings and in percentages.
Method
Panel Characteristics
The 58 Critics included executives, psychologists, professors, writers, and therapists all were
leaders of either AFF or CSICOP, whereas the Expert panel was comprised of managers and
publishers associated with New Age enterprises, chiropractors, teachers and trainers,
astrologers, and others. Members of both panels were close to 50 years of age and included
more men than women. The Experts belonged in larger proportion to unconventional religious
groups. For further details on the panel characteristics, questionnaire, procedure, and data
analyses, see Dole et al. (1993).
Questionnaire
For each of the 196 items, there was a five-step Likert-like response scale. The items were
presented in five groupings:
1. Ten characteristics of the New Age such as “rooted in Eastern mysticism” were
presented as “The following criteria have been suggested as defining the New Age ...
rate each 5--very characteristic, 4--characteristic, 3--cannot say, 2--not characteristic,
and 1--not at all characteristic.”
2. Respondents were asked to rate each of six statements which described “a scientific
study of the effectiveness of a New Age program ...5--very important, 4--important,
3--cannot say, 2--not important, 1--not very important.”
3. For 82 terms and concepts, such as “New Age Times,” “Sun signs,” and
“Hypnoregression,” panelists were instructed “indicate the extent to which you think
the term represents something beneficial or harmful: 5--very beneficial, 4--beneficial,
3--neutral/cannot say, 2--harmful, and 1--very harmful.”