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.”
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.”
