Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1994, Page 56
Regarding the choice of factor analysis over discriminant analysis, we should find that if the
concept abuse is meaningful, then scales derived from factor analysis should discriminate
between noncultic groups and the varieties of cultic groups. Discriminant function analysis
could, indeed, later be applied to the factor analytically derived scales to predict group
membership. The result should be both statistically efficient and theoretically meaningful
discrimination of groups.
Instrument
A pool of items was created through several strategies. First, the 20 highest-rated items in
the Dole and Dubrow-Eichel (1985) study of cult dangerousness were included. Next,
Langone‟s (1992) model of respect/abuse as well as other theoretical formulations (Lifton,
1991 Ofshe &Singer, 1986 Singer, Temerlin, &Langone, 1990) were used to select
additional items. Lastly, the authors‟ clinical experience and conversations with other
experienced clinicians yielded other items. A pilot study that analyzed the responses and
comments of 12 former cult members resulted in further modification of the item pool. The
items that were ultimately chosen fell into three domains of interest: (1) the purpose of the
group, (2) the relationships within the group, and (3) the relationships with others outside the
group. In all, 112 items were selected and included in a much larger survey sent to former
cult members.
Subjects were instructed: “Please rate the degree to which the following statements ...
characterize the group ...according to your experience and observations ...of how [it] ...
ACTUALLY functioned ...1= not at all characteristic 2 =not characteristic 3 =can‟t say/not
sure 4 =characteristic 5 =very characteristic.”
Procedures and Subjects
A 20-page questionnaire booklet with explanations and consent forms was sent to 375
members of FOCUS (a national network of former cult members) and approximately 200
ex-cult members on the American Family Foundation‟s mailing list. (The precise number in the
group is not known because duplications to the FOCUS list were unfortunately not removed
before mailing.)
In addition, varying numbers of questionnaires were sent to 153 cult educators and
organizations, who were asked to distribute the questionnaire. Altogether 800 questionnaires
were mailed. Completed questionnaires were returned by 308 persons, a response rate of
about 35%. (The precise response rate cannot be determined because it is not known exactly
how many questionnaires given to experts and organizations were actually passed on to
ex-members.) Most of the respondents had contacted the American Family Foundation (AFF)
or the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) seeking information concerning cults. Approximately
37% of the subjects, however, had no or little contact with AFF or CAN and were presumably
given questionnaires by others.
This sample could be described as a combination of a network and a snowball sample. It is
not necessarily representative of the ex-cult population at large, but probably is reasonably
representative of that subgroup of ex-members who come into contact with cult education
organizations.
As questionnaires came in, they were given an identification number and separated from the
consent forms (which were placed in a safe deposit box) in order to ensure anonymity.
Although no subjects were formally interviewed, approximately one dozen initiated contact
with the investigators either by phone or mail. The most common and striking aspect of these
contacts was subjects saying that the questionnaire helped them better understand their
experiences. Most asked for additional questionnaires to give to friends who had also left
cults.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1994, Page 57
The subjects had involvements with a total of 101 groups, including Eastern, Bible-based,
political, and other types. The average length of membership was 6.79 years. Forty-three
percent reported obtaining leadership status in their group. Sixty percent left the group on
their own--that is, without formal outside assistance from exit counselors or mental health
professionals and not as a result of legal conservatorship. Ratings on five-point scales, with 2
being important and 1 being very important, revealed the following reasons for leaving their
group: time spent away from group, m=1.98 disillusioning experience with leader, m=1.65
becoming aware of being manipulated, m=1.59 and feeling abused and/or exploited,
m=1.73.
Forty-seven percent of the subjects were raised Protestant, 24% Catholic, 8% Jewish, and
8% other, with 13% reporting no childhood religious affiliations. Postcult religious affiliations
included 30% Protestant, 8% Catholic, 5% Jewish, 46% none, and 12% other.
Sixty-four percent of the subjects were female, 36% male. Subjects reported an average of
five persons in their family of origin. Sixty-seven percent reported that their parents were
living together at the time that the subjects joined the group. When asked how well their
families got along before the subject‟s cult involvement, 66% reported ?average? or ?above
average.? Sixteen percent reported that their family of origin‟s income, before taxes, was less
than $20,000 72% reported incomes between $20,000 and $100,000 12% indicated
incomes greater than $100,000.
Eighteen percent were married when they joined their group, with an average of two children
per couple. Forty-three percent of those who had been married reported that they did not get
along well in their marriage, with 40% reporting that they were separated or divorced at least
in part because of their group involvement.
Subjects reported that they had completed an average of 14.84 years of school at the time of
completing the survey. The average at the time of joining their group was 13.64 years.
Occupations at the time of group membership included 7% clerical, 4% craft, 1% labor, 1%
machine or transport operator, 3% managerial or administrative, 16% professional or
technical, 4% sales, 11% service, 6% none, 30% student, 16% other. Postcult occupations
were similarly distributed, except that fewer were now students (12%), and more were now
professionals (34%).
In summary, the sample consisted of individuals who became disenchanted after having made
substantial commitments to a wide array of cultic groups. In general, the subjects were raised
in the middle class they grew up in intact, supportive families, with moderate incomes, and
with childhood involvement in various mainstream religious denominations.
The subjects represent those people who are most likely to appreciate the nature and extent
of abuse in cults --that is, the victims. By factor analyzing their ratings we stand to develop
scales that differentiate various kinds of cultic abuse as well as an index of the extent of cultic
abuse. We assume this strategy will produce a much narrower range of variance than would
be the case if we had included noncult members and current members. But this does not
mean that we should not later include such groups.
Having built greater sensitivity into the scales by focusing on variances within former cult
members, subsequent applications to samples including other groups should produce even
stronger results. Reliability and validity statistics are probably attenuated by the constricted
sample and should increase in discriminative power with a broader sample. The choice of self-
described victims as the base sample is, therefore, not only theoretically appropriate but also
statistically conservative.