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.
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.
