Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1994, Page 6
4. For 59 statements such as “The New Age is dangerous,” respondents were asked
“the extent to which you agree with the following statements: 5--strongly agree, 4--
agree, 3--neutral, cannot say, 4--disagree, and 1--strongly disagree.”
5. Panelists rated 39 items which described a “practice involving a child, teenager, or
youth” such as “Satanists stage an aggressive recruitment drive in area schools” on a
scale from “5--very beneficial, 4--beneficial, 3--neutral/cannot say, 2--harmful,” to “1
--very harmful.”
We wrote the items on the basis of New Age books, periodicals, advertisements, brochures,
focus groups, and on personal experience and expertise (Dubrow-Eichel &Dubrow-Eichel,
1985 Langone, 1989). We also added items concerned with cults and the occult about which
we have written (Dole &Dubrow-Eichel, 1985). We tried to use exact quotations when
possible. As reported in Dole et al. (1990, 1993), the items, presented in a longer form, were
pretested in three Delphic surveys and reviewed by three specialists on the New Age.
However, it is important to note that the three authors were sponsored by AFF and therefore
cannot be considered entirely objective.
Procedure
Fifty-one AFF board members, who had not participated in preceding surveys, were invited by
mail or in person to participate as specialists highly familiar with cults. Of these, 42 (84%)
provided usable responses. To this panel of Critics, we added 15 fellows of CSICOP (29%) as
specialists on pseudoscience.
Each of the 85 persons in the Expert panel had been randomly selected from a commercial list
or from New Age publications and invited by mail “as a leader who understands New Age
activities.” We concluded (Dole et al., 1993) that the Expert panel, because of an approximate
10% return from our mailings, was not necessarily representative, but other evidence
suggested that the Experts were indeed knowledgeable about the New Age. Many were
involved with New Age practices, and yet they were for the most part not zealots or cultists.
Data Analyses
After each of 196 items was rated by the Critics and Experts, we identified those that yielded
a mean at one of the two extremes of the five-step scale (1.00 to 2.00 and 4.00 to 5.00). We
also calculated percentages by panels and tested the significance of the differences.
We reasoned that items rated at one of the extremes by one or both panels would reflect a
strongly held view and be of particular interest. Also, we believed that they would be more
reliable. On the other hand, items that yielded moderate to neutral, cannot say, or no answer
(means of 2.01 to 3.99) by both panels would be eliminated from consideration here. For
example, a description of the New Age that seemed insufficient, a term that was unfamiliar to
most respondents, a statement that appeared ambiguous, or a practice that was unclear or
which the panelists felt depended on the circumstances would be discarded.
We also subjected the data to factor analyses, analyses of variance, and correlations with
religion, age, and gender, and analyzed written comments qualitatively (Dole, 1993 Dole et
al., 1990, 1993). These analyses are available from the authors on request.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1994, Page 7
Results and Discussion
Characteristics of New Age
Of 10 characteristics presented to the panels, 4 were supported strongly by most of the Critics
and 1 by the Experts (see Table 1*). Neither panel rated on average any criteria as not
characteristic.
The Critics, much more strongly than the Experts, considered characteristic of the New Age
“inadequate scientific data regarding effectiveness,” and “Create zealous promoters.” At least
three quarters of all respondents in both panels agreed about the characteristics “Eclectic
collection of psychological and spiritual techniques” and “Rooted in Eastern mysticism.”
These findings confirm the difficulty in defining the New Age movement but support
agreement about its eclecticism and Eastern origins (Lewis &Melton, 1992).
As in our Delphic study (Dole et al., 1990), the Critics were sensitive to the commercialism
they linked to the New Age, considered it cultic, and were skeptical of its claims. According to
Dole‟s qualitative study (Dole, 1993), the questionnaire omitted items that would have
characterized it as humane and tolerant.
Scientific Study
When the two panels were asked to rate six statements on their importance in a scientific
study of the effectiveness of a New Age program, Critics and Experts did not differ
significantly in agreeing that on average sources of funding, beliefs of the investigators, peer
review if published, behavioral measures, and use of a control group were important (rated
4.00 or above). These data are not presented in table form.
Beneficial and Harmful Terms
Of 82 terms associated with New Age, cult, and occult, the Critics rated 15 as harmful or very
harmful, but the Experts only 1 --fundamentalism (see Table 2). The Critics rated three
terms beneficial and the Experts eight. Only one item “psychology” attained an average above
4.00, although consciousness was close (3.94) among the Critics. Note that CUT and Church
Universal and Triumphant, which refer to the same religious group, were presented twice as a
check on reliability. The Critics were more consistent in their ratings than the Experts, who
gave CUT a more neutral rating, perhaps because of unfamiliarity.
The anticult orientation of the Critics appears to be reflected in their negative responses to
Scientology, Dianetics, cult, CARP, est, CUT, Lifespring, the Forum, Hunger Project, and TM.
Three New Age terms “Ramtha, channeling, and levitation” were included in the harmful
grouping. Only fundamentalism was rated harmful by the Experts, and it was the only
strongly rated term about which the two panels did not differ significantly. These findings
reflect the specific items about which the Critics were most strongly less tolerant than the
Experts as reported previously (Dole, 1993 Dole et al., 1993).
Statements Rated Agree and Disagree
Both panels were asked to rate their agreement or disagreement with 59 statements. The
Critics averaged strongly agree on 2 items and agree on 7, strongly disagree on 8 and
disagree on 13, whereas the Experts supported 2 statements at the 4.00 average level or
more, rated 1 statement disagree (see Table 3). The panels differed significantly on all of
these 33 statements however, there was no item on which both panels took an extreme
position.
*Because of their length, all tables are placed at the end of the article.