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.
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.
