Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1994, Page 62
F4: Anxious Dependency
Correlations
#Load Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Sc4 GPA h2 Description
232 .41 .41 .09 .21 .37 .41 .40 severe discipline kids
233 .44 .46 .18 .34 .47 .55 .45 terrible if leave
257 .56 .38 .16 .31 .55 .53 .47 punishment for dissent
274 .37 .30 .10 .30 .36 .39 .30 fear self-expression
278 .37 .38 .09 .23 .37 .40 .29 nothing without group
280 -.37 -.34 -.05 -.33 -.33 -.38 .27 friends and family okay
297 .32 .36 .11 .21 .35 .39 .22 nongroup frightening
304 .41 .28 .24 .32 .44 .48 .38 loyalty above all else
306 .35 .17 .36 .31 .34 .45 .28 totalitarian view
311 .45 .36 .43 .32 .50 .62 .51 deceit okay for religion
315 .47 .31 .31 .37 .51 .56 .41 only leaders true
317 .46 .44 .21 .19 .46 .51 .44 avoid family and friends
Summary GPA Index. As the sum of orthogonal subscales, the summary GPA index, or
scale, is a construction of the overall extent of abuse. The summary scale combines reliable
variances, as reflected in the internal consistency (alpha) coefficients of the subscales. The
subscales are refined abstractions, approximating simple structure. Conjugating (i.e.,
elaborating all the combinations of) these subscales will suggest various profiles that reflect
the theoretical varieties of psychological abuse. One possibility, for example, is high
Compliance, Anxious Dependency, and Mind Control, with low Exploitation. Another is high
Compliance with low scores on the other subscales. Still another is high Mind Control with low
scores on the other subscales. Although these profiles, or varieties of abuse, are theoretically
possible, some may not occur in nature (e.g., the last profile example). If given to enough
people from a wide enough spectrum of groups, the GPA Scale can help determine which
profiles nature indeed produces.
With regard to statistical efficiency, constructing a GPA summary scale from the refined
subscales has the same rationale as the derivation of orthogonal predictor variables in
multiple regressions, in that the use of orthogonal subscales (or orthogonal predictor
variables) helps avoid redundancies and consequent noncollinearity problems. The extent of
abuse reflected in the GPA Summary Index will be unchanged by the conjugation of varieties,
much as orthogonal variables can be entered into a regression equation in any order without
affecting the summary index. As a result, the GPA index should be a statistically optimal
measure of the extent of perceived abuse.
In practice, the above statistical optimization will be slightly compromised because the
subscales are modestly correlated (see Table 3). This is the price of imperfect simple structure
and of weighting each item in the scale by 1, instead of by the item‟s more refined factor
loading, when summing scores of subscales. Nunnally (1978) suggests, however, that such
refined weighting makes little difference in practice. This contention is supported by the fact
that the correlations between the subscales are much smaller than those between the items
within the subscales (summarized by the substantial Cronbach alphas).
These contrasting patterns of correlation generally support the convergent and discriminant
validities of the GPA scales, and suggest that efficient statistical discrimination is highly likely.
Furthermore, the predominantly orthogonal nature of the scales allows us to conjugate the
varieties of abuse, affording us powerful heuristic strategies for theory development. A
subsequent paper will elaborate upon the heuristic value of conjugating the GPA scales.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1994, Page 63
Table 3. Correlations Between Scales
Sc1 Sc2 Sc3 Sc4 GPA
Sc1: Compliance 1.00 .16 .36 .33 .70
Sc2: Exploitation .16 1.00 .21 .19 .63
Sc3: Mind Control .36 .21 1.00 .27 .59
Sc4: Anxious Dep. .33 .19 .27 1.00 .70
Group Psych. Abuse .70 .63 .59 .70 1.00
Psychological Rationale for Factor Names
Compliance. The concept of compliance is nearly self-evident in the factor loadings: sex lives
dictated (#01), sacrificing own goals (#04), intimacy dictated (#14), serving leaders (#18),
leaders making decisions (#21), and consulting leaders on decisions (#28). The group‟s living
together (#13) is not overtly reflective of compliance but becomes so when one considers
that such communal living is typically demanded by leadership and makes noncompliance to
group norms more difficult.
Most of the excluded but relevant items in Table 3 also describe compliance situations,
ranging from the minimum needed to meet the definition of compliance (#275, leaders are
obeyed) to fanatical devotion (#235, will die for leader). Items #231, #249, #262, and #263
(which relate to feelings of guilt, inadequacy, failure) describe the reactions of someone who
believes in compliance but, for whatever reason, does not measure up.
Exploitation. At first we wanted to label this factor ?power? but decided that the word was
too general in meaning. Many people can seek power ethically. For example, a benign political
or religious movement may seek to raise money (#19), recruit members (#27), or gain
political power (#06). These items reflect the power dimension of exploitation. A cult,
however, will tend to use unethical means to gain power. They manipulate, abuse, and use
people--that is, cults exploit people.
This sense of unethical means comes across rather clearly in other factor items, such as
approving of violence against outsiders (#12), threatening outside critics (#20), advocating
lawbreaking (#03), or directing women to use their bodies for the group (#02). The power-
seeking dimension of exploitation is also reflected in some of the excluded items in Table 3:
assets given to group (#222), lives at lower standard than leader (#237), and secret agency
supports (#305). Most of the other items reflect the manipulation/abuse/use component of
exploitation.
Mind Control. The items in the Compliance factor refer to behaviors that leadership values:
serve leader, follow group guidelines, live with other members, and so on. The items in Factor
3 (including most of the excluded items in Table 3) refer to a particular type of relationship
between the leaders and followers. Item #15 (people stay because deceived and
manipulated) captures much of the meaning of this factor.
Other items of the subscale and those included in Table 3 reflect methods by which leadership
sustains the deception: the leader criticizes members (#26), critical thinking is impaired
(#22), psychological pressure from leader (#25), members feel they are part of elite (#09)--
(this latter item is one of the few “carrots” among the many “sticks”).
Even most of the excluded items describe techniques for sustaining the deception and
dominance of the leader: questions are discouraged (#225), dissent is not tolerated (#243,