Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1995, page 11
attitude survey), and categories are mutually exclusive (marital status) or
quantifiable (years in group)
Precise comparisons are easily available and meaningful (e.g., on personal
adjustment measures such as the MCMI with percentiles for normal young adults, for
ex-cult members, and for disturbed populations)
The measure‟s theoretical orientation is consistent with that of the investigator (e.g.,
Myers-Briggs conforms to Jungian typology)
By themselves, detailed questionnaires are awkward and insufficient measures of temporal
sequences, personal histories, and the full flavor of conversion, for instance, with its
predisposing factors and consequences during rehabilitation and recovery. A well-executed
case study, on the other hand, can account for such complexities and the particular
circumstances and experiences of the cult victim.
Case Studies of Children in Destructive Groups
These comments are intended to supplement the suggestions for using the clinical case
study with victims of cultic and other destructive groups. Ideally those who study children
in destructive groups should have first-hand familiarity with such children and with
representative destructive groups. The reader is cautioned, therefore, that I have never met
anyone who was below the age of 18 when in a destructive group. Furthermore, even
though for many years I was chair of an educational psychology department that included
many child psychologists, I do not claim to be an authority on young children. My
professional, scientific, and personal experience has been primarily with adolescents, young
adults, cult victims, and cults. I hope that others with more direct experience with children
will elaborate on these preliminary considerations. (Note that the foregoing “disclosure”
illustrates a major point in my conception of an effective case study --that is, share with
your readers your relevant limitations and biases.)
Research on children--and in the present instance, using case methods--differs in several
ways from research on adults. Because young people grow and change rapidly, often it is
necessary to use different methods and instruments for different age levels. Infants differ
from adolescents, for example, in their capacities to communicate. Well-designed studies of
the same individual over time (longitudinal design) can track changes and development, but
such studies are at risk because of the difficulty in adapting methods to developmental
stages, and because of attrition of subjects, investigators, and funding sources. Turning to
the child‟s environment --immediate contacts such as peers, parents, and teachers
external influences such as TV evangelists or computer games and various socioeconomic
and cultural factors --we need to take into account that the social and physical world may
vary substantially over time. This means that family membership in a destructive group may
not necessarily have constant and uniform effects, that such effects are extremely difficult
to tease out, that the child may change in responding to uncontrolled incidents, and that
those born into destructive groups may experience diminishing loyalty to the group over
time. A few examples: one parent may leave the group and attempt to remove the child in
the history of small religious communities, attrition of young members has often been a
problem a child may or may not have an accurate recollection of sexual abuse.
Special Skills
Knowledge of child development, child psychopathology, and child assessment is very
helpful for the researcher who wishes to prepare a clinical study of a child. Special skills in
child interviewing and in projectives and doll play are valuable when the child has yet to
develop good communication abilities. Because young children are suggestible and often
unable to separate fact from fantasy, they may be especially susceptible to investigator bias
(e.g., “How many times did Mr. Cult Leader ...”).
attitude survey), and categories are mutually exclusive (marital status) or
quantifiable (years in group)
Precise comparisons are easily available and meaningful (e.g., on personal
adjustment measures such as the MCMI with percentiles for normal young adults, for
ex-cult members, and for disturbed populations)
The measure‟s theoretical orientation is consistent with that of the investigator (e.g.,
Myers-Briggs conforms to Jungian typology)
By themselves, detailed questionnaires are awkward and insufficient measures of temporal
sequences, personal histories, and the full flavor of conversion, for instance, with its
predisposing factors and consequences during rehabilitation and recovery. A well-executed
case study, on the other hand, can account for such complexities and the particular
circumstances and experiences of the cult victim.
Case Studies of Children in Destructive Groups
These comments are intended to supplement the suggestions for using the clinical case
study with victims of cultic and other destructive groups. Ideally those who study children
in destructive groups should have first-hand familiarity with such children and with
representative destructive groups. The reader is cautioned, therefore, that I have never met
anyone who was below the age of 18 when in a destructive group. Furthermore, even
though for many years I was chair of an educational psychology department that included
many child psychologists, I do not claim to be an authority on young children. My
professional, scientific, and personal experience has been primarily with adolescents, young
adults, cult victims, and cults. I hope that others with more direct experience with children
will elaborate on these preliminary considerations. (Note that the foregoing “disclosure”
illustrates a major point in my conception of an effective case study --that is, share with
your readers your relevant limitations and biases.)
Research on children--and in the present instance, using case methods--differs in several
ways from research on adults. Because young people grow and change rapidly, often it is
necessary to use different methods and instruments for different age levels. Infants differ
from adolescents, for example, in their capacities to communicate. Well-designed studies of
the same individual over time (longitudinal design) can track changes and development, but
such studies are at risk because of the difficulty in adapting methods to developmental
stages, and because of attrition of subjects, investigators, and funding sources. Turning to
the child‟s environment --immediate contacts such as peers, parents, and teachers
external influences such as TV evangelists or computer games and various socioeconomic
and cultural factors --we need to take into account that the social and physical world may
vary substantially over time. This means that family membership in a destructive group may
not necessarily have constant and uniform effects, that such effects are extremely difficult
to tease out, that the child may change in responding to uncontrolled incidents, and that
those born into destructive groups may experience diminishing loyalty to the group over
time. A few examples: one parent may leave the group and attempt to remove the child in
the history of small religious communities, attrition of young members has often been a
problem a child may or may not have an accurate recollection of sexual abuse.
Special Skills
Knowledge of child development, child psychopathology, and child assessment is very
helpful for the researcher who wishes to prepare a clinical study of a child. Special skills in
child interviewing and in projectives and doll play are valuable when the child has yet to
develop good communication abilities. Because young children are suggestible and often
unable to separate fact from fantasy, they may be especially susceptible to investigator bias
(e.g., “How many times did Mr. Cult Leader ...”).
