Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1995, page 12
Sources
The fewer communication abilities and the more immature the child, the more an
investigator has to depend on sources other than self-report. Parents, teachers, police, and
selected peers can provide information, but it should be evaluated for accuracy. Facts (such
as having three witnesses independently report the same incident) are more reliable than
opinions. Also helpful are school, medical, and court records before, during, or after the cult
experience (especially reports by physicians, psychiatrists, counselors, social workers, and
psychologists, including psychometric scores, medical records, legal actions, etc.).
Information about the child-rearing environment may be gathered directly from group
publications or spokesmen (e.g., “The children chant for an hour before breakfast”), from
former members, from community observers (including local reporters, clergy, teachers,
police, and Better Business Bureaus). Publications from AFF and the Cult Awareness
Network are good sources. AFF‟s newsletter The Cult Observer, for instance, summarizes
media accounts related to cults worldwide. Whatever the sources might be, typically the
information obtained will require synthesis and interpretation.
Special Methods
Depending on the chronological and mental age of the child and the particular research
question, possible methods of inquiry include child and parent behavior rating scales, doll
play, draw-a-person, guess-who (sociometry), and projective techniques. Standardized
tests of intelligence, ability, achievement, reading level, personality, emotional state (e.g.,
anxiety, depression, traumatic stress), abnormal behavior, moral development, and so on
are especially valuable tools when they are psychometrically sound and have good norms.
(To select specific instruments, consult a clinical child psychologist, school psychologist, or a
panel of specialists.) Consider video and audio recording, as well as personal computer
applications. Logs, diaries, and journals kept by observers (e.g., parents, teachers) can be
useful. Eventually physical, psychiatric, and psychological examinations will need to be
integrated.
A longitudinal rather than a one-shot approach is especially desirable in studying children:
periodically repeat the same or calibrated instruments. Documented change in mental or
physical health or social adaptation for a single child in a destructive environment may not
justify a conclusion that the group was responsible. However, it lays the groundwork to
check out such a hypothesis with more subjects and a more elegant design.
In general, methods to study environments are adapted to the particular setting (e.g.,
residence halls, factory, school, family) and to the research question. Possible strategies for
assessing a child in a destructive group environment include ratings by selected informed
observers analyses of logs, diaries, journals, letters, and other personal documents written
by literate children, parents, or group members analyses of group leaders‟ own
self-descriptions and ethnography. As noted previously, coding systems should meet
standards of reliability, validity, and replicability, and should be consistent with an explicit
theory or deliberate nontheory of child development. Researchers should start with a review
of the substantial and often creative literatures about methods not only in child
development (see especially the classic by Rothney [1968]), but also in psychiatry, social
work, sociology, education, school psychology, social psychology, and anthropology.
Researchers should also consult specialists while developing the research proposal. Dozens
of standardized rating scales (Moos, 1985) of child-rearing practices, teacher behaviors,
institutional settings, and family environments may be applicable in whole or in part.
Sources
The fewer communication abilities and the more immature the child, the more an
investigator has to depend on sources other than self-report. Parents, teachers, police, and
selected peers can provide information, but it should be evaluated for accuracy. Facts (such
as having three witnesses independently report the same incident) are more reliable than
opinions. Also helpful are school, medical, and court records before, during, or after the cult
experience (especially reports by physicians, psychiatrists, counselors, social workers, and
psychologists, including psychometric scores, medical records, legal actions, etc.).
Information about the child-rearing environment may be gathered directly from group
publications or spokesmen (e.g., “The children chant for an hour before breakfast”), from
former members, from community observers (including local reporters, clergy, teachers,
police, and Better Business Bureaus). Publications from AFF and the Cult Awareness
Network are good sources. AFF‟s newsletter The Cult Observer, for instance, summarizes
media accounts related to cults worldwide. Whatever the sources might be, typically the
information obtained will require synthesis and interpretation.
Special Methods
Depending on the chronological and mental age of the child and the particular research
question, possible methods of inquiry include child and parent behavior rating scales, doll
play, draw-a-person, guess-who (sociometry), and projective techniques. Standardized
tests of intelligence, ability, achievement, reading level, personality, emotional state (e.g.,
anxiety, depression, traumatic stress), abnormal behavior, moral development, and so on
are especially valuable tools when they are psychometrically sound and have good norms.
(To select specific instruments, consult a clinical child psychologist, school psychologist, or a
panel of specialists.) Consider video and audio recording, as well as personal computer
applications. Logs, diaries, and journals kept by observers (e.g., parents, teachers) can be
useful. Eventually physical, psychiatric, and psychological examinations will need to be
integrated.
A longitudinal rather than a one-shot approach is especially desirable in studying children:
periodically repeat the same or calibrated instruments. Documented change in mental or
physical health or social adaptation for a single child in a destructive environment may not
justify a conclusion that the group was responsible. However, it lays the groundwork to
check out such a hypothesis with more subjects and a more elegant design.
In general, methods to study environments are adapted to the particular setting (e.g.,
residence halls, factory, school, family) and to the research question. Possible strategies for
assessing a child in a destructive group environment include ratings by selected informed
observers analyses of logs, diaries, journals, letters, and other personal documents written
by literate children, parents, or group members analyses of group leaders‟ own
self-descriptions and ethnography. As noted previously, coding systems should meet
standards of reliability, validity, and replicability, and should be consistent with an explicit
theory or deliberate nontheory of child development. Researchers should start with a review
of the substantial and often creative literatures about methods not only in child
development (see especially the classic by Rothney [1968]), but also in psychiatry, social
work, sociology, education, school psychology, social psychology, and anthropology.
Researchers should also consult specialists while developing the research proposal. Dozens
of standardized rating scales (Moos, 1985) of child-rearing practices, teacher behaviors,
institutional settings, and family environments may be applicable in whole or in part.
