Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1996, page 58
Ethical Standards
for Thought Reform Consultants
Carol Giambalvo
Joseph Kelly
Patrick Ryan
Madeleine Landau Tobias
Abstract
A group of thought reform consultants, popularly known as exit counselors, propose
detailed ethical standards to guide this new profession. In addition to a preamble,
these standards include sections on the responsibility of consultants toward
professionalism, toward clients, and toward the public. The second section outlines
standards pertaining to the consulting relationship, confidentiality and records, and
financial matters. The third section is divided into subsections on educational
programs and advertising and presentation to the public.
Editor’s Preface
In the mid-1970s increasing numbers of parents began to consult mental health
professionals and clergy about their adult children‟s involvements in new religious groups
that many called cults. Parents reported that formerly well-adjusted and engaged young
adults (many were college students) changed radically, sometimes over a short period of
time. These young adults typically dropped out of school, shunned their families and friends,
and devoted themselves full time to working for these strange new groups to which they
had pledged their total allegiance. Many parents concluded that their children had
undergone a type of brainwashing.
Unfortunately for these parents, few helping professionals took their concerns seriously.
Most assumed that these parents were overprotective or that their children were merely
“going through a phase.” But a handful of professionals, including Dr. John Clark on the East
Coast and Dr. Margaret Thaler Singer on the West Coast, listened to the parents and began
to speak out publicly. Soon, small and loosely organized groups of parents began to form in
different parts of the country.
Several of these groups joined together to form the Citizens Freedom Foundation (CFF),
later renamed the Cult Awareness Network (CAN). CAN became the leading grassroots
organization for this movement. One informal group in Massachusetts gave birth, so to
speak, to the American Family Foundation (AFF), which has become the leading professional
organization concerned with cults and psychological manipulation. Both AFF and CFF/CAN
were chartered in 1979.
While these groups were developing, parents were doing what they could to rescue their
children and sometimes other family members from what were perceived as dangerous
situations. Through trial and error, the controversial process of deprogramming developed.
In the 1970s, for many parents, deprogramming became the preferred means of rescuing a
cult member. Although initially the term deprogramming encompassed interventions that
were voluntary (the cult member was free to leave at any time) and involuntary (restraint
was used for at least part of the time), in time the term came to refer primarily to
involuntary interventions. Much confusion occurs today when people mistakenly use
deprogramming in its original sense because they unintentionally give the impression that
they are talking about involuntary interventions when in fact they may be referring to
voluntary interventions.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1996, page 59
Even though incorrect, the widespread belief among many parents that (involuntary)
deprogramming was their best, if not their only option was not as unreasonable at that time
as it seems today. This belief was so widely held and so supported by media accounts that
several state legislatures considered conservatorship legislation, which would have enabled
the parents of a cult member to legally extricate him or her for psychiatric evaluation. Such
legislation was tantamount to a legalization of deprogramming. Though arousing passionate
opposition, this legislation garnered significant support. In New York State, for example, the
legislature twice passed the legislation, only to have it vetoed by the governor. Ultimately,
however, the opposition to deprogramming and the growing recognition of the effectiveness
of less restrictive alternatives ended all legislative efforts for conservatorship bills.
Deprogramming was controversial because it involved forcing a cult member to listen to
people relate information not available in the cults. Cult members were sometimes abducted
from the street although more commonly they were simply prevented from leaving their
homes, a vacation cabin, a motel room, or whatever location was chosen for the
deprogramming process. Deprogrammings often succeeded in extricating the family
member from the cult one study found a success rate of 63%.* Nevertheless,
deprogrammings failed more often than many persons realized and sometimes lawsuits
were filed against parents and deprogrammers.
Deprogrammings were arranged through informal, quasi-underground means. Much secrecy
surrounded the process for many years. Mental health professionals were almost always
“out of the loop” --in part because most did not want to become involved for ethical and
legal reasons and in part because their expertise was to a large extent irrelevant to the
deprogramming itself. The main role of the mental health professional was to help families
cope with their alarm about a family member in a cult and to help former cult members and
their families cope with the many problems that accompanied reentry into mainstream
society. However, sometimes mental health professionals, clergy persons, or former cult
members were able to persuade those still in a cult to talk voluntarily about their cult
involvements. Sometimes these conversations resulted in a decision to leave the cult.
Because of these successes, the legal risks entailed in deprogramming, and the ethical
discomfort many parents and deprogrammers felt, non-coercive means of helping cult
members reevaluate their cult affiliations began to get more attention. By the mid-1980s it
had become clear to many persons that what had come to be called exit counseling was at
least as effective as deprogramming and certainly was much less risky --psychologically as
well as legally. A few individuals committed themselves to doing exit counseling and refused
to do “involuntaries.”
Even within the exit counseling field, further branching off has occurred. Some tend to be
technique oriented and/or advance a particular religious perspective. Others are information
oriented. They introduce themselves as individuals with important information. Although
they may have a preference regarding how the cult member chooses to respond to that
information, they take pains to avoid manipulating the cult member.
During the past few years, some exit counselors, who prefer to be known as thought reform
consultants, have been trying to professionalize their field by establishing ethical and
competency criteria. Although this process of professionalization continues, the following set
of ethical standards developed by a group of exit counselors demonstrates how much this
field has developed during the past 20 years.
*M.D. Langone. (1984). Deprogramming: An analysis of parental questionnaires. Cultic Studies Journal, 1(1),
63B78.