Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1997, page 2
CONTENTS
Editor‟s Introduction 3
Hypnosis and the Iatrogenic Creation of Memory: on the Need 4
For a Per Se Exclusion of Testimony Based on Hypnotically
Influenced Recall
Robert A. Karlin &Martin T. Orne
False Memory and Buridan‟s Ass: A Response to Karlin and Orne 24
Alan W. Scheflin
The Individual Cult Experience Index: The Assessment of Cult 75
Involvement and Its Relationship to Postcult Distress
Nadine Winocur, Jonibeth Whitney, Carol Sorenson,
Peggy Vaughn, &David Foy
Book Reviews
Feet of Clay: Saints, Sinners, and Madmen, A Study of 86
Gurus by Anthony Storr
Reviewer: Frank MacHovec
Betrayal of the Spirit: My Life Behind the Headlines of 87
The Hare Krishna Movement by Nori J. Muster
Reviewer: Joseph Szimhart
Leaving the Fold edited by Edward T. Babinski 88
Reviewer: Rev. Walter Debold
A Time to Laugh by B. J. Oropeza 89
Reviewer: Frank MacHovec
The Dynamics of Religious Conversion by V. B. Gillespie 90
Reviewer: Frank MacHovec
The Prophet’s Children: Travels on the American 91
Left by Tim Wohlforth
Reviewer: Dennis Tourish
*Note: these pages referenced are different than the original published journal. Please check the end of each
article for the original pagination.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1997, page 3
Editor’s Introduction
The Cultic Studies Journal (CSJ) is pleased to present two more contributions by Professor
Alan Scheflin and Drs. Robert Karlin and Martin Orne pertaining to the Borawick decision on
hypnotically influenced testimony. In CSJ 13, 1, they commented on the case here, they
reply to their respective comments. We thank them for the exceptional level of scholarship
and courtesy they bring to these contentious issues. It is important to keep in mind that
their replies are part of a dialogue, and are not stand-alone articles. In reviewing their
contributions in this and the prior issue, I soon realized that it was not feasible for me or
reviewers to “referee” these replies in detail. They raise too many issues, many requiring
specialized expertise, for us to determine who is correct or incorrect about the many specific
points. Instead, we limited our editorial comments to general issues, stylistic matters, and
statements affecting the integrity of the dialogue. The authors‟ qualifications to speak on
the subject are beyond dispute.
They and others are likely to disagree with many specific points made in this discussion. CSJ
believes that these disputes can be most effectively aired, if not resolved, through dialogue.
The amount of dialogue published in future CSJs will depend on the quality and length of
submissions. If there is much commentary, AFF, the publisher of CSJ, will consider putting
out a special supplement on the issues raised by the Borawick decision. We look forward to
comments that strive to emulate the scholarship and civility demonstrated by Scheflin and
Karlin and Orne. We believe that these vital matters are directly relevant to CSJ‟s subtitle,
“Psychological Manipulation and Society.”
Karlin and Orne‟s and Scheflin‟s contributions clearly demonstrate that compelling cases can
be made on issues about which there is profound disagreement. If disputing parties do not
have an opportunity to dialogue at length and in good faith, then reason and scientific
evidence will play reduced roles in determining which perspectives eventually prevail with
regard to specific issues. AFF seeks to magnify the influence of reason and scientific
evidence in the evolution of this debate by providing an opportunity to continue this
stimulating exchange of ideas.
Michael Langone, Ph.D.
Editor