Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 1998, page 60
surrounding the church because the real intent of the study was not to investigate, but to
exonerate (Balch &Langdon, 1998). Balch and Langdon also explained that the study had
been conducted hastily in an effort to defend CUT because it had publicly been likened to a
cult in Waco, Texas. Thus, according to Balch and Langdon, the researchers saw their
mission as one of defending freedom of religion rather than investigating whether any of the
myths they sought to dispel were actually true.
Research Questions
For a selected group of former members of CUT, we investigated the following four main
questions:
1. Perceived abusiveness and deception. To what extent do former members of CUT
perceive the group to be abusive (as measured by the Group Psychological Abuse
Scale), and how does this current perception compare to the understanding they had at
the time they first considered themselves members of the group? (If these two are
different, they may provide insight into the level of deception other researchers have
ascribed to cultic environments.) In addition, how do scale scores, obtained from a
sample of former CUT members, compare with previously investigated samples of ex-
members from other groups?
2. Psychological distress. What level of psychological distress (as measured by the revised
Symptom Checklist 90) do former CUT members report, and what factors are correlated
with these scores? Do people who experienced higher levels of psychological distress
rate the group as more abusive than those who experienced lower levels of
psychological distress?
3. Personalities of former CUT members. Do the personalities of former CUT members
differ from established norms (as measured by the revised Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire), and is there any indication that these scores may change over time?
4. Changes in close personal relationships. To what extent was the reported quality of
close personal relationships, such as with one‘s spouse, affected by involvement in CUT?
This and other information was obtained on a background questionnaire.
Method
Instruments
The present survey used several instruments: (a) two copies of the Group Psychological
Abuse scale (Chambers et al., 1994) (b) the revised Symptom Checklist 90 (Derogatis,
1994) (c) the revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck &Eysenck, 1994) and
(d) a 29-item background questionnaire, an adaptation and expansion of a form used by
Langone (1995) in a study investigating the BCC.
Group Psychological Abuse Scale. We used the Group Psychological Abuse (GPA) scale to
assess ex-members‘ current and pre-involvement (retrospective) perceptions of CUT. The
two GPA copies were identical except for the introductory paragraphs. One copy asked
respondents to respond according to ―your current understanding of CUT,‖ whereas the
other requested that they respond according to ―the way you would have responded when
you first joined the group.‖ To control for order effects, half of the surveys were sent out
with the post-involvement version to be filled out before the pre-involvement
(retrospective) one, and the other half of the surveys had the two versions stapled together
in reverse order. The instructional paragraphs to both versions requested that responses
reflect respondents‘ personal experiences and observations. The GPA scale consists of 28
items, 7 on each of four factors (subscales), which identify Compliance, Exploitation, Mind
Control, and Anxious Dependency as specific dimensions of group psychological abuse.
Scores on the Compliance subscale reflect beliefs about the degree to which an individual
surrounding the church because the real intent of the study was not to investigate, but to
exonerate (Balch &Langdon, 1998). Balch and Langdon also explained that the study had
been conducted hastily in an effort to defend CUT because it had publicly been likened to a
cult in Waco, Texas. Thus, according to Balch and Langdon, the researchers saw their
mission as one of defending freedom of religion rather than investigating whether any of the
myths they sought to dispel were actually true.
Research Questions
For a selected group of former members of CUT, we investigated the following four main
questions:
1. Perceived abusiveness and deception. To what extent do former members of CUT
perceive the group to be abusive (as measured by the Group Psychological Abuse
Scale), and how does this current perception compare to the understanding they had at
the time they first considered themselves members of the group? (If these two are
different, they may provide insight into the level of deception other researchers have
ascribed to cultic environments.) In addition, how do scale scores, obtained from a
sample of former CUT members, compare with previously investigated samples of ex-
members from other groups?
2. Psychological distress. What level of psychological distress (as measured by the revised
Symptom Checklist 90) do former CUT members report, and what factors are correlated
with these scores? Do people who experienced higher levels of psychological distress
rate the group as more abusive than those who experienced lower levels of
psychological distress?
3. Personalities of former CUT members. Do the personalities of former CUT members
differ from established norms (as measured by the revised Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire), and is there any indication that these scores may change over time?
4. Changes in close personal relationships. To what extent was the reported quality of
close personal relationships, such as with one‘s spouse, affected by involvement in CUT?
This and other information was obtained on a background questionnaire.
Method
Instruments
The present survey used several instruments: (a) two copies of the Group Psychological
Abuse scale (Chambers et al., 1994) (b) the revised Symptom Checklist 90 (Derogatis,
1994) (c) the revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck &Eysenck, 1994) and
(d) a 29-item background questionnaire, an adaptation and expansion of a form used by
Langone (1995) in a study investigating the BCC.
Group Psychological Abuse Scale. We used the Group Psychological Abuse (GPA) scale to
assess ex-members‘ current and pre-involvement (retrospective) perceptions of CUT. The
two GPA copies were identical except for the introductory paragraphs. One copy asked
respondents to respond according to ―your current understanding of CUT,‖ whereas the
other requested that they respond according to ―the way you would have responded when
you first joined the group.‖ To control for order effects, half of the surveys were sent out
with the post-involvement version to be filled out before the pre-involvement
(retrospective) one, and the other half of the surveys had the two versions stapled together
in reverse order. The instructional paragraphs to both versions requested that responses
reflect respondents‘ personal experiences and observations. The GPA scale consists of 28
items, 7 on each of four factors (subscales), which identify Compliance, Exploitation, Mind
Control, and Anxious Dependency as specific dimensions of group psychological abuse.
Scores on the Compliance subscale reflect beliefs about the degree to which an individual
