7 VOLUME 6 |ISSUE 3 |2015
Definitions advanced by ICSA associates imply that the
term cult refers to a continuum, in which a large gray area
separates cult from noncult or they add qualifiers, such as
destructive, to the term cult. These definitions suggest that
there may be some debate about the appropriateness of
the term as applied to a specific group, especially when
available evidence indicates that the group is in or near the
gray area of the continuum. This debate can become more
acute when the group in question is one that varies among its
geographic locations, has different levels of membership with
correspondingly different levels of commitment, has changed
over time in the direction of greater or less “cultishness,” or is
skilled at public relations.
Because they tend to focus on certain practices and behaviors,
the definitions advanced by ICSA associates are implicitly
interactionist. Like all psychologically based models, they
presume that different people will respond differently to the
same group environment, much as identical twins can respond
differently to the same family environment. Cults are not all
alike. Nor are all cult members affected in the same way, even
within the same group. Nevertheless, a huge body of clinical
evidence leads ICSA associates to contend that some groups
harm some members sometimes, and that some groups may
be more likely to harm members than other groups.
Using the Term: Considerations
The concept cult, as with other concepts (e.g., right wing, left
wing), is a theoretical type against which actual groups are
compared as best as one can with the information at one’s
disposal. The theoretical type should serve as a benchmark,
not as an organizing structure that selects only those
observations that confirm a stereotype. It is vital that each
case be evaluated individually with regard to the group
environment and the person(s) interacting within and with
that environment.
Much as people may wish that it were so, the fact is that,
at least at present, no scientific “test” incontrovertibly
establishes whether or not a group is indeed a cult. ICSA’s
Group Psychological Abuse Scale (Chambers, Langone, Dole,
&Grice, 1994) initiated a series of research studies that have
increased our ability to measure psychological abuse, or
cultishness (Almendros, Gamez-Gaudix, Rodriguez-Carballiera,
&Carrobles, 2011). Nevertheless, much research remains
before even preliminary scientific opinions could be formed
about the cultishness of specific groups. Cult research is in
a stage similar to that of depression research when the first
objective measures of depression as a mental and emotional
state were being developed. The lack of objective measures
didn’t nullify the utility of definitions of depression then in use,
but the development of such measures enhanced definitional
understanding and classification reliability. In the years ahead,
we hope to see similar progress in cultic studies.
Because of the current ambiguity surrounding the term cult,
ICSA does not produce an official list of cults, even though
some people mistakenly interpret any list (e.g., a list of groups
on which we have information) as a list of cults. Such a list
would have little utility because there are thousands of groups
about which people have expressed concern, yet scientific
research has been conducted on few groups. A list could even
be misleading because some people might mistakenly think
that the label cult implies that the group in question has all the
significant attributes of the hypothetical type cult, when in fact
it has only some of those attributes. Conversely, some people
may mistakenly assume that because a group is not on the list,
they need not be concerned. Thus, when inquirers ask us, “Is
such and such a cult?,” we tend to say, “Study our information
on psychological manipulation and cultic groups, then apply
this information to what you know and can find out about the
group that concerns you.” Our goal is to help inquirers make
more informed judgments and decisions, not to dictate those
judgments and decisions.
We try to direct inquirers’ attention to potentially harmful
practices, rather than to a label. In essence, we say, “These are
practices that have been associated with harmful effects in
some people. To what, if any, extent are these practices found
in the group in question? And how might you or your loved
one be affected by these practices?” One of us (Langone) tries
to focus a family’s concerns by saying, “Assume, even if only
for the sake of argument, that your loved one were not in a
cult. What if anything about his or her behavior would trouble
you?” After the troubling behaviors are identified, then the
family can try to determine how, if at all, these behaviors
are related to the group environment. A label tends to be
superfluous at this point in the analysis.
Thus, we advocate a nuanced, evidence-based approach to
definition and classification. We do not ignore or disparage
evidence indicating that some groups may closely approach
the theoretical type, cult. Nor do we deny the necessity to
make expert judgments about whether or not a particular
set of group processes harmed a specific person or persons,
a judgment that mental-health clinicians and other
professionals sometimes have to make in therapeutic or
forensic contexts. We do, however, advocate that these kinds
of judgments should rest on careful analyses of structure and
behavior within a specific context, rather than a superficial
classification decision.
Such analyses sometimes result in the conclusion that some
groups that harm some people are not necessarily cults. A
new-age group that is neither manipulative nor authoritarian
might harm some people because it advocates a medically
dangerous diet or psychologically harmful practices. A church
may harm some believers because its pastor is domineering
and abusive. A psychotherapist may harm some patients
because the psychotherapist doesn’t adequately understand
how memory works and may, with the best of intentions,
If, however, we cannot
realistically avoid the term, let us at
least strive to use it judiciously.
Definitions advanced by ICSA associates imply that the
term cult refers to a continuum, in which a large gray area
separates cult from noncult or they add qualifiers, such as
destructive, to the term cult. These definitions suggest that
there may be some debate about the appropriateness of
the term as applied to a specific group, especially when
available evidence indicates that the group is in or near the
gray area of the continuum. This debate can become more
acute when the group in question is one that varies among its
geographic locations, has different levels of membership with
correspondingly different levels of commitment, has changed
over time in the direction of greater or less “cultishness,” or is
skilled at public relations.
Because they tend to focus on certain practices and behaviors,
the definitions advanced by ICSA associates are implicitly
interactionist. Like all psychologically based models, they
presume that different people will respond differently to the
same group environment, much as identical twins can respond
differently to the same family environment. Cults are not all
alike. Nor are all cult members affected in the same way, even
within the same group. Nevertheless, a huge body of clinical
evidence leads ICSA associates to contend that some groups
harm some members sometimes, and that some groups may
be more likely to harm members than other groups.
Using the Term: Considerations
The concept cult, as with other concepts (e.g., right wing, left
wing), is a theoretical type against which actual groups are
compared as best as one can with the information at one’s
disposal. The theoretical type should serve as a benchmark,
not as an organizing structure that selects only those
observations that confirm a stereotype. It is vital that each
case be evaluated individually with regard to the group
environment and the person(s) interacting within and with
that environment.
Much as people may wish that it were so, the fact is that,
at least at present, no scientific “test” incontrovertibly
establishes whether or not a group is indeed a cult. ICSA’s
Group Psychological Abuse Scale (Chambers, Langone, Dole,
&Grice, 1994) initiated a series of research studies that have
increased our ability to measure psychological abuse, or
cultishness (Almendros, Gamez-Gaudix, Rodriguez-Carballiera,
&Carrobles, 2011). Nevertheless, much research remains
before even preliminary scientific opinions could be formed
about the cultishness of specific groups. Cult research is in
a stage similar to that of depression research when the first
objective measures of depression as a mental and emotional
state were being developed. The lack of objective measures
didn’t nullify the utility of definitions of depression then in use,
but the development of such measures enhanced definitional
understanding and classification reliability. In the years ahead,
we hope to see similar progress in cultic studies.
Because of the current ambiguity surrounding the term cult,
ICSA does not produce an official list of cults, even though
some people mistakenly interpret any list (e.g., a list of groups
on which we have information) as a list of cults. Such a list
would have little utility because there are thousands of groups
about which people have expressed concern, yet scientific
research has been conducted on few groups. A list could even
be misleading because some people might mistakenly think
that the label cult implies that the group in question has all the
significant attributes of the hypothetical type cult, when in fact
it has only some of those attributes. Conversely, some people
may mistakenly assume that because a group is not on the list,
they need not be concerned. Thus, when inquirers ask us, “Is
such and such a cult?,” we tend to say, “Study our information
on psychological manipulation and cultic groups, then apply
this information to what you know and can find out about the
group that concerns you.” Our goal is to help inquirers make
more informed judgments and decisions, not to dictate those
judgments and decisions.
We try to direct inquirers’ attention to potentially harmful
practices, rather than to a label. In essence, we say, “These are
practices that have been associated with harmful effects in
some people. To what, if any, extent are these practices found
in the group in question? And how might you or your loved
one be affected by these practices?” One of us (Langone) tries
to focus a family’s concerns by saying, “Assume, even if only
for the sake of argument, that your loved one were not in a
cult. What if anything about his or her behavior would trouble
you?” After the troubling behaviors are identified, then the
family can try to determine how, if at all, these behaviors
are related to the group environment. A label tends to be
superfluous at this point in the analysis.
Thus, we advocate a nuanced, evidence-based approach to
definition and classification. We do not ignore or disparage
evidence indicating that some groups may closely approach
the theoretical type, cult. Nor do we deny the necessity to
make expert judgments about whether or not a particular
set of group processes harmed a specific person or persons,
a judgment that mental-health clinicians and other
professionals sometimes have to make in therapeutic or
forensic contexts. We do, however, advocate that these kinds
of judgments should rest on careful analyses of structure and
behavior within a specific context, rather than a superficial
classification decision.
Such analyses sometimes result in the conclusion that some
groups that harm some people are not necessarily cults. A
new-age group that is neither manipulative nor authoritarian
might harm some people because it advocates a medically
dangerous diet or psychologically harmful practices. A church
may harm some believers because its pastor is domineering
and abusive. A psychotherapist may harm some patients
because the psychotherapist doesn’t adequately understand
how memory works and may, with the best of intentions,
If, however, we cannot
realistically avoid the term, let us at
least strive to use it judiciously.
