P.O. Box 2265 • Bonita Springs, FL 34133 USA [email protected] • www.icsahome.com • 239.514.3081 – Special Monograph Edition – of Volume 8, Number 2, 2017 The History of Credibility Attacks Against Former Cult Members Stephen A. Kent, Kayla Swanson University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada International Journal of Cultic Studies Co-Editors Carmen Almendros, PhD, Associate Professor in Clinical and Health Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Dianne Casoni, PhD, Full Professor, École de criminologie, Université de Montréal; Associate Professor of Psychology, Université de Québec à Montréal, Canada Rod Dubrow-Marshall, PhD, Professor of Psychology and Visiting Fellow, Criminal Justice Hub, University of Salford, United Kingdom About the International Journal of Cultic Studies The International Journal of Cultic Studies (IJCS) is a refereed annual journal that publishes scholarly research on cultic phenomena across a range of disciplines and professions with a view of making research results available to researchers, practitioners, and policy makers across the world. IJCS seeks to advance the understanding of cultic phenomena in their relationship to individuals, families, and society, notably in their psychological, social, legal, educational, religious, and cultural dimensions. Many definitions of the term cult exist, and the term has been applied to a wide range of groups. However, the IJCS does not advocate nor support one particular definition and will consider submissions related to the full range of perspectives on cultic phenomena and issues that emerge from a scholarly or scientific study of such phenomena, including those of harm, treatment, individual subjectivity, agency, creativity, and the boundaries between the individual and society. IJCS publishes original empirical and theoretical work, as well as literature reviews, scholarly analyses, book reviews, and case studies across academic disciplines and applied sciences, notably in anthropology, criminology, ethics, the humanities, law, linguistics, political science, psychology, religious studies, and sociology, accepting both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The International Journal of Cultic Studies (IJCS) is published by the International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA). As in most scholarly journals, the views expressed in IJCS are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the views of IJCS’s editors and editorial boards or of ICSA and its directors, advisory board members, or staff. Groups researched or mentioned in articles published in IJCS are not necessarily cults, nor should they be seen as undoubtedly harmful. ISSN: 2154-7270 (print) 2154-7289 (online) Copyright 2017, International Cultic Studies Association Editorial Board Marybeth Ayella, PhD, Sociology, St. Joseph’s University, USA Eileen Barker, PhD, OBE, FBA, Sociology, London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London, UK Robin Boyle, JD, St. John’s University School of Law, USA Russell Bradshaw, EdD, Education, City University of New York, USA Louis Brunet PhD, Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada Pablo Briñol, PhD, Social Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Jose Antonio Carrobles, PhD, Clinical and Health Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Peter Caws, PhD, Philosophy, George Washington University, USA Manuel de Juan Espinosa, PhD, Clinical and Health Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Linda Dubrow-Marshall, PhD, Applied Psychology, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK Enrique Echeburúa, PhD, Clinical and Health Psychology, Universidad del Pais Vasco, Spain Steve K. D. Eichel, PhD, ABPP, Psychology, Philadelphia University, USA Ronald Enroth, PhD, Sociology, Westmont College, USA Manuel Gámez-Guadix, PhD, Clinical and Health Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Juan Francisco Godoy, PhD, Clinical and Health Psychology, Universidad de Granada, Spain Lorna Goldberg, LCSW, PsyA, Director, Institute for Psychoanalytic Studies, USA William Goldberg, LCSW, PsyA, Social Work, Dominican College, USA Pablo Guérez, JD, Penal Law, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Mª Ángeles Jiménez Tallón, PhD, Clinical and Health Psychology, Universidad de Murcia, Spain Stephen Kent, PhD, Sociology, University of Alberta, Canada María Jesús Martín, PhD, Social Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain José Manuel Martínez, PhD, Social Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Patricia Mercader, PhD, Institut de Psychologie, Université de Lyon, France Javier Martín-Peña, Social Psychology, Universidad de Barcelona, Spain Stephen Mutch, PhD LLB (UNSW), History, Politics, and International Relations, Macquarie University, Australia Piotr T. Nowakowski, PhD, Pedagogy, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland Julio Olea, PhD, Methodology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain Adriana Pacheco Espino Barros, PhD, Editor of Criminologie, I. C.C.C, Canada Marie-Andrée Pelland, PhD, Sociology, Université de Moncton, Canada Miguel Perlado, PhD, Barcelona Institute of Psychoanalysis, Spain María del Mar Ramos, PhD, Sociology, Universidad de Granada, Spain Álvaro Rodríguez-Carballeira, PhD, Social Psychology, Universidad de Barcelona, Spain Alan Scheflin, JD, LLM, Santa Clara University Law School, USA Daniel Shaw, LCSW, Faculty and Clinical Supervisor, National Institute for the Psychotherapies (NIP), New York, USA Dennis Tourish, PhD, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK Humberto M. Trujillo, PhD, Social Psychology, Universidad de Granada, Spain Carlos Villagrasa, JD, Civil Law, Universidad de Barcelona, Spain Doni Whitsett, PhD, LCSW, University of Southern California School of Social Work, US Special Monograph Edition International Journal of Cultic Studies Volume 8, Number 2, 2017 The History of Credibility Attacks Against Former Cult Members Stephen A. Kent, Kayla Swanson University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada 1 Abstract 0F In a subdiscipline of sociology supposedly devoted to the use of the scientific method in For decades, academics have discussed analyzing and explaining religious beliefs and apostates, but in the late 1970s a number of behavior, several prominent figures (especially prominent sociological researchers began sociologists) fostered an antiscientific research defining them as unreliable information sources norm beginning in the late 1970s that tainted who intended their often-embellished atrocity much of the research conducted on sects, cults, tales or stories to motivate agents of social and alternative (or new) religions. Their control to act against their former groups. A few approach involved the categorical dismissal of dissenting voices to this interpretation appeared the accounts of former members’ (or apostates’) as early as the mid-1980s, but the wholesale insights about their previous involvements in rejection of apostates’ information became the controversial religions. Some prominent dominant academic position among important researchers in the field refused to utilize former sociologists of religion. By the early 1990s, the members as resources; at the same time, they grand figure of sectarian studies, Bryan R. criticized any articles that did so by alleging that Wilson, called for objective researchers and the these sources were inherently unreliable. courts to avoid apostates entirely because their atrocity accounts supposedly were self-serving The researchers’ refusal was not one of degree— and embellished. Having tested Wilson’s of doubting some or even most of the dismissive assertions, however, against two information that these former members could important court cases that pitted apostates have provided: A body of academics simply against group members, we found that most of refused to receive or use any information from the apostates’ information was credible, while them. Beginning in the last years of the 1970s, current members often lied. A balanced therefore, some major sociological studies on approach to apostasy, therefore, calls for sectarian groups likely suffered from the academics to examine closely both apostate and exclusion of insights from people whose current-member claims, realizing that bias and knowledge was firsthand. This antiscientific accuracy can appear in either. position within the realm of the sociology of religion did not even allow researchers to use former-member accounts after they had triangulated (or replicated) the claims through additional sources. Their rejection was immediate and complete. 1 This study is a revised and expanded version of a paper presented at the European Federation of Centres of Research and Information In this article, therefore, we attempt to analyze on Sectarianism [FECRIS] Conference, Warsaw, Poland, May 7, 2011. how this antiscientific position developed within International Journal of Cultic Studies ■ Vol. 8, No. 2, 2017 1 the field by examining scholarship (in the 1950s What may be the first appearance of a variation and before) related to it. By the late 1970s, that on atrocity stories appeared in George Orwell’s scholarship utilized historical sources to argue (1903–1950) 1949 novel against totalitarianism that former members provided “atrocity tales” entitled 1984 (Orwell, 1949). Big Brother’s that likely were exaggerated or simply untrue. oppressive government had to keep people By the late 1980s, statistically based research on convinced that they must sacrifice their liberties former members’ (called apostates’) accounts to the state