Assessment of Psychological Abuse in Manipulative Groups

8/9/2019 Assessment of Psychological Abuse in Manipulative Groups

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/assessment-of-psychological-abuse-in-manipulative-groups 1/22

Assessment of Psychological Abuse in Manipulative Groups

Abstract

This work reviews the studies that have investigated psychological abuse in group settings, particularlyhighlighting their evaluation and discussing their main findings. It has been asserted, in the differentsettings where it was studied, that psychological abuse is an elusive concept, difficult to operationalize(e.g., Almendros, Gmez!Guadi", #arrobles, $odr%guez!#arballeira, & 'orra, )**+. If this is the case inthe family (e.g., psychological abuse against a partner, children, or the elderly, and in school or worksettings, it is even more so in the case of psychologically manipulative groups, a field markedly lessinvestigated than the others. Although much has been written about these latter groups, their practices,and the psychological conse-uences of belonging to them, very few studies approach the issue of the psychological violence of which some of their members are victims, and much less fre-uently are suchstudies based on empirical findings (Almendros, #arrobles, $odr%guez!#arballeira & Gmez!Guadi",)**+. In this study, the researchers draw specific conclusions, identify some research gaps, and suggestguidelines for future studies that would be interesting to e"amine in more in depth.

eywords/ psychological abuse, psychologically manipulative groups, cults, new religious movementsIntroduction

The study of the practices of psychologically manipulative groups ('0Gs, sects, or new religiousmovements and how they operate arises particularly strongly from the occurrence of dramatic events,such as 1mass suicides,2 performed by members of these groups, which have caused perple"ity in public

opinion and prompted the search for e"planations. This was the case, most particularly highlighted for itsmass media coverage, of the programmed death of the several hundred followers of 3im 3ones in Guyanain the decade of the 4+5*s. 0ore recently, despite its comparatively limited e"pansion, we can relate asimilar case that occurred with its victims, citizens in anungu, 6ganda, where about 78* people belonging to the 0ovement for the $estoration of the Ten #ommandments of God died when the churchin which they were praying was set on fire. About that many more people were found in the ne"t days inseveral common graves located in the surrounding areas and in the homes of the group leaders. Thegroup9s leaders, who had split from the #atholic #hurch, claimed to have seen apparitions and had predicted that the world would end on :ecember 84, 4+++, a date that was postponed to 0arch 45, )***,when the initial prediction was not fulfilled. A debate was then generated about whether these eventsshould be e"plained as a ritual suicide or as a massive killing. ;rom a study of the case, <rdely ()**4supports the former, assuring that the events occurring in anungu were a religious ceremony intended totake those present to a different dimension of e"istence. The author draws our attention to the factor ofsecrecy present in the group and the surrounding community, which allowed for the systematicdisappearance, apparently unnoticed, of hundreds of dissidents and their relatives before that fateful dayof 0arch 45, actions that at least some of the followers should have noticed and must have participatedin. <rdely concludes that this collaboration was achieved by the simple use of words, and he warns us notto underestimate the power of ideologies and the religious speech that can transform individuals into



1human torches2 or 1suicidal combatants.2

=ecause these groups are usually more interested in preserving and e"panding their domains, thesee"amples of the e"treme influence e"erted over people are poor e"amples of the social problemsinvolved. >owever, at the time they occurred, they enabled the phenomenon to be viewed as a matter of

public interest, rather than merely a private issue of parents disagreeing with the life vocation of theirchildren.

The phenomenon is not free of controversy because it is difficult to establish 1an e"act dividing line2(Tamarit, 4++4 between the practices of some groups that do deserve attention for infringing on theindividual freedoms and inalienable rights inherent to humans, and that could even result in legalconse-uences, and other groups9 practices that can be reviled only for their infre-uency and their minoritynature where they occur?actions that a community acting within a legal framework, and that respectsand even promotes religious and ideological diversity would find unacceptable. Accordingly, we will refer here to the so!called (particularly in @pain?e.g., Almendros, #arrobles, $odr%guez!#arballeira, & 3ans,)**BC AtenciDn e InvestigaciDn sobre @ocioadicciones, )**7 '0Gs, understanding that the social risk

that could result from them is based, not on their ideology or beliefs, but rather on their psychologicallymanipulative methods and other abusive practices, and on the various criminal acts they may invite.These manipulative and e"ploitative influence methods, which subordinate the health and well!being ofgroup members to the benefit of the leader or upper echelons, actually define and distinguish thesegroups.Terminological :elimitation, :efinition, and 'revalence

As noted, in decades of study of the '0G phenomenon, unresolved debates have been generated, fromdiffering to even contrary positions, which range from the obEect of the study to how to label or name it.In this regard, reference has been made to the 1polyhedral reality of sects2 (Guerra, 4+++.

Fith regard to its name, virtually all studies that deal with the term, when trying to delimit the word sect, preferred in <urope (angone, 4++B, or cult, used in <nglish conte"ts, refer to its 1conceptual ambiguity2(angone, n.d. or 1terminological confusion2 (@alinas, )**4C to its use as a 1carpet2 or 1social weapon2($ichardson, 4+5H, 4++8C to the 1diversity of denotative meanings and connotations of the term2(Alonso, n.d.C and, in conclusion, the inaccuracy and lack of consensus in the use of this terminology.The term sect ac-uires a negative social connotation in its popular use ('feiffer, 4++)C imbardo &>artley, 4+H7C so it has a significant labeling and stigmatization potential (=eckford, 4+5HC 'rat, 4++5C$ichardson, 4++8, which re-uires us to e"ert responsibility in its use. @ect is, however, the mostcommonly used term, both for its popular acceptance and for its use by the mass media (Alonso, n.d.C$ichardson & van :riel, 4++5 to try to inform about this comple", heterogeneous reality.

;rom a linguistic perspective, Guerra (4+++ e"presses the etymology of sect, mentioning a double atinorigin/ se-uor!se-ui, secutusJsecuta, referring to the followers of the sect founder or leaderC and seco!secare, sectusJsecta, referring to the split of an e"isting, larger group, religion, or ideology. Fe see thatnone of the term9s primary meanings, 1following or splitting of a previous doctrinal group,2 showanything that can be the basis for social reproach. In general terms, the proposal for alternative names forsect?coercive sects, new cults, sects of young people, religious sects, pseudo!religious totalitarian



groups, totalitarian sects, charismatic sects, e"tremist sects, authoritarian sects, destructive sects, and soon?has not been supported to Eustify the generalization of this term ($odr%guez!#arballeira, 4++).

In general, we think that the predominant trend in the past decade has been to prevent the use of e"tremeterms that were formerly used (e.g., destructive, poison, and the like, which recall negative emotions and

increase intellectual polarization in academicians. In fact, some of these academicians chose alternativenames.

Fe highlight the term new religious movement, particularly used by sociologists of religion, with theunderstanding that this term is neutral, does not a priori dis-ualify the associative option of a person based on its minority nature, and is based on the potential of sects to find a place in the prevailingdominant religious environment (Galanter, 4++*. >owever, this name also has been the obEect ofcriticism for its inappropriate description of the reality it intends to describe in religious terms (0elton,4++5, and for its indiscriminate use in some groups with controversial practices (Fest, 4++*. In thisregard, @alinas ()**4 talked about the 1perple"ity2 invoked by the term new when one uses this term torefer to very old movements, or where doctrine is based on far!off beliefs. Additionally, this term ignores

the fact that, since the beginning, the term sect was referring to a type of group that was far larger than asimple reference to religious movements.

;rom the standpoint of mental health (Fest, 4++*, we found that the term psychologically manipulativegroup is more interesting for this study because it prevents part of the controversy the term sect or cultraises, and at the same time delimits the obEect of analysis, which deals with the manipulative andJorabusive practices of some groups, whether or not they are called sects.

Fe also found a large range of definitions for such practices, based on the theoretical perspective used bythe issuer (e.g., theological, sociological, anthropological. ;rom the viewpoint of mental health, probably

the definition most commonly mentioned was adopted in the #ongress of Fingspread, Fisconsin, in4+H7, where e"perts on the matter agreed on the following definition/

A group or movement e"hibiting a great or e"cessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, orthing and employing unethically manipulative techni-ues of persuasion and control ... designed toadvance the goals of the group9s leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, orthe community. (Fest & angone, 4+H7, pp. 44+K4)*

Fith regard to the data on the prevalence of this phenomenon, given the yet undetermined concretespecification of the study9s terminology, the difficulties are even greater, which is evidenced in thedifferent figures different e"perts mention in newspapers or through the mass media. These groups are

difficult to define, specify, and locate. In fact, because of the fluctuation and opacity of these groups, the-uantitative estimations change. Therefore, the <uropean statement about the 1lack of reliable datae"isting in all members9 states,2 data that 1can be only considered as signs of the magnitude of the phenomenon...,2 is still applicable ('roEect $eport by the <uropean 'arliament on @ects in the <uropean6nion, :ecember 44, 4++5, p. 44. The practices within the same group can change based on the group9sgeographical location, while the same group can simply change over time. ikewise, the same group canappear under different names to prevent public scrutiny of its main name, or to prevent the reEection that



this name may cause in the general population if they have seen unfavorable news about the group.:ifficulties increase with microgroups, which are more difficult to locate, given their limited number offollowers and their scant infrastructure, although their study is important because they recently have beenobserved to proliferate to some e"tent (3ans, )**B.

In @pain, in the studies the #ommission of @tudy and $epercussions of @ects carried out in the 'arliamentin 0arch 4+H+, the following figures were mentioned/ =etween 44*,*** and47*,*** @paniards weremembers of 1destructive sects.2 This study reported that *.7L of the @panish population segment aged 4Byears to )+ years belonged to some religious!sect association, and that 4.7L of these individuals statedthey had been a member in the past (#anteras, $odr%guez, & $odr%guez!#arballeira, 4++). Fe musthighlight that 1at least 48L of young urban citizens aged 4B MyearsN to )+ years have to some degree asusceptibility to be captured by these destructive sects, which, theoretically, makes them more vulnerableto destructive!sectarian proselytism2 (#anteras, 4++4. These data, mentioned by the #ommission of@tudy and $epercussions of @ects, provide the figure of 5H*,*** young people in sect environments.

A more recent study undertaken for the Attention and $esearch on @ocial Addictions (AI@ association on

the situation of '0Gs in #atalonia (AI@, )**7 estimated that there were at least H+ '0Gs and at least7B,84O people linked as members or collaborators in them. The study asserted that 8+,BO+ of theseindividuals would be involved with high!intensity '0Gs. In conclusion, the estimated prevalence offollowers of these groups in this region was *.H)L (3ans, )**B.

Additionally, contrary to appearances, 0elton (4++5 concluded through a systematic study that <urope,country by country, has welcomed a higher number of new religious movements than the 6nited @tates(per million population. According to this author, in countries such as the 6nited ingdom, @witzerland,and The Petherlands, the figures are very high, but they are noteworthy even in Italy and @pain. 0elton(4++5 concluded that about one third of religious organizations currently operating in <urope are

nonconventional.

Fith regard to who Eoins these groups and why, the data are even less conclusive, with these -uestions being among the most controversial issues and obEects of academic polarization (Almendros, $odr%guez!#arballeira, #arrobles, & Gmez!Guadi", )*4*. @now and 0achalek (4+HB, mentioned by Fright &<baugh, 4++8 concluded from their sociological study that conversion appeared to be the phenomenonmost commonly investigated by e"perts on these groups. It has been generally stated that people Eoiningthese groups are usually young, with a medium or medium!high sociocultural and economic status(>unter, 4++HC @chwartz & aslow, )**4C @inger & alich, 4++5, and are men or women with almost thesame probability (3ans, 4++8.

Fith regard to why, in general, the predominant position has been to e"plain cult involvement through theinteraction of environmental, individual, and group practice factors (e.g., Ash, 4+H7C angone, 4++B.ofland & @tark (4+O7 e"plained adhesion to a religious movement to be the result of a combination ofsusceptibility and situational conditions. The internal factors mentioned in the literature in general areage, previous psychopathology or maladEustment, dysfunctional family system, and spiritual searching.>owever, there is generally not enough empirical basis to support these factors as responsible, and thelimited e"isting evidence is somewhat contrary to that conclusion (Almendros et al., )*4*. The e"ternal





fragmenting or modifying the personal identity of the individualC andJor B systematically or intentionallydiminishing the feelings of value of the person. Therefore, angone (4++) defined the concept of psychological abuse as referring to practices that treat the person as an obEect to be manipulated and used,instead of as a subEect whose mind, autonomy, identity, and dignity must be respected.

@tarting from this theoretical proposal, amongst others, #hambers, angone, :ole, and Grice (4++Bdeveloped the Group 'sychological Abuse @cale (G'A, from which several studies have shown thatformer members of '0Gs describe their e"perience in terms of the psychological abuse they perceived intheir former group environments (see angone, )**7.

0ore recently, $odr%guez!#arballeira, Almendros, <scart%n, 'orra, 0art%n!'eRa, 3avaloy, and #arrobles()**7 undertook to outline more accurately the concept of psychological abuse and study itsmanifestation, both in the intimate conte"t of partner relationships, in the also!intimate conte"t of '0Gs,and in the workplace (mobbing. ;rom a psychosocial viewpoint, and using a comprehensive analysis ofthe literature in the three settings and the measurement scales developed on psychological abuse, they proposed three new categorizations of psychological abuse strategies?one for each mentioned conte"t,

which allowed for a comparative analysis of the three phenomena. They subdivided each of thesecategorizations into si" types of psychological!abuse strategies or categories. The first three covered themain components of the conte"t or situation/ (4 isolation, () control of information, and (8 othercontrols of daily life. The other three covered the main components of personal nature/ (B emotional, (7cognitive, and (O behavioral. The comparison evidenced a significant parallelism between the strategiesused in the three environments, particularly among those used for submitting a subEect to the group9scontrol and those used for submitting the other partner member.<valuation of 'sychological Abuse in Group <nvironments

The evaluation of psychological abuse in group settings from empirically developed measures is

relatively recent. If the ability to reliably measure is a key indicator of a developing field9s health andmaturity (>ill, )**7, there seems to be a long way to run yet in this field. Sery few instruments have been developed that include items to describe abusive behaviors in '0Gs. In comparing this to otherfields of study such as partner violence, where the study of psychological abuse is still relatively recent,we found a wider number and variety of instruments in this area (Almendros, Gmez!Guadi" et al.,)**+, so that the renewed research efforts and new proposals enhance the academic debate and a progression in the conceptual definition of psychological abuse in this conte"t.

Fe reviewed the instruments designed to measure violence in the conte"t of '0Gs. Table 4 shows thescales, by chronological order, including some 'A factor, together with the subscales forming itC thenumber of itemsC their psychometric propertiesC and a short description thereof. All these instruments

have been validated with samples of former members of various '0Gs.

The first scale empirically derived to measure psychological abuse in group settings (Gasde & =lock,4++H was the above!mentioned G'A (#hambers et al., 4++B. Its development resulted from the idea thatsome groups use deceitful recruiting techni-ues and systematically use psychological manipulationtechni-ues for their members to remain in the group. The G'A includes four subscales/ #ompliance,about the degree to which an individual must agree to the group rulesC <"ploitation, about the degree to



which the group uses the person in detriment of hisJher own wellbeingC An"ious dependency, referring tothe degree to which the person depends on the groupC and 0ind control, referring to the degree to whichthe group and its leaders use deceitful, manipulative strategies to keep their members.

G'A has been the most commonly used measure for the empirical study of the phenomenon. It has been

used in the 6nited ingdom (endall, )**OC in press and adapted for use with the @panish population(Almendros et al., )**BC Almendros, )**O. It also has been translated into 3apanese, @wedish, andGerman under the direction of imiaki Pishida, >akan 3arva, and ;riedrich Griess, respectively. Inaddition, the G'A is likely to be the only scale in this setting that has been used in studies performed byauthors other than the developers of the measure.

Fith regard to the G'A9s @panish validation (G'A!@, Almendros et al. ()**B found a factorial structurefor this version comprising three subscales/ #ompliance, 0ind #ontrol, and <"ploitation. The authorsunderstood that the #ompliance subscale included items of the original #ompliance and :ependencysubscales, the latter of which disappears from the @panish version. Therefore, the #ompliance subscalewould e"press both submission and obedience to the authority figure (leaderMsN or group as an e"treme

dependence on the leader(s and the group.

Additionally, Almendros ()**O recently proposed a modified version of the G'A, which removes thenegative wording of item 4 of the instrument/ 1The group does not tell members how to conduct their se"lives,2 and modifies the response options, omitting the label of the central category. This is the versioncurrently being used with 6@, 3apanese, and @panish participants (Group 'sychological Abuse @cale!0odified?G'A!0 (Almendros, #arrobles, & $odr%guez!#arballeira, )**+. 6sing the responses of 48H<nglish!speaking participants, self!identified as former members of abusive groups, Almendros ()*44reported support for the original four!factor solution of the G'A (#hambers et al., 4++B for the <nglishversion of the G'A!0, which yielded better!fitting statistical values through #onfirmatory ;actor

Analyses when compared to a one!factor solution.

Also to be noted is the development of the Individual #ult <"perience Inde" (I#< (Finocur, Fhitney,@orensen, Saughn, & ;oy, 4++5. The starting point for the authors of the I#< was to observe therelationship between belonging to a cult and the distress following withdrawal. @tructured in foursections, the first investigates the behaviors derived from elements of doctrine and group practices. Thesecond section asks about behaviors or actions shown by group leaders or members under the prescriptionof leaders. The third section refers to actions and e"periences of the participant

Table 4. Instruments for 0easuring Siolence in 'sychological 0anipulation Groups

Pame of the Instrument and 'rimary $eference

:imensions (Po. of Items

'sychometric <vidences

:escription



4. Group 'sychological Abuse @cale (G'AC #hambers, angone, :ole, & Grice, 4++B.

#ompliance (5

An"ious dependency (5

0ind control (5

<"ploitation (5

Salidity/ #ontentC #onstruct (<;A/ '.#.C Sarima"

$eliability/ I.#./ U *.H4J*.5)J*.5*J*.57

Its development was based on a :elphi study (:ole & :ubrow!<ichel, 4+H7, the theoretical study of

psychological abuse by angone (4++), and a clinical literature review. The G'A scale is derived from afactorial analysis of the responses to 44) descriptive items of 8*H former members of '0Gs. It is a self!administered, easy, and fast!to!apply instrument, easily understandable by the subEects. <ach item iscoded in a ikert!type scale of five points, from 4!Pot at all characteristic to 7!Sery characteristic. Thescores above the midpoint?)4 for each subscale and HB for the global scale?are considered positive,which indicates that the subEect perceives the group as abusive.

). Individual #ult <"perience Inde" (I#<C Finocur, Fhitney, @orensen, Saughn, & ;oy, 4++5.

Group e"periences associated with distress (B5

Salidity/ #ontentC #riterionC #onstruct (#!:

$eliability/ I.#./ *.H+

:eveloped to evaluate group e"periences that may have harmful effects on the psychological adEustmentof group members. It was applied to 5O former members of '0Gs, who had been given counseling, andto two comparative groups (4B former members not searching for counseling, and 48 subEects withdistress. The I#< inde" comprises B5 items, scored dychotomically (yesJno. The I#< had a correctglobal classification percentage of HBL. A correlation of *.B7 (pV.**4 was found between the I#< inde"and the current distress evaluated by the os Angeles @ymptom #hecklist (A@#.

8. Across Groups 'sychological Abuse and #ontrol @cale (AG'A# (Folfson, )**).

<motional abuse (H

IsolationJ #ontrol of activity (H



Serbal abuse (O

Salidity/ #ontentC #onstruct (<;A/ '.AC Sarima"

$eliability/ I.#./ αU *.HOJ*.H*J*.H8

In her doctoral dissertation, Folfson ()**) reviewed and modified the 'sychological 0altreatment ofFomen Inventory ('0FI (Tolman, 4+H+ for its application to former members of '0Gs and womenvictims of partner abuse for the purpose of distinguishing between the two groups. The alpha values provided refer to a combined sample of both groups.

B. Group 'sychological Abuse @cale!@panish version (G'A!@C Almendros, #arrobles, $odr%guez!#arballeira, & 3ans, )**B.

#ompliance (+

0ind control (+

<"ploitation (+

Salidity/ #ontentC #onstruct (<;A/ '.#.C Qbli-ue

$eliability/ I.#./ U *.HOJ*.5BJ*.5O

#ut!off points/ G'A/ WH*C @ubscales/ W)5JW84JW4)

Adaptation of the G'A scale for its use with @panish population. The authors evaluated the factorialstructure and internal consistency of the @panish version in a group of O4 former members of '0Gs.@ubse-uent studies (Almendros, )**O in 4*4 subEects revealed appropriate test!retest reliability valuesand ade-uate discriminant capacity of the instrument, establishing cut!off points by the $Q# #urve procedure.

Potes/ <;A/ <"ploratory factor analysisC '.#./ principal componentsC '.A./ principal a"isC #!:/convergent!discriminantC I.#./ internal consistencyC the data on reliability or cut!off points, when there ismore than one dimension, are given by the order in which they are shown in the :imensions column.

directed by the group. The fourth section asks the subEect whether heJshe has heard of e"periences ofserious abuse to other group members. The I#< comprises issues related to a the control of groupmembers (isolation and social alienationC and control of information, sensory overload, and suppressionof critical thinkingC b physical control (sleep, food, or e"ercise deprivationC long periods of inactivity orhyperactivityC e"ploitation of personal resourcesC c emotional manipulation (inducing guiltC fear anduncertaintyC reinforcement and random or unpredictable punishmentC and d e"periences of abuse (verbalabuseC physical or se"ual abuseC perception of threat to physical integrity or own life. Therefore, theauthors wrote the items considering the literature on psychological manipulation and abuse. They



considered pree"isting instruments, such as the G'A and the $evised #onflict Tactics @cales (#T@)(@traus, >amby, =oney!0c#oy, & @ugarman, 4++O. Then the instruments were evaluated by 4* professionals and researchers, each of whom had at least 4* years of professional e"perience in issuesrelated to '0Gs. The instruments were subse-uently administered to 4O psychology graduates to assessthe comprehensibility of the instructions, how the graduates understood the items, and the difficulty in

answering the -uestions. As reported by the authors, the I#< inde" showed a relationship between thedegree of cult involvement and the current distress in former members, as well as making a differentiation between people previously involved in cults and those not involved.

'articularly relevant is the doctoral dissertation research work of Folfson ()**). Folfson developed theAcross Groups 'sychological Abuse and #ontrol @cale (AG'A#. ;or this, she conducted a pilot study ona reviewed, modified version of the 'sychological 0altreatment of Fomen Inventory ('0FI (Tolman,4+H+. @he chose the '0FI because she considered it feasible to make a simple adaptation of the items,originally designed for women victims of partner violence, so they were applicable to former members of'0Gs. Therefore, she selected and modified )5 of the '0FI items to make them compatible forapplication in both groups. The items were assigned a response range from * (Pever to B (Sery often. A

panel composed of seven academicians evaluated the content validity and their degree of consistency withthe theory. They also evaluated the instructions, response choices, and degree of understandability of theitems. This process yielded the pilot AG'A# instrument comprising )) items. Folfson applied theinstrument in a pilot study to 4BO participants/ 57 victims of domestic violence visiting one of severalshelter homes or a counseling centre for victims of domestic abuse, and BH former members of 3ehovah9sFitnesses attending a convention for former members of the group. Fith regard to the empiricalapplication of the scale, 4+4 valid participants took part/ +H former members of several cultic groups, and+8 victims of domestic violence. A factor analysis of the items revealed three subscales/ <motional Abusereferred to behaviors such as withholding affection, being treated as an inferior, and making the victimfeel responsible for all problemsC IsolationJ#ontrol of Activity, such as being discouraged from seeing

family, discouraged from working out of the home, and assuming that orders must be obeyedC SerbalAbuse, including insults, criticisms to physical appearance, and being insulted in front of others. Folfson()**) reported the capability of the AG'A# to discriminate between both groups/ women victims of partner violence and former cult members.

It is also important to mention the -uestionnaire developed by =ohm and Alison ()**4, designed for the purpose of distinguishing between destructive sect groups and benign groups. @i"ty variables comprisedthe -uestionnaire, and it was used in two modalities of data collection/ 4 88 former members of variousgroups answered the -uestionnaire, and ) the researchers answered the same -uestions from a contentanalysis of the documentary material for the groups. The authors used this second method given theinfeasibility of contacting former members of some sects, particularly destructive ones. They handled the

information resulting from both methods as e-uivalent. To answer the -uestionnaire, subEects werecontacted through 1anti!cult2 networks, whose representatives distributed electronic versions of the-uestionnaire by webmail to an indefinite number of former members of the groups. The subEectscompleted the -uestionnaires and returned them by email. Fith regard to the content analyses, the authorsanalyzed information they obtained by the Internet, popular te"ts, press articles, and Eournal articles. They provided little information about the procedure they followed in this case, although they mentioned that,when coding a given item, the information should be supported by at least two different document



sources, e"cluding data that re-uired interpretation by the researcher or that were contradictory. Theyanalyzed a total of )7 groups using both methods, of which 47 were based on the answers of formermembers and 4* on the content analysis. 6sing @mallest @pace Analysis, the authors established nine behaviors directly or indirectly related to a destructive behavior region, which they would use todistinguish between destructive sects and benign sects/ mass suicideC mass murderC physically prevent

members from leaving the groupC approval of violenceC drillsC be prepared for the day of the final EudgmentC building defensive structuresC gathering weaponsC and proclaiming the leader as the incarnationof a significant religious or historic figure. Po data are provided on the psychometric characteristics of theinstrument, so it has not been included in Table 4.0ain ;indings

As discussed, several recent findings have evidenced that former members of various '0Gs reportedlyhave suffered psychological abuse in their former group settings. 0ost of the empirical findings wereobtained from the answers, mainly to the G'A scale (#hambers et al., 4++B, of samples of peopleidentifying themselves as former members of abusive groups (e.g., Almendros et al., )**B, without theauthors establishing the groups that could be considered as '0Gs.

If the instruments used are intended to help evaluate the degree of abuse e"erted in a given group, thestability of the measure must be an essential re-uirement. Qverall, the few data provided about thestability of one of the e"isting instruments, the G'A, suggest a very low fluctuation, showing consistencyof scores over long time periods, as well as scarce variability according to various degrees of reflectionover the group e"perience among two administrations of the G'A. Therefore, Almendros, #arrobles et al.()**+ found appropriate test!retest reliability values for the @panish version of the G'A in a subsampleof 7* @panish former members of various '0Gs who completed the G'A!@ scale twice, at highlyvariable time intervals (4.)7 monthsK8).8) months from one individual to another, the mean time being47.7) months (@:U 5.)O. Po differences were found between the scores of the subEects grouped into four

time periods between the two evaluations. The amount of reflection reported by the subEects during thistime period did not appear to affect the stability of the scoresC so that of the five groups based on degreeof reflection (from 1Pot at all2 to 1Sery 0uch2, only the group reporting to have thought 1very much2had a significantly increased mean score in the second vs. the first application (G'A4/ 0U 4*H.O5C @:U45.BBC G'A)/ 0U 44B.7*C @:U 44.)+C Filco"on9s test/ zU !).45C pU .*8 (Almendros, )**O. @imilarly,the original version of the scale has shown low variability after psychological intervention with a 6@sample (0artin, Almendros, =urks, & #arrobles, )**B. In this regard, we must highlight that the G'A isnot designed to measure attitudes about abuse or violence and does not analyze the conse-uences ofabuseC it focuses instead on the potential e"istence or not of specific acts or practices. @cores should bee"pected to hold up well over time, even with intervention. Fe only observed that subEects who thought alot about their e"perience had significantly increased mean scores in the G'A scale. This result could be

viewed as consistent mainly with the statements of health professionals working with former members of'0Gs, about those leaving these groups, who may not be immediately fully aware of what happenedwhile they belonged to the groups, or that the terms used in the scale may be premature for some recentformer members (angone & #hambers, 4++4. It is likely that periods of reflection serve to makee"plicit to former members the intentions of some practices used by the group, which in most cases weresubtle, thus leading the subEects to accept as their own choices some of the impositions, sacrifices, and soon.



The studies reporting on the matter found no differences by se" or sociodemographic characteristics forthe G'A (Almendros, )**O. It must be stressed that the G'A does not disclose the personal e"perience ofthe subEect in the groupC it Eust reports the simple observation of the occurrence of certain abuses,regardless of whether or not the participant suffered them.

Taking into account that the development of and results from most of the instruments on psychologicalabuse in any conte"t were based on the responses of victims of these abuses, the finding that there is noevidence to relate the information provided by the victims with negative attitudes resulting from theirstatus as former members of these groups is important (Almendros, #arrobles et al., )**+C angone,4++O. The G'A scale has shown consistently its ability to distinguish between different samples offormer members/ those who identify themselves as former members of '0Gs and of non!'0Gs(Almendros, #arrobles et al., )**+C angone, 4++OC 0ascareRas, )**). ikewise, the statement that the perceptions of former members of '0Gs who have been counseled?upon leaving the group or at anytime after it?by e"pert professionals or associations educatingJalerting about cults would be negatively biased (ewis, 4+HOC @olomon, 4+H4 has not been supported, either. Almendros, #arrobles et al. ()**+

reported the lack of differences between @panish former members who had been counseled (on leavingthe group or at any other time and those not counseled, on their perception of psychological abusee"erted by the group on its members, and on the psychological distress shown by them. Peither theinformation provided, nor the responses to the G'A, were related to indicators of social desirability,debasement, or lack of sincerity, as evaluated through the 0illon #linical 0ultia"ial Inventory!II(0#0I!II (0illon, 4+H8 in the same @panish sample (Almendros, )**OC Almendros et al., )*4*.

As mentioned, the G'A scale has been translated and used in several countries. In general, very similarresponse patterns and very few differences have been found between the G'A scores of former membersof '0Gs from various cultural environments?i.e., 6@ and @panish (Almendros et al., )**BC Almendros,

)**OC 6@ and 0e"ican (0ascareRas, )**)C 6@, @panish, and 3apanese (Almendros, #arrobles &Gmez!Guadi", )**+C Almendros, #arrobles & $odr%guez!#arballeira, )**+.

Fith regard to the psychological distress resulting from the e"perience (for a review, see Aronoff, ynn,& 0alinoski, )*** as related to the G'A, inconsistent research findings have been reported on the possible relationship between the perceived psychological abuse in the group and other psychologicaldistress measures. Therefore, some studies have reported significant positive correlations (e.g., 0artin etal., )**B and others have not (e.g., Gasde & =lock, 4++H. It must be noted, as stated earlier, that theG'A measures the abuse by the group and not the personal e"perience of abuse suffered by the subEect(Finocur et al., 4++5. In this regard, a positive relationship has been found between psychologicaldistress and other measures discussed/ the I#< (Finocur et al. and AG'A# (Folfson, )**). It is

important to consider that other variables might be affecting the results (e.g., time since leaving the groupCdifferent coping strategiesC social supportC life events, without these variables being sufficiently studied.

;inally, one of the above!mentioned studies compared the responses of two groups of victims to theAG'A# (Folfson, )**)/ women victims of partner violence and former members of '0Gs. The resultsshowed significantly higher scores in the women9s group for the Serbal Abuse and <motional Abusesubscales. The scores in the IsolationJ#ontrol subscale were higher for former members of '0Gs,



although not significantly for the latter. #onsidering that the AG'A# scale was derived from aninstrument widely used in the partner violence setting, these data should be interpreted with caution.Therefore, despite the modifications made to the instrument, it still might be better prepared to accountfor the e"periences of the group of women in such a setting than that of former members of '0Gs, whowere less able to identify themselves with statements such as 10y physical appearance was criticized2C or

possibly this abuse occurred less commonly within group relationships.#onclusions

The evidence shows that the study of psychological abuse in group settings is a field of un-uestionablerelevance, although it is yet incipient in terms of its empirical approach and conceptual delimitation. Thefact that there appears to be a high number of people who assuredly have suffered psychological violence,much more commonly than other forms of violence (physical or se"ual, is an indicator of the importanceof studying this problem and the issues related to victims (characteristics, types of violence suffered,resulting psychological harm, etc. to give the problem the appropriate human, scientific, and socialattention it deserves.

This work has reviewed the studies available to date on psychological abuse in group settings. Feunderstand violence in '0Gs to be one that is e"erted in intimate settings, where violence is performed by people affectionately linked or important to the subEect. In this field of study, reference has been madenot only to groups but also to some one!on!one relationships in which the elements of manipulationstudied for cults would coincide (e.g., pseudotherapeutic conte"ts, partner relationships. In fact, asshown, this kind of violence in '0Gs shares more items with intimate!partner violence than with thate"erted in the workplace ($odr%guez!#arballeira et al., )**7 or at school, understanding that the purposeof violence in the latter fields is mainly that of e"cluding the other from the social environment. ;uturestudies should provide further evidence about these similarities and differences.

Fith regard to the assessment of these issues, the limitations are shared with other areas of the study of psychological abuse. 0ention of the lack of appropriate measuring instruments to assess psychologicalabuse (0urphy & >oover, 4+++C @o!kum Tang, 4++H is common, as is the limitation that almost alle"isting instruments are self!reports and are based on the information provided by victims about the abusethat, unlike other types of abuse (e.g., physical, do not provide immediate physical evidence. There aremuch fewer validated assessment instruments to measure psychological abuse in group settings than inother settings. In addition, as compared to instruments on psychological abuse in the intimate!partnerviolence conte"t (for a review, see Almendros, Gmez!Guadi" et al., )**+, the data provided about the psychometric properties of the instruments e"isting in the '0G area appear to be less comprehensive.

The only e"ception to these limitations is the G'A, a scale that is to date the only research effort

providing repeated evidence of reliability, validity, and usefulness (e.g., Adams, 4++HC #hambers,angone, & 0alinoski, 4++OC Gasde & =lock, 4++HC angone, 4++OC 0alinoski, angone, & ynn,4+++. As we mentioned above, the G'A investigates specific acts or events and does not intend tomeasure the attitudes of participants in cases of abusive practices, nor the causes or conse-uences of thisabuse. Although the G'A could originally be considered of interest to help establish a borderline betweendestructive and benign groups (#hambers, angone, & 0alinoski, 4++O, we do not recommend using itfor this purpose, considering that the e"perience of each subEect in the same group and the effects of





$obey, 4+OB have followed theoretical lines, as well as attributions from observers about victims(;ollingstad, $unge, & Ace, )**4C @ummers & ;eldman, 4+HB that tend to make victims responsible orguilty for their situation. Fe also found studies aimed at establishing uni-ue characteristics in the personality of abused women or former members of '0Gs, or a 1type2 of personality that toleratesabuses with varied, contradictory results (see $hodes & 0cenzie, 4++H, which instead might be related

to the processes of influence and to the effects of abuse in victims rather than to their previous personalitytraits. $egardless, blaming the victim for maintaining the relationship, in addition to evidencing a poorunderstanding of these issues, contributes to an inade-uate protection of the young population for preventing potential future abuses. This perspective poses a double danger, resulting in a lack of concernfor these issues by educational institutions, and particularly for increasing the perception ofinvulnerability in young people who do not know the process whereby somebody becomes the victim of partner! or group!based violence, and conse-uently anticipate that they would not tolerate a type of abusesuch as that described in the mass media.

Fe consider that the concept of psychological abuse covers, amongst others, manipulation practices thatcan be e"erted discontinuously or continuously, systematically or not, intentionally or not. This

intentionality is something usually taken for granted in any definition of cult or cultic relation. >owever,several authors have dissociated themselves from this 1conspiracy2 perspective that considers that thegroups in -uestion 1have manipulative intentions since the beginning, as their managers or leaders usetheir organization as a method to obtain non!declared obEectives2 (AI@, )**7. In contrast, the process perspective, which is more pragmatic, presumes that these groups

are not created as such on purpose, but they are the result of a self!deception process (i.e., the individualwho manipulates is the first to believe in the goodness of the manipulation that, due to a multiplicativeeffect?that we might call a 1snowball effect9?in performing poor practices in managing the associationlink, results in the formation of a social organization with its own symbolic, auto!referential universe, that

generates in part of its members a dependence syndrome?i.e., an unhealthy attachment to the group.(AI@, )**7

Fithout fully sharing this differentiation, we do think it is more useful to assume a perspective focusingon the process, observing the degeneration that can take place in the interactions in a given group derivingfrom abusive practices e"erted by those who hold the power. Although in some cases the intentionality ofcult leaders in the fulfillment of strategies to achieve submission of the other may seem evident, this neednot always be the case. In fact, as an obEect of study, we assume that any human group can degenerate to poor ethical and abusive practices and, conversely, an abusive group may rectify these practices.Therefore, we have found more useful a definition that considers the results of the control and submissionof an individual. Fe agree with 0arshall (4++BC cited by ;ollingstad & :e>art, )***, who, with

reference to the psychological abuse caused by the male partner over women, conceptualizes abuse as thedaily communication and interaction with the partner that damages the psychological, emotional, and behavioral competence of the victim, without considering whether the purpose was intentional or had anaffective interest, and whether or not the victim was aware of the effects. Fe think a greater developmentof the field of study is necessary before one assumes the intention and effective awareness of anyapproach or strategy in the e"ercise of power in '0Gs.



Therefore, in these times and scenarios, we as social scientists are particularly responsible for undertakingthe analysis and description of these phenomena, providing e"planations, and thus returning to the societywhat we have learned with its support (#ialdini, 4++5.

The conclusion could not be otherwise, that further research is re-uired in this field. There seems to be

difficulty with disclosing the few empirical data on the matter. The same research can sometimes yield adisproportionate number of publications, without the magnitude of the task apparently Eustifying it (e.g.,Fright, 4+H8C 4+HBC 4+H5. #onversely, others9 significant research efforts, which conclude withsubmission of their doctoral dissertations, do not include the potentially valuable publication of theirresults in accessible scientific Eournals (e.g., :anley, )**BC @orensen, 4++OC Saughn, 4++OC Fhitney,)**)C Folfson, )**). @cientific communications often have been limited to the territory of an informaldata e"change. Advance and development in this field of study thus becomes more difficult because otherinterested researchers are unaware of the results of research -uestions that have already been considered.

References

AtenciDn e InvestigaciDn sobre @ocioadicciones ()**7. Grupos de manipulaciDn psicolDgica en #ataluRasituaciDn y conceptos. =arcelona/ author.

Adams, :. . (4++H. =rief report/ 'erceived psychological abuse and the #incinnati #hurch of #hrist.#ultic @tudies 3ournal, 47, H5KHH.

Almendros, #. ()**O. Abuso psicolDgico en conte"tos grupales. 6npublished doctoral thesis,6niversidad AutDnoma de 0adrid, @pain.

Almendros, #. ()*44, 3uly. 'aul $. 0artin 0emorial ecture/ #urrent cultic studies research. 'aper presented at I#@A9s International #onference/ 'sychological 0anipulation, #ultic Groups, @ocialAddictions, and >arm, =arcelona, @pain.

Almendros, #., #arrobles, 3. A., $odr%guez!#arballeira, A., & 3ans, 3. 0. ()**B. 'ropiedades psicomYtricas de la versiDn espaRola de la Group 'sychological Abuse @cale para la medida de abuso psicolDgico en conte"tos grupales. 'sicothema, 4O, 48)K48H.

Almendros, #., #arrobles, 3. A., & Gmez!Guadi", 0. ()**+, 3uly. 'sychological abuse reported byformer members of manipulative groups across different cultural groups. 'oster presented at theInternational #onference of The Porwegian 'sychological Association. <uropean ;ederation of

'sychologists9 Associations (<;'A/ ZI <uropean #ongress of 'sychology, Qslo, Porway.

Almendros, #., #arrobles, 3. A., & $odr%guez!#arballeira, A. ()**+, 3uly. :evelopment and validation of measures of group psychological abuse. 'aper presented at I#@A9s International #onference/'sychological 0anipulation, #ultic Groups and >arm, Geneva, @witzerland.

Almendros, #., #arrobles, 3.A., $odr%guez!#arballeira, A., & Gmez!Guadi", 0. ()**+. Abandono ymalestar psicolDgico en e"!miembros de grupos sectarios. =ehavioral 'sychologyJ'sicolog%a #onductual,



45, 4H4K)*4.

Almendros, #., Gmez!Guadi", 0., #arrobles, 3. A., $odr%guez!#arballeira, A., & 'orra, #. ()**+.Abuso psicolDgico en la pareEa/ aportaciones recientes, concepto y mediciDn. =ehavioral'sychologyJ'sicolog%a #onductual, 45, B88KB74.

Almendros, #., $odr%guez!#arballeira, A., #arrobles, 3. A., & Gmez!Guadi", 0. ()*4*. os motivos devinculaciDn a sectas coercitivas. $evista de 'sicoterapia, 57, B8KO*.

Alonso, ;. (n.d.. $evisiDn y anlisis transcultural e interdisciplinario del marco conceptual de 1secta2 yotros tYrminos relacionados. Fork presented at the Tribunal de <studios Avanzados. :octoral program/@ocial Influence, 6niversidad de =arcelona, @pain.

Aronoff, 3., ynn, @. 3., & 0alinoski, '. ()***. Are cultic environments psychologically harmful[#linical 'sychology $eview, )*, +4K444.

Ash, @. 0. (4+H7. #ult!induced psychopathology, part 4/ #linical picture. #ultic @tudies 3ournal, ), 84K +*.

=arker, <. (4+H+. Pew religion movements/ a practical introduction. ondon, 6/ >0@Q.

=eckford, 3. A. (4+5H. @ociological stereotypes of the religious sect. @ociological $eview, )O, 4*+K4)8.

=ohm, 3., & Alison, . ()**4. An e"ploratory study in methods of distinguishing destructive cults.'sychology, #rime & aw, 5, 488K4O7.

#anteras, A. (4++4. Aspectos socio!Eur%dicos de las sectas desde una perspectiva comparada. In 3. Goti(<d., Aspectos @ocio!3ur%dicos de las sectas desde una perspectiva comparada (pp. 77K5O. Sitoria!Gasteiz, @pain/ QRati 'roceedings.

#anteras, A., $odr%guez, '., & $odr%guez!#arballeira, A. (4++). 3Dvenes y sectas/ un anlisis delfenDmeno religioso!sectario en <spaRa. 0adrid, @pain/ #entro de 'ublicaciones. 0inisterio de Asuntos@ociales.

#hambers, F. S., angone, 0. :., :ole, A. A., & Grice, 3. F. (4++B. The Group 'sychological Abusescale/ A measure of the varieties of cultic abuse. #ultic @tudies 3ournal, 44, HHK445.

#hambers, F. S., angone, 0. :., & 0alinoski, '. T. (4++O, August. The Group 'sychological Abuse@cale. 'aper presented in the :ivision 8O ('sychology of $eligion American 'sychological AssociationAnnual 0eeting, Toronto, #anada.

#ialdini, $. =. (4++5. 'rofessionally responsible communication with the public/ iving psychology away. 'ersonality and @ocial 'sychology =ulletin, )8, O57KOH8.



:anley, #. 3. ()**B. Interpersonal factors which contributed to one\s ambivalence around leaving a cult.:issertation Abstracts International, O7()!=, 4*)B.

<rdely, 3. ()**4. Terrorismo religioso. a guerra del siglo ZZI. <l ata-ue al Forld Trade #enter y al'entgono. 0Y"ico, :;/ 'ublicaciones para el <studio #ient%fico de las $eligiones.

;ollingstad, :. $., & :e>art, :. :. ()***. :efining psychological abuse of husbands toward wives/#onte"ts, behaviors, and typologies. 3ournal of Interpersonal Siolence, 47, H+4K+)*.

;ollingstad, :. $., $unge, 0. 0., & Ace, A. ()**4. 3ustifiability, sympathy level, and internalJe"ternallocus of the reasons battered women remain in abusive relationships. Siolence & Sictims, 4O, O)4KOBB.

Galanter, 0. (4++*. #ults and zealous self!help movements/ A psychiatric perspective. American 3ournalof 'sychiatry, 4B5, 7B8K774.

Gasde, I., & =lock, $. A. (4++H. #ult e"perience/ 'sychological abuse, distress, personality

characteristics, and changes in personal relationships reported by former members of #hurch 6niversaland Triumphant. #ultic @tudies 3ournal, 47, 4+)K))4.

Guerra, 0. (4+++. :iccionario enciclopYdico de las sectas ()nd ed.. 0adrid, @pain/ =iblioteca deAutores #ristianos.

>ill, '. #. ()**7. 0easurement in the psychology of religion and spirituality/ #urrent status andevaluation. In $. ;. 'aloutzian & #. . 'ark (<ds., >andbook of the 'sychology of $eligion and@pirituality (pp. B8KO4. Pew ]ork, P]/ Guildford.

>unter, <. (4++H. Adolescent attraction to cults. Adolescence, 88, 5*+K54B.

3ans, 3. 0. (4++8, April )8. @ectas, sutiles prisiones de la personalidad. a Sanguardia.

3ans, 3. 0. (Qctober )**B. Groups of psychological manipulation in #atalonia (@pain. 'aper presentedat I#@A9s International #onference/ 6nderstanding #ults and Pew $eligious 0ovements, Atlanta, GA,6.@.

endall, . ()**O. A psychological e"ploration into the effects of former membership of e"tremistauthoritarian sects. :octoral thesis, =uckinghamshire #hilterns 6niversity #ollege, 6.

endall, . (in press. $eliability and validity of the Group 'sychological Abuse scale in the 6.International 3ournal of #ultic @tudies.

angone, 0. :. (4++). 'sychological abuse. #ultic @tudies 3ournal, +, )*OK)4H.

angone, 0. :. (4++B. Introduction. In 0. :. angone (<d., $ecovery from cults/ >elp for victims of psychological and spiritual abuse (pp. 4K)4. Pew ]ork, P]/ F.F. Porton & #ompany.



angone, 0. :. (4++O. An investigation of a reputedly psychologically abusive group that targets collegestudents. Tech. $ep. 'repared for the :anielsen Institute, =oston 6niversity. $etrieved fromhttp/JJwww.culticstudies.orgJinfoservârticlesJ langone^michael^bu^bcc^study.htm

angone, 0. :. ()**7. 'sychological abuse/ Theoretical and measurement issues. I#@A <!Pewsletter,B(8.

angone, 0. :. (n.d.. The definitional ambiguity of 1cult2 and A;;9s mission. $etrieved fromhttp/JJcsE.orgJinfoservârticlesJlangone^michael t̂erm^cult^definitionalâmbi-uity.htm

angone, 0. :., & #hambers, F. S. (4++4. Qutreach to e"!cult members/ The -uestion of terminology.#ultic @tudies 3ournal, H, 48BK47*.

ewis, 3. $. (4+HO. $econstructing the cult e"perience/ 'ost!involvement attitudes as a function of modeof e"it and post!involvement socialization. @ociological Analysis, BO, 474K47+.

ofland, 3., & @tark, $. (4+O7. =ecoming a world!saver/ A theory of conversion to a deviant perspective.American @ociological $eview, 8*, HO)KH57.

0alinoski, '. T., angone, 0. :., & ynn, @. 3. (4+++. 'sychological distress in former members of theInternational #hurches of #hrist and noncultic groups. #ultic @tudies 3ournal, 4O, 88K74.

0artin, '. $., Almendros, #., =urks, $., & #arrobles, 3. A. (Qctober )**B. 'sychological conse-uencesof cult membership/ 0ental health implications. 'aper presented at I#@A9s International #onference/6nderstanding #ults and Pew $eligious 0ovements, Atlanta, GA.

0ascareRas, #. ()**), 3une. Application of the Group 'sychological Abuse scale translated to @panish informer members of two religious groups in 0e"ico. 'aper presented at A;;9s International #onference/6nderstanding #ults and Pew $eligious 0ovements, Qrlando, ;.

0elton, 3. G. (4++5. <uropean receptivity to the new religions. In >. 0eldgaard & 3. Aagaard (<ds., Pew religious movements in <urope (pp. 4HK8*. #ambridge, <ngland/ #ambridge 6niversity.

0illon, T. (4+H8. 0illon #linical 0ultia"ial Inventory manual, (8_ <d.. 0inneapolis, 0P/ Pacional#omputer @ystems.

0urphy, #. 0., & >oover, @. A. (4+++. 0easuring emotional abuse in dating relationships as amultifactorial construct. Siolence & Sictims, 4B, 8+K78.

'feiffer, 3. <. (4++). The psychological framing of cults/ @chematic representations and cult evaluations.3ournal of Applied @ocial 'sychology, )), 784K77B.

'rat, 3. (4++5. @ectas e Iglesias/ suposiciones e interrogantes. Temas para el :ebate, 8), BBKB5.



'roEect $eport (4++5, :ecember 44. <uropean 'arliament on @ects in the <uropean 6nion, p. 44.

$hodes, P. $., & 0cenzie, <. =. (4++H. Fhy do battered women stay[ Three decades of research.Aggression & Siolent =ehavior, 8, 8+4KB*O.

$ichardson, 3. T. (4+5H. An oppositional and general conceptualization of cult. Annual $eview of the@ocial @ciences of $eligion, ), )+K7).

$ichardson, 3. T. (4++8. :efinitions of cult/ ;rom sociological!technical to popular!negative. $eview of$eligious $esearch, 8B, 8BHK87O.

$ichardson, 3. T., & van :riel, =. (4++5. 3ournalists9 attitudes toward new religious movements. $eviewof $eligious $esearch, 8+, 44OK48O.

$odr%guez!#arballeira, `. (4++). <l lavado de cerebro. 'sicolog%a de la persuasiDn coercitiva. =arcelona,

@pain/ =oi"areu 6niversitaria.

$odr%guez!#arballeira, ̀ ., Almendros, #., <scart%n, 3., 'orra, #., 0art%n!'eRa, 3., 3avaloy, ;., &#arrobles, 3. A. ()**7. 6n estudio comparativo de las estrategias de abuso psicolDgico/ en pareEa, en ellugar de trabaEo y en grupos manipulativos. Anuario de 'sicolog%a, 8O, )++K84B.

@alinas, #. ()**4. @ectas y derecho. a respuesta Eur%dica al problema de los nuevos movimientosreligiosos. Salpara%so, #hile/ <diciones 6niversitarias de Salpara%so de la 6niversidad #atDlica deSalpara%so.

@chwartz, . ., & aslow, ;. F. ()**4. The cult phenomenon/ A turn of the century update. American3ournal of ;amily Therapy, )+, 48K)).

@inger, 0. T., & alich, 3. (4++5. as sectas entre nosotros. =arcelona, @pain/ Gedisa.

@nell, 3. <., $osenwald, $. 3., & $obey, A. (4+OB. The wifebeater\s wife. Archives of General 'sychiatry,44, 4*5K44).

@o!kum Tang, #. (4++H. 'sychological abuse of #hinese wives. 3ournal of ;amily Siolence, 48, )++K 84B.

@olomon, T. (4+H4. Integrating the 0oonie9 e"perience/ A survey of e"!members of the 6nification#hurch. In T. $obbins & :. Anthony (<ds., In gods we trust (pp. )57K)+7. Pew =runswick, P3/Transaction.

@orensen, #. . (4++O. The relationship of pre!cult factors to distress in former cult members.:issertation Abstracts International, 7O(4)!=, 5*7O.



@traus, 0. A., >amby, @. ., =oney!0c#oy, @., & @ugarman, :. =. (4++O. The $evised #onflict Tactics@cales (#T@). 3ournal of ;amily Issues, 45, )H8K84O.

@ummers, G., & ;eldman, P. @. (4+HB. =laming the victim versus blaming the perpetrator/ Anattributional analysis of spouse abuse. 3ournal of @ocial & #linical 'sychology, ), 88+K8B5.

Tamarit, 3. 0. (4++4. as sectas y el :erecho 'enal. In 3. Goti (:ir., Aspectos @ocio!3ur%dicos de las@ectas desde una perspectiva comparada (pp. )55K)+H. Sitoria!Gasteiz, @pain/ QRati 'roceedings.

Tolman, $. 0. (4+H+. The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by theirmale partners. Siolence and Sictims, B, 47+K455.

Saughn, '. . (4++O. #ult disaffiliation variables as predictors of psychological distress and adEustment.:issertation Abstracts International, 7O(44!=, OB44.

Fest, . 3. (4++*. 'ersuasive techni-ues in contemporary cults/ A public health approach. #ultic @tudies

3ournal, 5, 4)OK4B+.

Fest, . 3., & angone, 0. :. (4+H7. #ultism/ A conference for scholars and policy makers. @ummary of proceedings of the Fingspread conference on cultism, @eptember +44. Feston, 0A/ American ;amily;oundation.

Fhitney, 3. ()**). #hildhood physical and se"ual abuse as predictors of severity of the cult e"perience.:issertation Abstracts International, O8()!=, 4*77.

Finocur, P., Fhitney, 3., @orensen, #., Saughn, '., & ;oy, :. (4++5. The Individual #ult <"perience

Inde"/ The assessment of cult involvement and its relationship to post cult distress. #ultic @tudies 3ournal,4B, )+*K8*O.

Folfson, . =. ()**). A study of the factors of psychological abuse and control in two relationships/:omestic violence and cultic systems. :issertation Abstracts International, O8(HA, )5+B.

Fright, @. A. (4+H8. :efection from new religious movements/ A test of some theoretical propositions.In :. G. =romley & 3. T. $ichardson (<ds., The brainwashingJdeprogramming controversy (pp. 4*OK 4)4. Pew ]ork, P]/ <dwin 0ellen.

Fright, @. A. (4+HB. 'ost!involvement attitudes of voluntary defectors from new religious movements.

3ournal for the @cientific @tudy of $eligion, )8, 45)K4H).

Fright, @. A. (4+H5. eaving cults/ The dynamics of defection. Fashington, :#/ @ociety for the@cientific @tudy of $eligion.

Fright, @. A., & <baugh, >. $. (4++8. eaving new religions. In :. G. =romley & 3. . >adden (<ds.,$eligion and the social order/ The handbook on cults and sects in America (vol. 8C pp. 445K48H.



Greenwich, #T/ 3AI 'ress.

ablocki, =., & $obbins, T. (<ds.. ()**4. 0isunderstanding cults/ searching for obEectivity in acontroversial field. Toronto, #anada/ 6niversity of Toronto 'ress.

imbardo, '. G., & >artley, #. ;. (4+H7. #ults go to high school/ A theoretical and empirical analysis ofthe initial stage in the recruitment process. #ultic @tudies 3ournal, ), +4K4BH.Acknowledgment

This is a modified version of an article, 1Abuso psicolDgico en grupos manipuladores,2 published in )*44 by ;undaciDn para el Avance de la 'sicolog%a #l%nica #onductual, I@@P/ 448)!+BH8 $evista 'sicolog%a#onductualJ=ehavioral 'sychology, )*44, 4+(4, 475K4H). Translated and modified with permission.

About the Primary Author

#orrespondence/ #armen Almendros, ;acultad de 'sicolog%a. 6niversidad AutDnoma de 0adrid, #iudad6niversitaria de #antoblanco, )H*B+ 0adrid. (carmen.almendrosuam.es

http/JJwww.icsahome.comJarticlesJassessment!of!psychological!abuse!almendros!iEcs!)*44

http://www.icsahome.com/articles/assessment-of-psychological-abuse-almendros-ijcs-2011

http://www.icsahome.com/articles/assessment-of-psychological-abuse-almendros-ijcs-2011

Documents

Assessment of Psychological Abuse in Manipulative Groups