Dr Pignotti,
Thak you for producing a peer reviewed article. The authors have an interesting opinion, some of which I have already stated I agree with ( different modalities work better for different issues).They don't however seem to produce any information that proves that the therapeutic relationship is not important however...and in a quick perusal, I could not see whether they acknowledged the need to control for the variable of the effectiveness of the individual therapists ability to produce rapport when assessing different modalities.

There are certainly many other academics with different opinions on this issue.

However, you don't want to discuss this ; fair enough.

By the way re your comments about me having "picked up" NLP jargon from Mr Hassan, you may wish to reconsider your opinion re the use of the word "rapport". A quick search of google scholar and the words therapeutic rapport picks up many scholarly articles using the word rapport in conjunction with therapy.
Either a lot of people have been listening to Mr Hassan, or the word may have more common academic usage than you suspect.



Anticult;
thanks for the link.It faded out at about Chapter 2 I think unless you purchase it, but on amazon you can click "look inside" and "surprise me" to see more. In chapter two I think, Mr Hassan recommends that if an intervention is planned ( as opposed to mini interventions which he seems to feel the family can handle on their own, he recommends the use of a trained specialist. In what I read so far ( for free, ok,so I'm cheap) there is no statement that he is the only ( or the best) therapist able to do this.

I notice Dr Pignotti has not been able to find a quote in the book that says this either.

Dr Pignotti; If you state that someone claims their approach is superior to all others, then it would appear that the burden of proof lies on you to produce evidence that they actually said this.

And yes, anyone working in this field should indicate that it is a new area with little scientific evidence for any approach at this time.

You keep changing your argument, Yasmin. I'm getting dizzy from all your twists and turns and veering off the point of this critique, so this will be my last response to you. No one said that therapeutic relationship was not important. The claim you began with was that the therapeutic relationship was the MOST important factor, more important than the theory/intervention being done, which is the DoDo Bird Verdict. That is what the article addressed, so let's not put forth straw man arguments. No one disagrees that the therapeutic relationship is important. The disagreement is whether it is more important than the intervention and the many, many studies showing superiority of one approach over another where both had therapeutic relationships shows that it is not.

I also didn't say you "picked up NLP jargon from Mr. Hassan". I merely noted that you had picked it up -- do not know how, perhaps indirectly, as the word has seeped out into popular culture.

Of course Steve Hassan didn't say he is the best, in his book (again, you change your argument). He has said it many, many, times in his endless promotions of his books and talks he has given over the past three decades. This is well known by those of us who have been around. Just open your eyes. I already pointed out some of the many places he made this claim. He wrote a paper that he widely distributed in the early 90s, loudly proclaiming the superiority of his methods and it is all over his book promos. Here's one example:

[www.freedomofmind.com]

Quote
Steven Hassan
Nationally renowned cult expert Steven Hassan presents the state of the art guide on how to help someone involved with cult mind control.

Releasing the bonds reveals a much more refined method to help family and friends, called the Strategic Interaction Approach. This non-coercive, completely legal approach is far better than deprogramming, and even exit counseling.

Note his claim that his book is "the state of the art guide" and that his strategic interaction approach is "better than" deprogramming and exit counseling. This is just one of many times Steve has made such unsupported claims that he is better than everyone else in the business.

And by the way, just to correct one last distortion, Yasmin, I never said therapy was bad. What I object to are bad therapists and ones who pathologize normal human experience that human beings have been coping with and bouncing back from for years. I object to therapists who want to make virtually everyone with a given experience (e.g. being in a cult) into one of their cases. I do not object to someone who truly needs help, seeking it with an ethical, competent therapist who properly provides informed consent and does not make unsupported claims.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2012 07:53PM by MonicaPignotti.

Here is a way to sort this out.

What evidence would it take to convince you that material written by other exit counselors is of a highter standard than Mr Hassan's material?

Mr Hassan does claim on his website that his approach is "far better" than other methods.

[www.freedomofmind.com] "This non-coercive, completely legal approach is far better than deprogramming, and even exit counseling."


So clearly "far better" is not a scientific term! So where is the evidence for the claim Mr Hassan is making? (I am on neither side of the issue at this point.)
But there appears to be no actual EVIDENCE that Mr. Hassan's method is "far better" than others.
Anecdotes and endorsements are just Advertising.
Is there a link on his website to any studies carried out?

So some real psychologists, need to take the various approaches to dealing with those coming out of cults, get the funding through some universities, and do some controlled studies to see what works, and what does not work.
Like with CBT, there have been hundreds of studies.

As far as I can see, there has not yet been ONE single study trying to measure and test the results of various methods of helping people come out of cults.

Can anyone point to a single actual science-based study, anywhere?

All I can see are Testimonials, which frankly are worse that useless, of course.

Hi Anticult; thanks for the link.

Yes; I am not finding much in the way of scientific study on any approach either.

Imo; a testimonial on the site does mean that at least someone left happy; but I would guess that anyone who has been in this area for a while would have to have had some successes, or else they would eventually go out of business.

I do agree that Mr Hassan should clarify his use of the words "far better" and identify what he is basing that on.

Currently, IMO, it seems that neither Dr Pignottis statements on the negative effects of cult counseling, or Mr Hassans statements that his approach is better than others, are backed up with much science.


I would agree with Mr Hassan that from an ethical perspective when you compare deprogramming ( kidnapping someone to convert their beliefs) with other approaches, then anything that does not involve potentially breaking the law, and that shows more respect for the individual is inherently ethically and legally better, whether or not it is more effective.

His approach compared to non coercive exit counseling? That is where I would like to see studies, that include as outcomes not necessarily or only leaving a group, but also family /client relationship improvement if the person stays in the group, and mental health, short and long term, of the client following the counseling. ( From a practical point of view, comparisons of cost are also helpful too.)
Corboy; hope that is useful in answering your question about what scientific studies would be needed to convince me one way or the other.

Just to really clarify here; have never met or spoken to Mr Hassan, and have never seen his approach in action.I responded and starting commenting because the tone of Dr Manns review annoyed me.

Dr Mann also seems to claim expert status . IMO there is a difference between being an expert in a court of law,and having scientific studies that say that your approach is effective and works. Maybe she has such studies, but if so it would be useful if someone could point them out.
Does anyone know what theoretical approach she uses?

By the way, my own opinion ( without scientific backing at this point, since the studies in this particular area just aren't done) is that with something like this, where human relations are the focus, rather than phobias ( where cbt is very effective), that ( sorry , here we go again) rapport or therapeutic alliance is probably very important in distinguishing between therapists with high sucess rates, than those without.

I'm suspecting that Mr Ross for example, who isn't trained in counseling, may never the less be good at building rapport.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 09/12/2012 11:42PM by yasmin.

Obviously I did not initially see what others saw about Hassan, and that is that he has been doing things like charging fees that are uncalled-for and also may use NLP in the ways that an LGAT does. I was responding to his book only. I'm in sympathy with those wanting to prevent ex-members from being further hurt, and certainly someone who is causing them to mortgage their homes is hurting them. This is clearly not ok. So this thread has been helpful in those ways.

I would like to respond to a statement that has been made because I think clarifying will help ex-members find the help they need. It is this statement:

"there are many, many people leading very happy and fulfilling lives who left cults and had no therapy whatsoever. They recovered from the experience on their own. Being taken in by a cult is not a mental illness. Human beings can be tricked and when we get educated about how this could have happened, we tend to stop blaming ourselves and most of us can get on with our lives." (MariaPignotti)

I find this an alarming statement, particularly the "many, many" and "most" assertions. There are many harms done in cults. It is for these harms that therapy can be important. Some cults are more harmful than others. Different levels of involvement in cults exist as well. Of course, some people are more vulnerable. Cults are more than just companies that sell harmless but inferior merchandise and trick people into buying it. "Once I return the product, I'm the wiser I just move on." kind of thing.

I know of at least one professional in real life, a licensed MSW working as a therapist, who made a statement to an ex-member that she (therapist) had been a member and attended a number of cult-related events but once she saw that the leader was abusive she left the group and was not harmed by it. She said this is a somewhat self-congratulatory way. She had little understanding of cults and how they operate. She made this statement to an ex-member who had been harmed by the same group and was seeking help. In fact the ex-member had gotten further into the cult than the therapist and had a number of traumatic experiences. I suspect that the ex-member would respond in the way a rape victim would respond to a "blame the victim" statement about rape. So, while being taken in by a cult is not a mental illness, cults can and do cause trauma and other difficulties, sometimes severely. Just like a psychopath abuser can destroy a victims mental health over time. This therapist was a caring person and a good therapist in some ways. But she didn't understand how cults work. In addition, she uses "tapping" therapy and even runs workshops to train other therapists in it. When challenged, she gives the BS that the tapping group puts out. Is she really out of the cults?

So there's the phenomenon of getting into another cult after walking away from one. It may be that "most" people can walk away after re-education or it may be that most people are only superficially involved with a cult. I do think that education is an absolutely essential part of the process, but only part for people who have been seriously affected by a cult. And people can be pretty functional in many areas but still be impacted in others. It is unfortunate that there are not more people trained to do cult work and that the knowledge of how cults work is not more widespread. (Thank goodness for Rick Ross and the education provided here!).

yasmin:

Dr. Mann is a trained and licensed psychologist. She has helped former cult members and affected families for may years.

Flo Conway and Jim Siegelman include some research in their book "Snapping". A second edition came out in 1995 and chapter 13 contains research about people recovering from cults.

Please understand that being qualified as an expert in court is objective proof that you are in fact an expert in your field. The court has a specific process to determine this objectively before a judge with opposing lawyers. Dr. Mann has never failed to be qualified and has been qualified and accepted as an expert by courts in 12 states.

Steve Hassan has no such standing as an expert.

Hassan's theories likewise have not been objectivley tested and/or supported by research.

Steve Hassan began his professional life concerning cults as a cult deprogrammer. He was paid to do involuntary deprogrammings. He later returned to school and became a licensed counselor.

In his first book Mr. Hassan advocated involuntary deprogramming as an option to be considered by families.

Now no one that does professional intervention work concerning cults advocates involuntary deprogramming for adults.

The involuntary deprogramming of a minor child would be at the discretion of that child's legal guardian. Involuntary interventions regarding minor children are legally allowable when done under the direct supervision of a custodial parent or designated legal guardian.

Most interventions have historically been based upon an educational model of simply sharing information, i.e. about cults, coerciive persuasion and influence techniques, etc. This has been the history of cult intervention work, rather than blending in a counseling or family therapy model as proposed by Steve Hassan.

In my opinion there are significant boundary issues regarding the mixing of cult intervention work with counseling and/or family therapy.

I see cult intervention work as purely educational and not as personal or family counseling.

After a successful intervention a former cult member may seek professional counseling and follow-up by contacting a licensed mental health professional familiar with cults.

See [www.culteducation.com]

This is a directory of such helping professionals.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2012 12:21AM by rrmoderator.

Well, Maple, it looks like you have bought into the party line of self-proclaimed "cult experts" who make their living doing so-called post-cult therapy, hook, line and sinker. You really have it down pat, it would seem, using all the usual lingo and adding a strange anecdote about a "tapping therapist" attempting to equate those who disagree with you with those who do bogus therapy. It may surprise you to know that I am known as one of the leading critics of tapping therapies and several the authors of the literature on PTSD showing resilience from trauma whom I learned from are also critics of tapping therapies. This has nothing to do with favoring tapping therapies. You are attempting to engage in the fallacy of poisoning the well and I am calling you out on it.

This has nothing to do with "blaming the victim" or anyone else. The fact is that the leading people who promote the idea that nearly everyone who has been in a cult needs therapy are people with a vested interest who devote a good part of their therapy practice to ex-cultists. The literature on trauma is very clear. Most people who experience a trauma do not develop PTSD and while many may initially experience some negative emotion, most will recover within a month with no therapy. In fact some interventions such as Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (a practice some "cult experts" still defend, even after all the evidence against it) have been shown in studies to either make it more likely the person will develop PTSD or at best, do not make any difference. Rushing in to therapize a person is not always best and can do more harm than good. I suggest you take a step outside the world of true believing "cult experts" and look at the evidence. This even includes severe trauma, such as war trauma. The book, edited by Gerald Rosen, PTSD: Issues and Controversies has many references. There is no evidence to suggest this is any different for ex-cultists.

There is no good evidence that all or most people leaving cults need therapy. You want to argue that people who disagree with you just don't "understand". That sounds to me like something many cultists say when people challenge their cult doctrine. The "understanding" being taught has very little evidence to support it. Non peer reviewed studies such as the one featured in the book, Conway & Siegelman's Snapping, are not valid for a number of reasons and hence, we cannot draw conclusions from them about cult recovery. First of all, they only asked for symptoms rather than doing any kind of legitimate, formal assessment for mental illness such as PTSD, depression, anxiety disorders and other disorders where therapy would be indicated. Having a symptom does not necessarily mean one has a disorder. Having a headache does not always indicate one has a brain tumor. Having a cough does not always indicate one has bronchitis. Feeling disturbed about a trauma does not necessarily mean one has PTSD. Another problem with the "Snapping" study is that the sample consisted of people who had been in contact with anti-cult organizations and these organizations in their literature and meeting frequently discuss those symptoms. Hence, the reporting of symptoms by people in the survey could be the result of suggestion and the participant sample might not be representative of those who had no such contact. It is a very common experience for people to read about symptoms and then believe they have the disorder. This is a well known phenomenon among medical students and mental health professionals who first learn about various disorders and ex-cultists who have specifically sought out an anti-cult organization may be even more vulnerable to such suggestion.

You are also mischaracterizing my argument, putting quotes around words I never wrote. You appear to be presenting a false dichotomy. I never said "once I return a product, I'm wiser and move on." It's not that people leave "happy". That's a straw man argument. Of course, people go through a period of adjustment where they may feel confused, angry, grieve and all the other common symptoms noted, but that is not a mental illness for which one needs therapy. The same is true for people experiencing any type of loss. What the latest research has shown is that grief therapy can do more harm than good, by the way because most people are resilient and can get through the experience very well with good social support, but no formal therapy. Self-proclaimed "trauma therapists" can interfere with this process by labeling this process as a mental illness and making the person feel as if they need months or years of therapy when they would have recovered better without the therapist. Often, good community and family support can help facilitate the person getting back to normal life much better than becoming hooked for years on ex-member events and going from one ex-cult "expert" to the next hoping that next workshop or next therapist will do the trick. Sadly, I know of several people in that situation, convinced the cult has permanently damaged their lives and some of these people had only been in a short period of time. I don't think it has to do with severity of experience, since there are people who have had horrible, truly traumatic experiences who left, went through a period of adjustment and are doing very well in their lives without therapy. This fits with the literature on trauma, that even though there is some correlation with severity of event, there can be people who experienced minor trauma with severe PTSD symptoms and others with very severe trauma with no PTSD.

I suggest you read up on the literature on trauma and PTSD, the scientific literature, that is, which shows that the vast majority of people who experience a trauma do not develop PTSD and do not need therapy. Many people who were in cults didn't even experience that would qualify for definition of PTSD. Just being bamboozled by a group without experiencing a life threatening traumatic even does not qualify.

The idea that you seem to have bought into, that most people need therapy to deal with challenging life events, has become known as "therapism". I highly recommend the book, One Nation Under Therapy by Sally Satel and Christina Hoff-Sommers. Satel is herself a psychiatrist, so she is not saying all therapy is bad, nor am I. What she does expose is how the trauma industry (and the people some ex-cult therapy "experts" quote extensively) can actually do people more harm than good and she provides extensive references to support her position.

You might also want to try and get my name right. Hint: It's not Maria. Try to actually read instead of coming back at me with automatized responses that appear to be parroting self-proclaimed "cult experts". The people they see are only a small minority of those who have left cults. Most people who leave cults do not get therapy from such "experts". Some do have actual psychological disorders but there is no evidence that going to a "cult expert" will be any more effective than going to a good therapist who is well trained in evidence based methods for treating such disorders, rather than months and months or even years and years of "cult trauma" therapy. If so-called "cult experts" think their therapy is superior, they have the burden of proof to demonstrate this will well-designed studies, reviewed independently by people who do not have a vested interest and publish them in peer reviewed journals. Instead, some of these "experts" have taken on the worst aspects of the trauma industry, some even diagnosing ex-cultists with DID (multiple personalities). Buyer beware.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2012 08:10PM by MonicaPignotti.

Here are some more details of what is wrong with the "Snapping" study:

[anticultcontroversies.blogspot.com]

By the way, some people seem to have acquired the notion that this study was peer reviewed. It was not. The way to tell whether something is peer reviewed in the sense the term is used by professionals, is to see if it was published in a reputable peer reviewed journal. Sometimes academic books are peer reviewed, but even they do not carry the same weight. Snapping is a commercially published book. Asking a "peer" for feedback or employing a statistician is not peer review. Peer reviewers are selected by the journal Editor, not the author and usually the authors' names are not revealed to the reviewers and vice versa. Just asking a friend or colleague for feedback is not peer review.

Note that although their updated edition was 1995, the data from the study is much older than that, nearly 30 years old.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/13/2012 09:18PM by MonicaPignotti.

Monica:

I will look into the research regarding chapter 13 in "Snapping".

The overwhelming majority of people that leave cults do not seek follow-up counseling or therapy.

In some cases this can be bad, but in most it seems to me that they move on successfully without incident directly pertaining to this issue.

My evidence would be anecdotal according to the feedback received through this Web site over the past 16 years.

When I do intervention work at the end I specifically make it a point to mention follow-up professional counseling as a possible option and that there are helping professionals with a knowledge of destructive cults.

But this is something that each person then decides upon individually based upon their own preference and situation.

Many opt for follow-up counseling and many do not.

Some of the people that did not seemed to have a more difficulty in the recovry process, while others that did not receive such counseling and appeared to do just fine.

Again, my approach to cult intervention work is education not counseling.

Margaret Singer once described this type of deprogramming process as "providing members with information about the cult and showing them how their own decision-making power had been taken away from them."

What she meant was inforamtion about cults, the cult in question specifically and the process of coercive persuasion coupled with an explanation of the influence techniques typically used by destructiv cults. The net result is usually a more informed indvidual subsequently making a more informed choice about their continued involvement in the group.

This approach doesn't include discussing a cult member's personal life and problems, family dynamics, etc. which would be the focus of professional counseling or therapy. Whenever these issues come up within an intervention my response would be that's not my focus and/or what this discussion is about, and that I am not a counselor.

This is why I felt uncomfortable with the title "exit-counselor" and that moniker now seems to have been abandoned in favor of title "consultant" or "intervention specialist".

Steve Hassan apparently wants to be both an cult intervention specialist and a professional counselor and family therapist.

It seems to me that this might pose quite a few problems ethically concerning boundaries.