RECOVER FROM COERCIVE CONTROL
How To Spot A
CULT
Wolves in Disguise
Determining whether a group exhibits cult-like characteristics can be challenging, as many groups present themselves in positive and welcoming ways. However, using a structured approach, like Renee's Cult Ranking System, can make the process clearer. This system evaluates groups based on 12 key criteria, from authoritative leadership to "us versus them" mentality. Each group receives a score that helps measure how close they are to cult behaviour. By following this rubric, you can better identify warning signs and assess whether a group’s influence is healthy or harmful.
RENEE'S CULT RANKING CRITERIA
FEATURE | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
AUTHORITATIVE LEADERSHIP | Democratic leadership style with shared decision-making | Leader/s holds authority with limited input from others | Leader/s exerts significant control over decisions with little to no input from others | Absolute authority with no room for dissent or input from others; often a charismatic leader |
CONTROL OVER INFORMATION | Transparency and openness in sharing information | Selective dissemination of information to manipulate perception or control narrative | Restricting access to certain information to maintain authority or control | Total control over information flow, including censorship, propaganda, and indoctrination |
DECEPTION | Honesty, transparency and openness | Misleading or exaggerated claims, during recruitment phase and ongoing | False representation, lies, and withholding information during recruitment phase and ongoing | Gaslighting, fraud, and propaganda during recruitment phase and ongoing |
EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE | Open to new ideas | Information is subject to limited interpretation | Knowledge handed down by leaders is indisputable | Knowledge is presented as indisputable truth based on a divine origin |
EXPLOITATION | Cooperation and fair treatment | Engagement in one type of exploitation (labour, sexual, financial, etc.) | Participation in two types of exploitation (labour, sexual, financial, etc.) | Three or more forms of exploitation (ie. financial, labour (mental & physical), organ donations, branding, sexual (all forms), slavery, etc.) |
FEAR, GUILT, &/or INTIMIDATION | Everyone treated with respect and dignity | Utilisation of guilt and other negative emotions to cultivate loyalty | Instilling fear through doctrines and/or threatening behaviour | Use of fear and intimidation tactics through teachings and/or threatening behaviour, which may include physical, emotional, or mental intimidation |
ISOLATION | Independence; can freely move in and out of group | Tight-knit community; clique | Reduced interaction with dissenters or outsiders, limiting access to opposing ideologies | Severely restricted contact with outsiders, particularly those with differing beliefs |
MICRO-MANAGEMENT OF DAILY TASKS | Individuals able to organise daily activities and responsibilities without coercive force | Obligated to work through pressure tactics, eg., frequent and excessive meeting schedules | Being obligated to work full-time for the group, often without fair compensation | Living in a commune where daily routines are dictated by leaders |
MONITORING THOUGHTS &/or BEHAVIOURS | Full autonomy and freedom of thought; individuals encouraged to think independently and make their own decisions | Any form of monitoring, for example accessing journals, private emails, text messages, and social media accounts | Any two forms of monitoring, such as use of cameras, audio listening or tracking devices in items such as handbags, phones or vehicles | Three or more forms of surveillance; stalking or demand proof of location. This could involve engaging others to follow a particular member and report back to leadership |
PUNISHMENT & DISCIPLINE | Emphasis on accountability and constructive feedback | Use of punitive measures like extra chores and verbal insults for discipline | Extreme punishments such as deprivation of food, isolation, physical torture, and relentless berating | Subjecting individuals to extended periods without access to basic needs like food or shelter |
THOUGHT REFORM | Respect for diverse thoughts and beliefs | Subtle manipulation of thoughts and beliefs to align with group ideology | Systematic indoctrination and manipulation techniques to alter beliefs and behaviors | Coercive and extreme methods including isolation, sleep deprivation, and intense psychological pressure to enforce conformity |
US vs THEM MENTALITY | Belief in equality for all | Biases based on gender, race, or religion | Derogatory towards those outside the group | Belief in the superiority or uniqueness of one's own group |
OVERALL CULT RANKING
Once you have selected the criteria description that best suits the group you are analysing according to the 12 features, do the following calculations:
​Divide by 36 (max score), multiply by 10, and round to the nearest whole number - see below for equation.
(RS stands for Raw Score or Renée's Scale, you choose.)​​
​For example, a group that has a total score of 26 would be calculated as 26 divided by 36 = 0.72 x 10 = 7.2.
This rounds to 7 and is indicative of a Significantly Harmful Cult.​​​​​​​​​​
0. SAFE GROUP | This group respects the autonomy of its members, ensuring transparency in information sharing, and fostering an environment where individuals are free to think and act independently without fear of manipulation or coercion |
1. BENIGN GROUP | This group may have a couple of mild cult-like characteristics but is generally considered safe and non-threatening. |
2. MOSTLY BENIGN GROUP | The group exhibits some minor characteristics commonly associated with cults, but these are not typically harmful on their own. Individual experiences within the group may vary. |
3. VERGE OF CULTISH | Generally considered a safe group, although some characteristics may raise questions, particularly if it is a tight-knit group. Individual experiences within the group may vary. |
4. A BIT CULTISH | Cult-like characteristics are noticeable and may raise concerns, but they are not inherently harmful. However, some individuals within the group may experience overt negative effects. |
5. CULTISH | Cult-like behaviours within the group are pronounced, increasing the likelihood of exploitation and causing harm to its members' well-being. |
6. CULT | The group's practices and beliefs pose a substantial risk of exploitation and harm to its members, affecting their physical, mental, and emotional health. |
7. SIGNIFICANTLY HARMFUL CULT | The group's practices and beliefs are cause harm to most members. In many cases, there is pronounced negative impacts on their lives and future. |
8. LIKELY DESTRUCTIVE CULT | The group's behaviours and ideologies are explicitly harmful, resulting in significant negative impacts on its members' lives. |
9. HIGHLY DESTRUCTIVE CULT | The group's practices and beliefs are profoundly damaging, posing a severe threat to its members' safety, autonomy, and physical well-being. |
10. EXTREMELY DESTRUCTIVE CULT | This group exhibits the most severe cult-like behaviours, leading to extreme harm (physical, mental, and emotional), and manipulation. Potential for death of its members more likely than other categories. |
​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
General guide: 0=Safe Group, 1-2=Benign Group, 3-5=Mostly Benign Group, 6-9=Verge of Cultish, 10-12= A Bit Cultish, 13-17=Cultish, 18-25=Cult, 24-27=Significantly Harmful Cult, 28-30=Likely Destructive Cult, 31-34=Highly Destructive Cult, 35-36=Extremely Destructive Cult.
​
​
​General comments about the Renée's Cult Ranking Scale:
Groups that fit into the 1-3 rankings may have some cultic features but are not necessarily "a cult". For instance, a sporting club or business may have an authoritative leader, but that does not make them a cult, provided they don't score high on other criteria.
​
Likewise, a club may insist upon loyalty and subject members to feelings of guilt if they want to leave, therefore they may have an overall ranking of 3. Some people within the group may experience negative things leading to taunts being made that the organisation is a cult. However if the overall behaviours do not exceed mild levels on the rubric, then it can generally be considered not harmful. Schools often fall into this category.
​
In groups that fit into the 4-6 range, the scope for subjective interpretation is reduced. It could be expected that most members will experience some form of harm, in particular emotional or psychological injuries. If a group falls into this range, and they are engaging in physical or sexual abuse, then it will increase the likelihood that it is a harmful high demand group.
​
Anything beyond the range of 7, it can be assumed the group is a harmful destructive cult, moreover, that leaving such a group is difficult due to the high levels of coercive control.
​
3 Important points note when using Renée's Cult Ranking System:
​
-
The scale is only to be used as an indicative measure. In order to achieve a robust ranking for any one particular group, a considerable population size needs to be surveyed about their experiences.
-
Individual's experiences of damaging groups can vary and need to be validated. What one person experiences as a level 3 could be experienced as a level 8 by another. This point is of the utmost importance when supporting survivor-victims.
-
Each criteria needs to be quantified against specific examples. For example, when judging the level to which group displays an “Us-versus-Them” mentally, specific examples need to be referenced. Eg., referring to outsiders "systemites" and/ "Churchies" (as happens in Children of God) could be used to give a marking of "2" for that criteria. Following on, if the group puts into practice behaviours such as publicly demonising anyone who disagrees with them (for example the defamation David McKay did to me), they can be assessed at a "3".
I would love to see a formal academic study conducted that formalises the features that can be applied to destructive cults. If anyone is interested, please use the contact form to get in touch with me.
​