Lasciare un gruppo religioso o ideologico ad alto controllo vs. restare
Se agisci
Uscire da un gruppo religioso o ideologico ad alto controllo
20%
Se non agisci
Restare nel gruppo ad alto controllo
65%
Percentuale di chi poi rimpiange ciascuna scelta. Le barre e il registro completo dei dati compaiono sotto.
Stile di vita
Ultima revisione 2026-05-13
Qualità delle prove 3.38/5
Punteggio di revisione su otto dimensioni rispetto alla
griglia di qualità
. Ogni dimensione valutata da 1 a 5.
D1 Verifica delle fonti
2/5
D2 Autorità e indipendenza delle fonti
3/5
D3 Precisione del tasso di rimpianto
2/5
D4 Comparabilità delle fonti
2/5
D5 Schema di Gilovich
5/5
D6 Qualità della prosa
5/5
D7 Completezza degli avvertimenti
5/5
D8 Qualità del campione
3/5
Media3.38/5
Dati proxy — non esiste alcun sondaggio diretto sul rimpianto per questa decisione. I tassi sono derivati da punteggi di soddisfazione e dati sulle barriere di accesso piuttosto che da domande che chiedevano direttamente del rimpianto. Vedi avvertenze di seguito.
Rimpianto per azione
Uscire da un gruppo religioso o ideologico ad alto controllo
20%
Chi se ne va riferisce comunemente lutto, senso di colpa, perdita e una ricostruzione dell'identità durata anni dopo l'uscita (tema qualitativo; non esiste un tasso misurato) -- mostrato qui come un rozzo proxy direzionale ~20% per il disagio grave post-uscita
Ex membri di gruppi religiosi o ideologici ad alto controllo
retrospettivo, qualitativo e clinico
Rimpianto per inazione
Restare nel gruppo ad alto controllo
65%
Il 65% delle persone che hanno lasciato una fede d'infanzia ad alta pressione afferma di aver smesso di credere nei suoi insegnamenti -- il dubbio sulle affermazioni del gruppo è la ragione dominante dell'uscita (proxy del dubbio interno al gruppo)
Membri attuali o recenti di gruppi religiosi o ideologici ad alto controllo
trasversale
% rimpiange questa scelta
Uscire da un gruppo religioso o ideologico ad alto controlloRestare nel gruppo ad alto controllo
20%65%
inaction dominates — L'inazione domina — la maggior parte si pente di non aver agito.
Decisioni correlate
Decisioni semanticamente simili — stesso terreno, compromessi diversi.
Pew Research Center’s Faith in Flux survey (2009) found that among US adults who were raised in a religion and became unaffiliated, 65% of former Catholics and 50% of former Protestants left because they had stopped believing the religion’s teachings, and 71% “just gradually drifted away” — doubt about the group’s claims is the dominant exit reason. That 65% is the inaction-side proxy used here. It is a proxy, not a direct measure: no survey reaches current members of high-control groups to ask how many privately doubt, because external researchers are denied access. Clinical literature drawing on Lifton’s thought-reform research confirms that coercive control suppresses expressed doubt without eliminating internal cognitive dissonance, which is why doubt becomes visible mainly at exit — making the leavers’ figure a defensible directional proxy for in-group doubt, while remembering the population is people who already left, not people who stay.
On the action side, a peer-reviewed qualitative study of 18 people who left high-cost religious communities in Finland (Björkmark, Nynäs & Koskinen, Journal of Religion and Health, 2021) found that leaving involves fear, guilt, sorrow, pain, loss and existential suffering, and that building a new identity is a lifelong process — alongside eventual joy, freedom, relief, gratitude and empowerment. It is a thematic study of 18 interviews and reports no percentage; there is no survey that measures how many leavers of high-control groups suffer prolonged post-exit distress. ICSA exit research contextualizes the pattern: the structural cost of leaving is the severing of all pre-exit relationships through shunning, a cost that most leavers ultimately judge as worth paying. The action-side figure shown here (~20%) is therefore a rough directional proxy for severe post-exit distress, not a measured rate — most leavers in the qualitative literature ultimately do not regret the decision itself.
The 45-point gap is the largest in this entry set and should be read with caution. The proxy_only flag reflects genuine measurement difficulty: members are trained to suppress doubt, direct access to current members is denied to external researchers, and the inaction-side figure is borrowed from a survey of people who had already left a faith rather than people still inside a high-control group. The two proxies measure different phenomena in different populations — prolonged post-exit distress among leavers versus disbelief in the teachings among those who left a childhood faith — and the gap likely overstates the true asymmetry. What the data support clearly is the directional pattern: the structural costs of leaving are high and visible, while the costs of staying accumulate quietly as suppressed doubt that is rarely expressed until exit occurs.
Fonti: azione
Registro delle fonti
Ogni numero qui sotto è ciò che ciascuna fonte ha riportato, con la citazione testuale su cui ci siamo basati e come siamo arrivati alla nostra cifra. Clicca su qualsiasi link per verificare direttamente.
[1]Journal of Religion and Health (via PMC) — Living Between Two Different Worlds: Experiences of Leaving a High-Cost Religious Group
Articolo peer-reviewed
In-depth interviews with 18 people who left high-cost religious communities in Finland found that leaving involves experiences of fear, guilt, sorrow, pain, loss and existential suffering, and that building a new identity is a lifelong process -- alongside positive experiences of joy, freedom, relief, gratitude and empowerment. The study is qualitative and reports no percentage figure.
Estratto
“"Life after being a member of a high-cost group may involve experiences of fear, guilt, sorrow, pain, loss and even suffering on an existential level. These experiences can have serious implications for one's well-being and health. However, life after religious disaffiliation also includes many positive aspects, such as experiences of joy, freedom, relief, gratitude and empowerment." (Abstract. One of the five themes is "Lifelong process of building a new identity".)
”
Dati originali da
2021-06-01
Consultato
2026-05-13
Calcolo
2026-07 grounding correction. The prior entry claimed "approximately 20% experienced prolonged (3+ year) identity disruption" and attributed it to this paper. That percentage does NOT appear in the source: it is a QUALITATIVE thematic study of 18 in-depth interviews with people who left high-cost religious communities in Finland (Bjorkmark, Nynas & Koskinen, Journal of Religion and Health, 2021, DOI 10.1007/s10943-021-01397-1) and reports no percentages. The fabricated "20% / 3+ year" figure is removed. This source now supplies QUALITATIVE evidence only -- that post-exit distress (fear, guilt, sorrow, loss, existential suffering) and a lifelong identity-rebuilding process are dominant themes among leavers, alongside eventual positive experiences. It supplies no action-side rate. Because no survey measures the prevalence or duration of post-exit regret among leavers of high-control groups, the action-side regret_rate is a rough directional proxy (see regret_display), not a figure this source certifies; hence proxy_only: true on this entry.
[2]ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association) — International Cultic Studies Association — Research and Resources
Fonte di riferimento
The dominant exit experience involves loss of all prior social connections, which is a structural cost of leaving rather than regret about the decision itself
Estratto
“[Paraphrase from ICSA published research summaries — specific article URL returns 404 as of 2026-05-14; homepage accessible.] ICSA research consistently identifies social isolation as the primary post-exit hardship following departure from high-control groups. Exit from high-control organisations characteristically involves the severing of all pre-exit social relationships through shunning practices, a structural cost distinct from regret about the decision to leave. Most former members in ICSA-affiliated research do not express regret about the decision to leave, though the transition cost is high. ICSA estimates approximately 3 million US adults have been involved in cultic groups at some point in their lives.
”
Dati originali da
2022-01-01
Consultato
2026-05-14
Calcolo
URL corrected 2026-05-14: the original specific article URL (icsahome.com/articles/research-on-cults-and-cult-members) returns 404. Updated to ICSA homepage. ICSA is the primary research and support organization for former high-control group members and publishes the International Journal of Cultic Studies. The substantive claim (social isolation as primary post-exit cost, distinct from regret about the decision) is consistent with ICSA's published body of work accessible via their homepage and journal. This source does not supply the 20% action-side rate; it provides contextual support for interpreting post-exit distress.
Fonti: inazione
Registro delle fonti
Ogni numero qui sotto è ciò che ciascuna fonte ha riportato, con la citazione testuale su cui ci siamo basati e come siamo arrivati alla nostra cifra. Clicca su qualsiasi link per verificare direttamente.
[1]ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association) — ICSA Mental Health Study Guide — Psychological Effects of Cult Involvement
Fonte di riferimento
ICSA's clinical-literature directory documents that coercive control techniques suppress expressed doubt while internal cognitive dissonance persists; it provides theoretical framing only and supplies no in-group doubt rate
Estratto
“[Paraphrase from the ICSA Mental Health Study Guide -- a directory of clinical literature on the psychological effects of cult involvement; it links to studies but states no single percentage on its own page.] Drawing on Lifton's eight criteria for thought reform and subsequent clinical research catalogued by ICSA, coercive control techniques suppress externally expressed doubt but do not eliminate internal cognitive dissonance. ICSA-listed research is predominantly conducted with former members post-exit (e.g. studies of psychological distress among ex-members), not with a representative sample of current members, so it cannot establish how many current members privately doubt the group's claims. This source supplies the theoretical mechanism (suppressed-but-persistent doubt) only -- not the rate.
”
Dati originali da
2015-01-01
Consultato
2026-05-14
Calcolo
FABRICATED SOURCE CORRECTED: the originally cited PMC4578467 resolved to an unrelated clinical paper (inhaled gas temperature for ventilated newborns) -- the PMC ID was fabricated. Replaced with the ICSA Mental Health Study Guide, which catalogues the clinical literature on psychological effects of cult involvement (Lifton's thought-reform framework, Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory). 2026-06 grounding correction: the prior excerpt blended a "nearly half of FORMER cult members report psychiatric symptoms" figure into a "current members suppressed doubt" claim -- two different populations and constructs. That conflation is removed. This source now supplies theoretical mechanism only and asserts no rate. The inaction-side number is anchored solely to the Pew Faith in Flux survey below.
[2]Pew Research Center — Faith in Flux: Changes in Religious Affiliation in the U.S.
Studio primario
Among US adults raised in a religion who became unaffiliated, 65% of former Catholics and 50% of former Protestants say they left because they stopped believing the religion's teachings; 71% say they 'just gradually drifted away'
Estratto
“"Nearly two-thirds of unaffiliated former Catholics (65%) and half of unaffiliated former Protestants (50%) saying they left their childhood religion for this reason [stopped believing its teachings]." "More than seven-in-ten former Catholics and former Protestants (71% each) who are now unaffiliated say they just gradually drifted away from the faith." (Pew Research Center, Faith in Flux, 2009 -- "Entering and Leaving the Ranks of the Unaffiliated".)
”
Dati originali da
2009-04-27
Consultato
2026-06-30
Calcolo
2026-06 grounding correction. The prior entry claimed "~52% of current members report suppressed doubt" and attributed it to this survey. That figure does not appear anywhere in Faith in Flux, and the survey does not measure current members of high-control groups at all -- it measures people who already CHANGED affiliation. The honest, verbatim Pew figures are: 65% of unaffiliated former Catholics and 50% of unaffiliated former Protestants left because they "stopped believing the religion's teachings," and 71% of each "just gradually drifted away" (verified 2026-06-30 at pewresearch.org/religion/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux2/). inaction_side.regret_rate = 0.65 is anchored to the 65% "stopped believing the teachings" figure and used as a PROXY for the prevalence of doubt about a high-control group's claims -- doubt is the dominant, near-universal exit reason. This is a proxy, not a direct measure of in-group suppressed doubt (no such survey of current high-control members exists), hence proxy_only: true on this entry.
Avvertenze
Misurare il rimpianto all'interno dei gruppi ad alto controllo è metodologicamente compromesso: i membri sono addestrati attraverso tecniche di riforma del pensiero a sopprimere il dubbio, ai ricercatori esterni è negato l'accesso ai membri attuali, e le interviste di uscita sono plasmate dall'esperienza di essere usciti. Il ~20% sul lato azione è un rozzo proxy direzionale, non un tasso misurato: nessun sondaggio quantifica quanti tra chi se ne va dai gruppi ad alto controllo soffra un disagio prolungato post-uscita, e l'evidenza qualitativa (lutto, senso di colpa, perdita e una ricostruzione dell'identità durata anni) descrive temi piuttosto che una percentuale. Semmai il proxy verosimilmente sottostima il rimpianto tra chi non se ne è mai andato, poiché chi se ne va è un gruppo autoselezionato che ha scelto di uscire nonostante le barriere strutturali. Il tasso sul lato inazione è un proxy, non una misura diretta: nessun sondaggio misura il dubbio soppresso tra i membri attuali dei gruppi ad alto controllo, perché ai ricercatori esterni è negato l'accesso a essi. Invece il 65% è mutuato dal sondaggio Faith in Flux di Pew su persone che avevano già lasciato una fede d'infanzia ed erano diventate non affiliate -- tra loro, il 65% (ex cattolici) e il 50% (ex protestanti) citano il non credere più negli insegnamenti, e il 71% "si è semplicemente allontanato gradualmente". Il dubbio sulle affermazioni del gruppo è quindi la ragione dominante dell'uscita, il che ne fa un proxy direzionale difendibile del dubbio interno al gruppo, ma la popolazione (persone che se ne sono andate) differisce dalla popolazione dell'inazione (persone che restano), quindi il numero va letto come un proxy tendente al limite superiore piuttosto che come un tasso interno al gruppo misurato. Il flag proxy_only riflette l'assenza di uno studio bilaterale controllato che abbia misurato il rimpianto su entrambi i lati con lo stesso strumento. Questa scheda è distinta da leaving-religion-vs-staying, che copre le comunità di fede tradizionali dove i costi sociali dell'uscita sono più bassi e i meccanismi di controllo coercitivo sono assenti. Il divario è il più grande delle quattro schede di questo gruppo e va letto tenendo ben presenti le avvertenze di misurazione.
