Вийти з релігійної або ідеологічної групи з високим контролем або залишитися
Якщо ви дієте
Покинути сильно контролюючу релігійну або ідеологічну групу
20%
Якщо ви не дієте
Залишитися в сильно контролюючій групі
65%
Відсоток тих, хто згодом шкодує про кожен вибір. Стовпчики та повний реєстр показані нижче.
Lifestyle
Остання перевірка 2026-05-13
Якість доказів 3.38/5
Восьмивимірна оцінка перевірки за
рубрикою якості
. Кожен вимір оцінений 1–5.
D1 Перевірка джерел
2/5
D2 Авторитет та незалежність джерела
3/5
D3 Точність частоти жалю
2/5
D4 Порівнянність джерел
2/5
D5 Шаблон Гіловича
5/5
D6 Якість прози
5/5
D7 Повнота застережень
5/5
D8 Якість вибірки
3/5
Середнє3.38/5
Замінні дані — для цього рішення не існує прямого дослідження жалю. Показники отримані з оцінок задоволеності та даних про бар'єри доступу, а не з питань, що безпосередньо стосувалися жалю. Дивіться застереження нижче.
Жаль за дію
Покинути сильно контролюючу релігійну або ідеологічну групу
20%
Ті, хто пішов, часто повідомляють про горе, провину, втрату та багаторічну перебудову ідентичності після виходу (якісна тема; виміряного показника не існує) — тут наведено як приблизний ~20% орієнтовний проксі для тяжкого дистресу після виходу
колишні члени сильно контролюючих релігійних або ідеологічних груп
ретроспективно, якісно і клінічно
Жаль за бездіяльність
Залишитися в сильно контролюючій групі
65%
65% людей, які покинули віру дитинства з високими вимогами, кажуть, що перестали вірити в її вчення — сумнів щодо тверджень групи є домінантною причиною виходу (проксі для внутрішньогрупового сумніву)
поточні або нещодавні члени сильно контролюючих релігійних або ідеологічних груп
поперечно
% шкодує про цей вибір
Покинути сильно контролюючу релігійну або ідеологічну групуЗалишитися в сильно контролюючій групі
20%65%
inaction dominates — Бездіяльність переважає — більшість шкодує, що не діяла.
Пов’язані рішення
Семантично близькі рішення — та сама сфера, інші компроміси.
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.
Джерела: дія
Реєстр тверджень
Кожне число нижче — це те, що повідомило джерело, з дослівною цитатою, на яку ми спиралися, та тим, як ми дійшли до нашої цифри. Натисніть на посилання, щоб перевірити самостійно.
[1]Journal of Religion and Health (via PMC) — Living Between Two Different Worlds: Experiences of Leaving a High-Cost Religious Group
Рецензована публікація
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.
Витяг
“"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".)
”
Дані джерела:
2021-06-01
Дата звернення
2026-05-13
Розрахунок
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
Авторитетне довідкове видання
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
Витяг
“[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.
”
Дані джерела:
2022-01-01
Дата звернення
2026-05-14
Розрахунок
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.
Джерела: бездіяльність
Реєстр тверджень
Кожне число нижче — це те, що повідомило джерело, з дослівною цитатою, на яку ми спиралися, та тим, як ми дійшли до нашої цифри. Натисніть на посилання, щоб перевірити самостійно.
[1]ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association) — ICSA Mental Health Study Guide — Psychological Effects of Cult Involvement
Авторитетне довідкове видання
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
Витяг
“[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.
”
Дані джерела:
2015-01-01
Дата звернення
2026-05-14
Розрахунок
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.
Первинне дослідження
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'
Витяг
“"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".)
”
Дані джерела:
2009-04-27
Дата звернення
2026-06-30
Розрахунок
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.
Застереження
Measuring regret within high-control groups is methodologically compromised: members are trained through thought-reform techniques to suppress doubt, external researchers are denied access to current members, and exit interviews are shaped by the experience of having left. The action-side ~20% is a rough directional proxy, not a measured rate: no survey quantifies how many leavers of high-control groups suffer prolonged post-exit distress, and the qualitative evidence (grief, guilt, loss and a years-long identity rebuild) describes themes rather than a percentage. If anything the proxy likely underestimates regret among those who never left, since leavers are a self-selected group who chose to exit despite structural barriers. The inaction-side rate is a proxy, not a direct measure: no survey measures suppressed doubt among current members of high-control groups, because external researchers are denied access to them. Instead the 65% is borrowed from Pew's Faith in Flux survey of people who had already left a childhood faith and become unaffiliated -- among them, 65% (former Catholics) and 50% (former Protestants) cite no longer believing the teachings, and 71% "just gradually drifted away." Doubt about the group's claims is therefore the dominant exit reason, which makes it a defensible directional proxy for in-group doubt, but the population (people who left) differs from the inaction population (people who stay), so the number should be read as an upper-bound-leaning proxy rather than a measured in-group rate. The proxy_only flag reflects the absence of a controlled bilateral study that measured regret on both sides with the same instrument. This entry is distinct from leaving-religion-vs-staying, which covers mainstream faith communities where social costs of exit are lower and coercive control mechanisms are absent. The gap is the largest of the four entries in this set and should be read with the measurement caveats firmly in mind.
