Recover From Coercive Control
How To Spot A
CULT
Group-Based
Coercive Control Rubric
This is a question many people ask—and often not till long after they’ve left.
​
There isn’t always a simple answer.
​
Because coercive control doesn’t look the same in every situation.
Was I in a high-control group?
Why this question can be hard to answer ...
Most people expect high-control environments to be obvious.
​
But many are not.
​
They can feel:
​
-
supportive
-
purposeful
-
even empowering—at least at first​
Over time, things can shift.
Gradually. Subtly.
​
That’s what makes them difficult to recognise.
A different way to look at it ...
Instead of asking: “Was this a cult?”
​
It can be more helpful to ask: “What patterns were present?”
​
Coercive control is not one behaviour. It’s a combination of features that work together over time.
​
Some may be dominate. Others barely noticeable, maybe even healthy. But together, they can have a powerful impact.
How this rubric works ...
This rubric breaks coercive control into key components—so you can explore your experience in a more structured way.
​
It looks at patterns such as:
​
-
influence and authority
-
dependency and belonging
-
boundaries and autonomy
-
pressure, fear, or obligation
-
changes in identity or thinking
You don’t need to relate to everything. And there’s no score you need to reach. This isn’t about labelling your experience. It’s about helping you see it more clearly.
Why patterns matter ...
Two situations can look completely different on the surface—
​
A spiritual group
A relationship
A workplace
A family system
​
And yet share similar underlying dynamics.
​
This is why people sometimes describe coercive control as a “cult of two”
The structure may change. The patterns often don’t.
Take your time ...
You don’t need to go through the rubric all at once.
​
Many people:
​
-
pause partway through
-
come back later
-
notice new things each time​
You might want to return to this page as your understanding evolves.
Begin exploring ...
Download the printable version or review the criteria descriptions on screen.
​
🔘 Start with the first descriptive feature (authoritative leadership)
🔘 Move onto the next, etc.
🔘 Add up the final score
🔘 Review the final rank
International Cultic Studies Association (ICSA) Conference Talk
In 2025, I had the honour of being able to present my rubric at the ICSA conference via video. Accompanying handbook available upon email request.
OVERALL CULT RANKING
Once you have selected the criteria description that best suits the group you are analysing according to the 12 features, 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.​​​​​​​​​​
​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
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.
​
​
-
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".
​