Final answer:
When a predicted apocalypse does not occur, doomsday cult members and leaders often rationalize the failure or revise their beliefs, with some settings new dates for the end of the world or claiming their actions averted the disaster. The case of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians exemplifies the intense commitment and the likely reformation of beliefs post-crisis.
Step-by-step explanation:
When people join doomsday cults and the world does not end as predicted, several reactions can occur based on historical examples and psychological studies of group behavior. Option A is possible, as some members may realize they've been fooled and leave. However, this is often not the case due to cognitive dissonance and sunk cost fallacy which can cause members to rationalize the failure of prophecy in various ways. More commonly, as in Option B, cult leaders set a new doomsday date to retain their followers, asserting that the initial date was either a miscalculation or served to test the faith of adherents. Sometimes, as per Option D, members may indeed remain committed to the cult, believing through intricate rationalizations that their actions somehow contributed to 'saving' the world from the anticipated apocalypse.
The case of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians illustrates the extreme devotion followers can have to their leader and their apocalyptic visions, even to the point of embracing martyrdom when their beliefs are challenged. Cults like this typically possess a highly persuasive and charismatic leader, as evidenced by the continued expectations of Koresh's return among a segment of his followers. In the transformations that occur following the non-realization of an apocalypse, the leadership might evolve, adapt its narratives, or even be succeeded by a new leader who either champions the original prophecy or offers a reinterpreted path for the cult.