Misinformation Concerning Child Sexual Abuse and Adult Survivors

Paul Jay Fink, Joyanna Silberg, Charles L. Whitfield

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781317825371
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychologie
• Subtopic: Psychotherapie

Successfully navigate the minefield of misinformation that can prevent justice from being done in child sexual abuse cases! From the Foreword, by Robert Geffner, PhD, editor of the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse: "Too often, the public and some professionals have been misled by media publicity and articles... that appear scientific, but in reality, are biased opinions or over-generalized research. Forensic cases are being decided in many courts based upon the recommendations of so-called 'expert witnesses'who do not actually know the clinical research or understand the dynamics of such abusive relationships." This much-needed book points out and corrects misinformation that everyone who works with victims, offenders, or families in which sexual abuse has occurred needs to understand clearly. Especially vital in today's political climate, Misinformation Concerning Child Sexual Abuse and Adult Survivors gives you state-of-the-science information on such myths as "false memory syndrome, " "recovered memory therapy, " and the "lack of harm" to some sexually abused boys. Misinformation Concerning Child Sexual Abuse and Adult Survivors examines:

• forensic issues, including the "false memory" defense and how the long-term impact of childhood sexual abuse is often misrepresented in court
• three separate expert examinations of Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman's well-known--and often misrepresented--review of long-term child sexual abuse outcomes
• treatment recommendations and guidelines for addressing the memory controversy in clinical practice
• the fascinating case history/cautionary tale of the child molester Robert Halsey, who was convicted and sentenced to two life sentences in 1993, and how public and academic resources were misused to claim he was wrongly convicted

LONG TERM SEQUELAE OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Science or Propaganda? An Examination of Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman (1998)

Stephanie J. Dallam

Stephanie J. Dallam, RN, MSN, is Researcher for the Leadership Council. Prior to the Leadership Council, she worked in pediatric intensive care for 10 years at University of Missouri Hospital and Clinics, and is a former nursing instructor at the University of Missouri-Columbia. She has written numerous articles on issues related to the welfare of children.

Address correspondence to: Stephanie J. Dallam, 191 Presidential Boulevard, Suite C-132, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 (E-mail: [email protected]).

The author would like to thank David Gleaves, Joyanna Silberg, and Lynn Crook for useful comments and criticism. The author would also like to thank Els Grimminck for help with obtaining and translating Dutch newspaper articles.

SUMMARY. An article, “A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” published in the July 1998 edition of the Psychological Bulletin resulted in an unprecedented amount of media attention and became the first scientific article to be formally denounced by the United States House of Representatives. The study’s authors analyzed the findings of 59 earlier studies on child sexual abuse (CSA) and concluded that mental health researchers have greatly overstated CSA’s harmful potential. They recommended that a willing encounter with positive reactions would no longer be considered to be sexual abuse; instead, it would simply be labeled adult-child sex. The study’s conclusions and recommendations spawned a debate in both the popular and scholarly press. A number of commentators suggested that the study is pedophile propaganda masquerading as science. Others claimed that the authors are victims of a moralistic witch-hunt and that scientific freedom is being threatened. After a careful examination of the evidence, it is concluded that Rind et al. can best be described as an advocacy article that inappropriately uses science in an attempt to legitimize its findings. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2001 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. American Psychological Association, child sexual abuse, ethics, pedophilia, sexual politics, scientific freedom, United States Congress

THE CONTROVERSY

A study entitled “A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples,” published in the July 1998 edition of the prestigious Psychological Bulletin, resulted in enormous social controversy and debate. The study’s authors, Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman, analyzed 59 studies of college students and concluded that mental health researchers have greatly overstated the harmful potential of being abused. Despite finding that students who reported a history of child sexual abuse (CSA) were less well adjusted in 17 of the 18 types of psychological adjustment examined, Rind et al. (1998) suggested that the relationship may be spurious due to the confounding of CSA with family dysfunction. Rind et al. also reported that “men reacted much less negatively than women” (p. 22) and that “consent” was an important moderator of adjustment in males. They later summarized their findings, stating: “We showed that for boys in nonclinical populations, willing relations are generally experienced positively or neutrally and are not associated with maladjustment” (Rind, Bauserman, & Tromovitch, 1999, p. 2185). Rind et al. (1998) went on to suggest that when labeling events that have “heretofore been defined sociolegally as CSA,” scientists should focus on the young person’s perception of the experience: A willing encounter with positive reactions would no longer be considered to be sexual abuse; instead, it would “be labeled simply adult-child sex” (p. 46).

Not surprisingly, the study was immediately embraced by pedophile organizations. The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), a political and educational organization that advocates for the decriminalization of “consensual” pedophilic relationships, stated that the study confirmed that “the current war on boy-lovers has no basis in science.” NAMBLA also publicly thanked the American Psychological Association (APA) for having the courage to publish the paper (Saunders, 1999).

The study did not come to the general public’s attention until almost nine months after its publication. Alerted by a listener, popular radio talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger discussed the study’s findings on her show. On March 22, 1999, she told her 18 million listeners that she feared that the study “could be used to normalize pedophilia, to change the legal system” (Duin, 1999). Soon after Schlessinger aired her concerns, a number of other public commentators severely criticized the study and the APA’s role in printing it. For example, in an article titled “Lolita Nation,” newspaper columnist Debra Saunders (1999) stated that “the APA showed appalling judgment in printing this pedophilia propaganda.”

Political leaders were also disturbed by the study’s conclusions. Dr. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) stated:

As a practicing physician trained in science, I am shocked that the Psychological Association would publish a study that is clearly pedophilia propaganda masquerading as science. … The APA has brought itself and the entire psychological profession in disrepute by failing to filter junk science from a scientific journal. (Myers, 1999, p. 11)

In Alaska, Rep. Fred Dyson introduced a resolution (HJR 36)¹ calling on the APA to repudiate the study. The resolution was unanimously passed on April 30, 1999 and became a model for similar efforts in California, Delaware, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and the U.S. Congress.

Negative publicity resulted in a number of press releases and statements by APA leaders. On March 23, 1999, APA released a statement that reaffirmed its strong historical stand against CSA and stated that “publication of the findings of a research project within an APA journal is in no way an endorsement of a finding by the Association” (American Psychological Association, 1999). However, on May 14, 1999, APA Chief Executive Officer Raymond D. Fowler, PhD, defended the study on national television (MSNBC), stating: “It isn’t a bad study, it’s been peer-reviewed … it’s a good study.” On May 25, 1999, Fowler defended the study again in a letter emailed to APA division officers. Fowler said that the study passed a rigorous peer review process “and has, since the controversy, been reviewed again by an expert in statistical analysis who affirmed that it meets current standards and that the methodology, which is widely used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop guidelines, is sound.” Suggesting that politicians and members of the media were misrepresenting the study’s findings to further their political agenda, Fowler assured the officers that the APA was “working hard to try to correct the record with those politicians and members of the media who care about the facts.”

The study was also criticized by several scientific organizations. On May 24, 1999, the Leadership Council on Mental Health, Justice and the Media, whose mission includes ensuring that the “the public receives accurate information about mental health issues” (Leadership Council, March 1999) issued a press release noting that Rind et al. improperly generalized from studies of predominantly noncontact experiences during adolescence in formulating some of their conclusions about the relative harmlessness of sex between adults and children. A few days later (May 27, 1999), Steven M. Mirin, MD, Medical Director of the American Psychiatric Association, expressed the Psychiatric Association’s disagreement “with the implications of the authors’ conclusions.” Mirin stated, “From a psychological perspective, sex between adult and child is always abusive and exploitative because the adult always holds the power in the relationship. … Academic hair-splitting over whether the act should be considered adult-child sex or child sexual abuse … is not in the public interest and obfuscates the moral issues involved” (“Psychiatric Association Criticizes,” 1999).

Apparently, the continued negative public reaction led Fowler to reconsider his support of the study. On June 9, 1999, Fowler hand-carried a letter to Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex) in which he admitted that the APA failed to “evaluate the article based on its potential for misinforming the public policy process.” Fowler also acknowledged that “some of the language in the article when examined from a public policy perspective is inflammatory” and includes opinions “inconsistent” with APA’s policy on child protection issues. Fowler pledged that in the future his organization would be more cognizant of the potential for publications to misinform the public on important issues. Fowler also announced that for the first time in its 107-year history of publishing it has sought independent expert evaluation of the scientific quality of an article. The next day, Fowler (June 10, 1999) announced that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) had been asked to do the review, “because its credibility is unquestioned.”

In July 1999, the meta-analysis by Rind et al. became the first scientific study to be formally denounced by the United States Congress. The House of Representatives and Senate both unanimously passed a resolution which rejected “the conclusions of a recent article published in the Psychological Bulletin, a journal of the American Psychological Association, that suggests that sexual relationships between adults and children might be positive for children.” The resolution explained that “elected officials have a duty to inform and counter actions they consider damaging to children, parents, families, and society” (House Con. Res. 107).²

In response to criticism of their study, Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman released a number of statements vigorously defending their results and conclusions. They claimed that their research “brought methodological rigor into an area that needed this” (Rind, Tromovitch, & Bauserman, November 6, 1999), and suggested that they had “an ethical duty” to report their findings (Rind, Tromovitch, & Bauserman, May 12, 1999). Claiming to be victims of political persecution, the authors characterized their critics as “religious and moralistic zealots” (e.g., Rind et al., November 6, 1999). A flyer for a continuing education workshop about the controversy offered by Rind and Carol Tavris stated:

The enemies of Galileo and Darwin, the enemies of the natural science model are alive and well. … Not only are the “offending” data dismissed or trivialized, but the messengers can themselves be pressured into silence, recantation, or more simply be vilified by organs of academe and government alike. (“When Politics Clashes with Science,” 2000)³

Concerned that the denouncement by Congress posed a threat to scientific freedom, a number of psychologists rushed to the study’s defense (e.g., Berry, 2000; Tavris, 1999; Woll, 1999). For example, Stanley Woll (July 26, 1999), Professor of Psychology at California State-Fullerton, suggested that Rind et al. were victims of a “McCarthyesque witch hunt” which represented “a dangerous assault on the process of scientific research in general.”

The AAAS’s Committee of Scientific Freedom and Responsibility ultimately declined APA’s request for a review of the study, saying they saw “no reason to second-guess the process of peer review used by the APA journal in its decision to publish the article in question” (McCarty, 1999, p. 2). AAAS also reported that they “saw no clear evidence of improper application of methodology or other questionable practices on the part of the article’s authors” (p. 3). However, they added that, “if there were such problems, uncovering them would be the task of those reviewing it prior to publication or to readers of the published article” (p. 3). AAAS further noted, “The fact that the Committee has chosen not to proceed with an evaluation of the article in the Psychological Bulletin should not be seen either as endorsement or criticism of it” (p. 3). Despite the disclaimer, Rind and Tromovitch viewed the AAAS’s decision as a vindication of their work. Tromovitch stated: “Their comments indicate to me that they consider our work to be up to par” (Burling, 1999).

The APA indicated that it had no plans to ask any other organization to review the study. In early December 1999, Ray Fowler went on a protracted sick leave citing stress. The debate over the study’s merit remained unresolved. The purpose of the present article is to examine whether Rind et al. (1998) is best characterized as unpopular science or pedophile propaganda.

THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

When anybody makes a claim that is surprising or seems to be unlikely, science demands evidence. Thus, the first step in evaluating the conflicting views of the merit of Rind et al.’s (1998) work is to evaluate whether their findings are supported by appropriate data. Some have suggested that the results of the study by Rind et al. must be correct because the study passed peer review⁴; however, it is important to note that passing peer review is no guarantee that a study’s results are correct. Without access to the original data, peer reviewers are often unable to determine the validity of a study’s results (Whitely, Rennie & Hafner, 1994). There are really only two ways to determine whether the results of a study are valid: (1) ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• About the Editors
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction: Exposing Misinformation Concerning Child Sexual Abuse and Adult Survivors
• MISINFORMATION/DISINFORMATION ABOUT CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE
• FORENSIC ISSUES
• LONG TERM SEQUELAE OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
• Index