Rind c.s. have several studies on the effect of CSA (all can be found in the Effect section of this bibliography), but the one that raised the controversy is the following:
R. Bauserman, B. Rind, P. Tromovitch: A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples. Psychological Bulletin 124:1 (July 1998), pp. 22-53.
Conclusions: Beliefs about CSA in American culture center on the viewpoint that CSA by nature is such a powerfully negative force that (a) it is likely to cause harm, (b) most children or adolescents who experience it will be affected, (c) this harm will typically be severe or intense, and (d) CSA will have an equivalently negative impact on both boys and girls. Despite this widespread belief, the empirical evidence from college and national samples suggests a more cautious opinion. Results of the present review do not support these assumed properties; CSA does not cause intense harm on a pervasive basis regardless of gender in the college population. The finding that college samples closely parallel national samples with regard to prevalence of CSA, types of experiences, self-perceived effects, and CSA-symptom relations strengthens the conclusion that CSA is not a propertied phenomenon and supports Constantine's conclusion that CSA has no inbuilt or inevitable outcome or set of emotional reactions. An important reason why the assumed properties of CSA failed to withstand empirical scrutiny in the current review is that the construct of CSA, as commonly conceptualized by researchers, is of questionable scientific validity. Overinclusive definitions of abuse that encompass both willing sexual experiences accompanied by positive reactions and coerced sexual experiences with negative reactions produce poor predictive validity. To achieve better scientific validity, a more thoughtful approach is needed by researchers when labeling and categorizing events that have heretofore been defined sociolegally as CSA.
B.N. Baird: Politics, Operant Conditioning, Galileo, and the American Psychological Association's Response to Rind et al. (1998). American Psychologist 57:3 (2002), pp. 189-192.
The controversy surrounding B. Rind, P. Tromovitch, and R. Bauserman (1998) provides valuable lessons into scientific independence, politics, and organizational decision making. In an unprecedented action, the U.S. Congress officially condemned findings of Rind et al. Meanwhile, the American Psychological Association took similarly unprecedented measures in an effort to assuage its Congressional critics. This article, written from the perspective of a psychologist serving in Congress, discusses the various political and organizational dynamics that developed during the controversy. Understanding and learning from this incident can help psychologists and their professional associations better prepare for and respond to potential controversies arising from research or other publications.
DD: Is the rejection by the House of Representatives of the Rind c.s. article the beginning of censorship of scientific findings? Compares the situation with medieval inquisition against the idea that the earth revolves around the sun, and the situation of the sciences in stalinistic Russia.
Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Baserman are among the few who have begun to question the supposed long-term effects of child-adult sexual activity on the children involved. It is appropriate to undertake such research if only to wrest the terms of the debate from conservatives who have used pedophilia as a way to silence all attempts at sexual tolerance.
DD: A good article, finally providing some really valid criticism on the Rind article, which is good because it shows the possibilities for improvement in future articles. Also correct, in my opinion, in stating that the term 'child sexual abuse', rather than being restricted to unwanted contacts as Rind c.s. propose, would better be left out of science completely. There is however one important lack in her article: she shows (in my opinion correctly) that Rind c.s. are biased, but fails to mention that the same holds for basically any other researcher - that the bias of Rind c.s. just is more conspicuous because it is in another direction.
In the spring of 1999, a storm of controversy arose at the local, state, and national levels surrounding an article on the effects of child sexual abuse published in 1998 in Psychological Bulletin. The article was vehemently denounced by various media outlets, conservative grassroots organizations, members of the general public, state legislatures, and ultimately by the United States Congress. The authors chronicle these unprecedented events and related challenges faced by the American Psychological Association. The authors also describe the Association's efforts to resolve the crisis, while staunchly upholding academic freedom and scientific integrity, and review the lessons learned for the field of psychology.
DD: I have not read the article, but from the above abstract it seems that this is no more than an elaborate attempt to get rid of the blame they have gotten. '[S]taunchly upholding academic freedom and scientific integrity'? The APA's reaction was basically half-hearted, and directed mostly at weathering the storm.
In Jul 1998, "Psychological Bulletin" published a meta-analysis of the long-term impact of child sexual abuse on college students which sought to debunk the belief that childhood sexual abuse was inevitable traumatic and inevitably led to later mental health problems. Haaken and Lamb attempt to steer a middle ground between a social constructionist or culturally relative position on sexuality on the one hand, and an approach that emphasizes universal principles of justice and care on the other.
A 1998 meta-analysis by B. Rind, P. Tromovitch, and R. Bauserman in Psychological Bulletin indicated that the relations between child sexual abuse and later psychopathology were weak in magnitude. Shortly thereafter, this article was condemned by media personality Dr. Laura Schlessinger and numerous conservative organizations and was denounced by the United States Congress. In addition, the American Psychological Association (APA) distanced itself from the authors' conclusions. This incident raises questions regarding
The Rind report (1998) used a sophisticated statistical technique to demonstrate that sexual relations between adults and children do not usually have long-term harmful effects on the child. When the report was published it generated a strong political reaction, ending in a congressional resolution of condemnation and the collapse of the APA before the political and ideological onslaught. Though the report took no overt ideological stand, and explicitly acknowledged the separateness of the moral issue, it was interpreted and attacked as a defense of pedophilia. Additionally the character of the report's authors was questioned, and at least one was claimed to be a known defender of pedophilia. The defenders of the report, in turn, defended their methodology and questioned the character and motives of their attackers.
It is certainly not common to have Congress condemn an article and, even though no laws were passed, the strength of the political reaction surprised many. It seemed that the report should have been welcomed, since it showed that many people who were afflicted with what was considered to be a severe psychological problem would be able to lead normal lives. In a sense it was like finding that hereditary AIDS could often disappear on its own, without leaving any ill effects, and that the experience of being sick might even have long term benefits for some of the disease victims.
In this article we are going to examine the political reaction to the Rind report. Though the assertions that a serious empirical or statistical social science argument should not have been published seems shocking, it does go along with the special rules of sexual politics. In that arena laws have a different purpose than they do in other political areas, and the common relationship between normative declarations and empirical findings is reversed.
The author delineates 5 rules of scientific review and publishing and argues that these norms need to be upheld even when to do so proves politically difficult. The 5 rules are:
The response to the Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman (1998) study was surprising. But the response of the American Psychological Association (APA) was, to say the least, startling and distressing. Rather than responding to the outcry provoked by this study with a discussion of the right of and importance for scientists to publish unpopular findings, the APA chose to distance itself from the study. This distancing included the assertion that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes serious harm and that "such activity should never be considered harmless ..." (American Psychological Association, 1999; emphasis in the original). Additionally, the statement ignored the recommendation of Rind et al. to differentiate abusive sexual behavior from the non-abusive.
This paper addresses these two issues. First, it asserts that the idea that adult/nonadult sexual behavior "should never be considered harmless" is not based on the evidence. Second, it supports the importance of differentiating abusive and nonabusive adult/nonadult sexual behavior both in the research and practice arenas. Additionally, this paper explains why a professional organization, such as the APA, would distance itself from the Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman's report. Lastly, it makes recommendations with respect to responding to the problem of adult/nonadult sexual behavior.
Relationships among science, public policy, and the media have long been a topic of controversy. A discussion of this controversy serves to place views on the Rind et al. affair in a broader context and set the stage for constructing more effective working relationships between scientists and both policy and media experts. To advance these relationships, the author offers several recommendations that emphasize ongoing institutional activities and encourage collaboration with other professional organizations.
Given the recent focus on child sexual abuse (CSA), with significant implications for public policy and therapy, a scientifically valid understanding of CSA is vital. Because most prior reviews of the effects of CSA have been qualitative and based primarily on biased samples, we focused instead on nonclinical samples and the use of quantitative methods. Basic assumptions about CSA--that it causes intense harm pervasively regardless of gender-- were found to be unsupported. Nine months after publication in Psychological Bulletin, our analysis of the college student data came under intense attack by the radical right with assistance from traumatologists associated with the left. This controversy recently culminated with the U.S. House of Representatives condemning the article in a 355-0 vote. We will briefly summarize the methods and findings of our analyses, then focus on subsequent events. Time will be available for attendees to discuss sexual science, the media, and politics.
DD: Overzicht van de reacties op het RBT-artikel, en de biases die daar achter zitten.
On July 12, 1999, our meta-analysis on child sexual abuse published in Psychological Bulletin, one of the American Psychological Association's (APA) premiere journals, was condemned by the U.S. Congress (H. Con. Res. 107). The condemnation followed months of attacks on the article, the APA, and us by various social conservatives and psychoanalytically-oriented clinicians. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) was asked by the APA to independently review our article. After considering criticisms of it and the article itself, AAAS declined, but commented that it was the criticisms, not our methods or analyses, that troubled them because these criticisms misrepresented what we wrote.
The current article chronicles this whole affair. First, we provide background, explaining why an article such as ours was needed. Then we accurately summarize the article, given that it has been so widely misrepresented. Next we present a chronology of the events leading up to and following the condemnation. We then present and refute all the major criticisms of the article, which have included both methodological and conceptual attacks. Next we discuss the threat to science that these events portend. We conclude by discussing the need to separate moral judgments from scientific research, the conflation of which formed the basis for the distortions and condemnation.
Anonymous: Rind, Bauserman and Tromovich themselves put the question in which respects they did to advance the field, and draw up the following list: [...]
In July 1999 [recte 1998], the prestigious journal Psychological Bulletin published our review of fifty-nine studies that had examined psychological correlates of child sexual abuse (CSA). We soon achieved an unexpected honor: our paper was unanimously condemned by Congress. In the aftermath, Skeptical Inquirer has published two commentaries, one denouncing Congress , and the other denouncing our study. We would like to offer our own thoughts about this astonishing story of politics, pressure, and social hysteria--the antitheses of critical and skeptical thought.
The authors address several issues surrounding the B. Rind, P. Tromovitch, and R. Bauserman (1998) meta-analysis on the long-term effects of childhood sexual abuse from their perspective as the editors who accepted the manuscript for publication. In particular, they discuss the appropriateness of their editorial decision, the appropriateness of a policy of considering authors' prior publications in editorial decisions (as suggested by some critics), and the editors' role in the specific recommendations made by B. Rind et al. They go on to consider actions they could have taken to minimize the mischaracterizations of the study's findings and conclusions and their views of the American Psychological Association's actions with respect to the authors personally and to society more generally.
The "Psychological Bulletin" ignited a storm of controversy by publishing an article by Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman~\cite{BRT98} that appeared to offer evidence that there are few if any lasting ill effects of child sexual and physical abuse. Spiegel suggests that the study is seriously flawed in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions.
DD: Basically bullshit, this article. Most of the criticisms that Spiegel raises can easily be dismissed by anyone who has actually read the article. Some of his flaws are so obvious, that I suspect that he has not read it in full - the only other explanation is that he is willingly misleading his readership, which I (still) think unlikely.
Psychological theory and research can help explain some of the aspects of the controversies that arose over articles written by B. Rind, P. Tromovitch, and R. Bauserman (1998) and by S. O. Lilienfeld (2002). In particular, one needs to distinguish between rational and intuitive thinking, to recognize the power of context, to be reflective in one's own thinking, and to realize the costs of defying the crowd. There are steps one can take to be wiser and more balanced in one's own thinking than one may have been in the past. One such step is to resolve conflicts among psychologists by attempting to defuse rather than to exacerbate or avoid them.
Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Baserman's paper on child sexual abuse that appeared in "Psychological Bulletin" in 1998 called into question assumptions in which several constituencies have extensive political and professional vested interests. Congress and clinicians may feel a spasm of righteousness by condemning scientific findings they dislike, but their actions will do little or nothing to reduce the actual abuse of children.
DD: A short and well-opiniated statement about the necessity of academic freedom.