Ex-Gay Watch

A critique of the Journey Into Manhood claims of change.

Recently, People Can Change issued a press release (PDF) suggesting 79% of respondents reported (PDF) a decrease in frequency or intensity of homosexual feelings as a result of participating in a Journey Into Manhood weekend retreat. Furthermore, in supporting documents, they indicate 13% of the respondents now consider themselves to be straight, all thanks to a two-day retreat. However, as with so many other claims of change, they are without any substance.

People Can Change queried 500 men who had participated in the retreats ranging from 6 months to 5.5 years prior to the study. They suggest 45% of the 500 men queried responded to the survey and that the results of the survey are consistent with other studies demonstrating homosexuals can change: specifically, a 1997 study from NARTH, Robert Spitzer’s controversial 2003 peer-reviewed article, and the recent Jones and Yarhouse book Ex-gays? Read more…

Dr. Chapman gives his concluding remarks in a series which began with his three part critique of Ex-gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation by Dr Stanton Jones and Dr Mark Yarhouse. What follows is a response to the author’s comments on the original critique. We thank all three for their participation.

I appreciate Dr Stanton Jones’ willingness to exchange comments on his recent co-authored book and for the spirit of collegiality that is represented in the exchange. Bias is an issue that all researchers are subject to and strive to overcome. It is sometimes difficult to separate one’s emotions from an objective critique of a work that hits close to home. As such, one can sometimes accidentally misrepresent aspects of a study. I appreciate the minor corrections Stanton Jones provided regarding my original critique. However, we remain in discord regarding the substantive points discussed.

In science it is important to be precise, something the Jones and Yarhouse study lacks. The focus of my original critique was the sloppy and biased scholarship, demonstrated partly by imprecision. I highlighted that Jones and Yarhouse:

• reference the entire study as prospective when it is not;
• assert participants are at the start of the change process instead of just being at the start of the Exodus program, although even this is not entirely correct;
• assert the study cannot ascertain if permanent and enduring long-term change occurs, contrasted with their conclusion that change is possible;
• portray specific results as indicating change, specifically Tables 7.4 – 7.6, when those actual results do not support the conclusion;
• employ a moving target regarding what sexual orientation change entails;
• misstate the APAs’ position on the potential harm of reparative therapy;
• and have a moving target regarding if the therapy causes harm.

I would like to further discuss each of these points, addressing the rebuttals provided by Jones in his response. Before I do so, however, I wish to show the sloppy and biased scholarship is not unique to this book; it also exists in Jones and Yarhouse’s previous work, Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate.

In that book the authors discuss the relevance of twin studies to causation. They correctly present the concordance rate for female identical twins in the Bailey and Pillard study as 48%. Based on how concordance rates are calculated, in a representative sample of 30 pairs of identical twins one would expect both co-twins to be homosexual in only nine or ten cases. This means that even if the first 20 pairs in a representative sample demonstrate negative concordance, one could still obtain the target concordance rate. However, to counter the 48% concordance rate the authors reference a study with a sample size of four, in which in no cases were both co-twins homosexual. They then state: “The lack of shared homosexual preference for female homosexuals is quite striking when compared to Bailey and Pillard’s remarkably high rate of shared homosexual preference for lesbians” (2000:74; emphasis added). For PhDs in the behavioral sciences to make such a declaration using an incredibly small and non-representative sample is “quite striking” and cannot be attributed to an innocent ignorance of statistical theory. The sloppy scholarship, rooted in what I believe is a predisposed religious bias, is also a significant issue in the current study.

Prospective vs. retrospective and what do the results say?

Jones and Yarhouse claim their study is “prospective.” In my critique I argued: “technically the study is not prospective because 41 individuals were involved in the Exodus program for one to three years prior to the study.” Jones responds that my logic is not compelling and suggests: “If the reader insists on a tighter understanding of “prospective,” then you can narrow the focus to the Phase 1 results. These results were not as positive as those for the population as a whole, but were still statistically significant and meaningful.” I believe even this is not appropriate and once again misrepresents the results. Read more…

A guest post By Patrick M. Chapman, PhD
Continued from Part 2

A Focus on the Results — Examining if it is Harmful

The American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association regard attempts to change sexual orientation as “potentially” harmful or risky. However, Jones and Yarhouse misrepresent the American Psychological Association as saying that such involvement “would be” harmful (p. 353) or “is highly likely” to be harmful (p. 365). Likewise, the authors state they are examining whether the change process is “always” harmful (p. 19), “potentially” harmful (p. 77), or “likely to be harmful” (p. 77). They conclude there is “no evidence” such attempts are harmful (pp. 296, 332), it is not harmful “in and of itself” (p. 359), there is “no meaningful” evidence for it being harmful (p. 363), there is “little evidence” for harm (p. 365), and it is “not harmful on average” (p. 367), the latter being a far cry from there being no evidence it is harmful!

The participants themselves refute the authors’ assertion that change therapy is not harmful. One participant says these groups are not “healthy or necessarily beneficial” (p. 301), another reports his faith is “taking a beating” (p. 313), a third feels “hopeless”, “helpless”, “empty”, “frustrated”, “hurt”, and “very alone” (p. 314, all after 3 years in the Exodus program), a fourth bemoans he spent so many years trying to change that he has missed out on other goals in his life (p. 316), and a fifth claims involvement in the therapy made life “more difficult” (p. 317). One wonders what would have to be the reports of the participants for Jones and Yarhouse to declare the ministry harmful? However, they do recognize that the 23 participants (of an original 98) who dropped out of the program may have been harmed, but they cannot be sure of such a conclusion (p. 354). Nonetheless, dismissing this possibility and ignoring the statements of the participants that remained in the program, Jones and Yarhouse confidently declare the change process is not harmful. Once again, their conclusion is not based on the evidence: those who declare they are hurt by the process are evidence of harm.

One might be inclined to forgive Jones and Yarhouse for their optimism if they had not presented anecdotal stories of individuals not related to the current study who committed suicide because they were unable to change. The authors plead: “should such anecdotes foreclose the option of the individual choosing to attempt orientation change?” (pp. 359-360). Jones and Yarhouse do not indicate how many deaths and testimonies of harm they consider permissible in order to allow other individuals the opportunity for a change that, by all evidence, is unlikely to ever happen.

Jones and Yarhouse recognize that individuals who enter ex-gay ministries are vulnerable (p. 64). Thus, it is disappointing to have the authors draw unwarranted conclusions that are in direct opposition to their own decree as to what the study can and cannot indicate. While their book will be likely and erringly used to convince some homosexual Christians or their families that change is possible, the results demonstrate nothing of the kind. How many lives must be broken before the authors realize the actual damage caused by these ministries outweighs any potential good?

It is clear to me why the participants in this study retain homosexual desires, attractions and arousal: they were born that way. While Exodus and many conservative Christian leaders argue that postnatal causes lead to homosexual orientation (p. 69), to this day no scientific study has successfully identified any postnatal causal factor or factors. Meanwhile, scientific organizations, supported by considerable research summarized in Glenn Wilson and Qazi Rahman’s Born Gay, recognize the importance of prenatal factors in determining sexual orientation, specifically prenatal hormones and genetics, and believe that a homosexual orientation is immutable.

The evidence indicates that while a person can change his or her behavior, sexual orientation cannot be changed. Homosexuality is not a disorder or illness that requires healing. Contrary to the conclusions of Jones and Yarhouse, the data from the current study adds additional support to this conclusion.

–
This is the final part of Dr. Chapman’s critique. One of the subject book authors, Dr. Stanton Jones, will be providing a response here within the next few days — check back.

Patrick M. Chapman has a PhD in biological anthropology and is author of “Thou Shalt Not Love”: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays (Haiduk Press: in press).

A guest post By Patrick M. Chapman, PhD
Continued from Part 1

A Focus on the Results — Examining if Change is Possible

In the opening chapter Jones and Yarhouse honestly and correctly state this study cannot establish if long-term, permanent and enduring change occurs because that would require a long-term study (p. 17). Contrarily, they later suggest the results demonstrate sexual orientation is changeable (pp. 42, 325), evidenced by 11 “Success: Conversion” cases out of the original 98. The conclusion is unwarranted because: 1) they acknowledge multiple anecdotal cases from previous “ex-gay” success stories who later recanted their “conversion” to heterosexuality (pp. 63-64, 72); 2) they freely acknowledge that people in ex-gay programs declare they are heterosexual even if they experience exclusive and powerful homosexual attractions (p. 220); 3) they admit that one of their 11 “Success: Conversion” cases recanted his claim of change, confessing his homosexual attraction was unchanged after the book manuscript neared completion (p. 285; Jones and Yarhouse did not remove his “success” from their data); and 4) the only way to determine if change actually occurred is through a long-term study, which this is not.

This study is littered with biased and sloppy scholarship. The authors suggest the results presented in Tables 7.4 through 7.6 (pp. 239-240) present a “modest portrait of positive progress” in the change process (p. 246). Yet, there is no change based on the data presented in Table 7.4: at both the start and end of the study nine participants declare themselves heterosexual while 51 declare themselves homosexual. Jones and Yarhouse state there is “no indication of significant change” based on the data presented in Table 7.5 (p. 248) and no statistically significant change in Table 7.6 (p. 249). Nonetheless Jones and Yarhouse declare the results represented in these three tables to be “positive progress.” Simply put, their conclusion is not based on the evidence: progress requires positive change.

When one examines the statements of the “Success: Conversion” participants it is once again clear that Jones and Yarhouse’s claim of change is unfounded. In addition to the “Success: Conversion” male who recanted his success, another male admits to still having “unwanted sexual attraction to men” (p. 297), while a third admits to continuing homoerotic dreams (p. 298). Read more…

A guest post By Patrick M. Chapman, PhD

Introduction and Methods

As an academic with a PhD in biological anthropology, and as someone who tried for over a decade to change my sexual orientation, I approached with interest and skepticism the new Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse book, Ex-gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation. By studying participants in the Exodus International ex-gay ministries the authors intended to answer two questions: 1) can a homosexual orientation be “healed,” specifically can a person change their orientation using religious-based therapy, and 2) are attempts at change harmful (p. 15). Jones and Yarhouse indicate their interest in these questions stems from the conflicting views of science, which suggests change is impossible and attempts thereof are possibly harmful, and of their conservative Christian acquaintances who claim to have been “healed” from “homosexual orientation in favor of heterosexual experience” (p. 73).

I am suspicious when people claim to be no longer homosexual because they have “heterosexual experience”: the latter implies behavioral modification, not orientation change. Thus, in studies examining change of orientation it is important to explicitly define terms and concepts. Jones and Yarhouse define “sexual orientation” by the object of one’s attraction, desire or arousal (p. 209).

Every study involving homosexuality has flaws and the current one is no exception. Jones and Yarhouse attempt to limit the inherent problems with mixed results. To their credit they honestly acknowledge Exodus as a primary funding source for the project. They claim the ex-gay organization did not exert any control or power over their results and conclusions (p. 127), and there is currently no reason to believe otherwise.

To be included in the study participants had to be at least 18 years old, involved with Exodus due to same-sex attractions, and “involved in the change process for less than three years” at the start of the study (p. 126). Jones and Yarhouse claim this is a prospective study, involving 98 participants at the start of the change process (pp. 39, 366). One must be careful of this assertion for two reasons.

First, technically the study is not prospective because 41 individuals were involved in the Exodus program for one to three years prior to the study (p. 121). This is important in that the authors claim these participants demonstrated higher levels of change than those who were in the change process for less than one year (p.276). In other words, the participants that relied on recollection for their original condition (a retrospective appraisal) reported the most change. The difference in change may have been influenced by the prospective or retrospective component, not whether change actually occurred.

Second, the claim that participants were at the start of their change process is misleading. Jones and Yarhouse report 54 of the participants had previously taken “concrete steps” to change their orientation through non-Exodus programs: 21 for three to five years, 18 for 5.5 to 12 years, and 15 individuals for 13 years or more (p. 150). To be clear, on page 126 the authors assert that to be included in the study participants had to be “involved in the change process for less than three years” but on page 150 they indicate 54 individuals, more than 50 percent, did not meet this criteria. Additionally, 49 of the 98 participants previously attempted to change their sexual orientation through other religious-ministry organizations (p. 151), while 56 previously used professional therapy in an effort to achieve the goal (p. 150). Suggesting the individuals in this study are “starting the change process” is incorrect. Perhaps this was their first attempt with Exodus ministries but that is not the same as “starting the change process.” Nonetheless, when reporting the results the authors frequently, incorrectly, and misleadingly portray the individuals as being in the “change process” for either less than one year or three to four years at most (see pp. 232, 276, 353 for examples).

–
Part 2 will focus on the results examining if change is possible.

Patrick M. Chapman has a PhD in biological anthropology and is author of “Thou Shalt Not Love”: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays (Haiduk Press: in press).