In NARTH
No new scientific finding has discredited the study. The same arguments originally made for or against it, still stand.
A
great deal of attention is currently being given to the recent
"retraction" by Robert Spitzer, M.D., of his important study of
sexual-orientation change (Spitzer, 2003a). The quotation marks around
"retraction" are purposeful, for what has happened should not be
characterized as a retraction. While this turn of events has now become a
favorite talking point for those opposed to sexual orientation-change
efforts (SOCE), the language of retraction reflects politically
motivated speech rather than scientific analysis. What follows is
intended to help those confused by Spitzer's actions and the subsequent
media feeding frenzy to understand what has really occurred. I have
outlined below some key points that seem to have been lost in the
partisan utilization of this turn of events.
1.
Spitzer has not retracted his study. The proper term for what Spitzer
has done is provided in the title to his recent letter of apology: He
has reassessed his interpretation (Spitzer, 2012). It appears that he
may have originally wished to retract the 2003 study, but the editor of
the journal in which the study was published, Kenneth Zucker, Ph.D.,
denied this request. Zucker has been quoted regarding his exchange with
Spitzer as observing:
You
can retract data incorrectly analyzed; to do that, you publish an
erratum. You can retract an article if the data were falsified-or the
journal retracts it if the editor knows of it. As I understand it, he's
[Spitzer] just saying ten years later that he wants to retract his
interpretation of the data. Well, we'd probably have to retract hundreds
of scientific papers with regard to interpretation, and we don't do
that. (Dreger, 2012)
What
Zucker is essentially saying is that there is nothing in the science of
the study that warrants retraction, so all that is left for one to
change is his interpretation of the findings, which is what Spitzer
appears to have done.
2.
Spitzer's change of interpretation hinges on his new belief that
reports of change in his research were not credible. Instead, he now
asserts that participants' accounts of change were "self-deception or
outright lying" (Spitzer, 2012). In taking this position, Spitzer has
aligned himself with original critics of the study. When the original
study was published, peer commentaries about the study had been
solicited and were published in the same issue. Among those who
questioned the reliability of the self-reports of change were many
familiar opponents of SOCE: A. Lee Beckstead, Helena Carlson, Kenneth
Cohen, Ritch Savin-Williams, Gregory Herek, Bruce Rind, and Roger
Worthington.
3.
The case for the credibility of participants' account of change still
remains. Remember that nothing about the science of Spitzer's research
was flawed. Like all research pursuits, the methodology had limitations,
but a reasonable case for accepting the validity of these accounts was
made at the time, and still stands today. At the time his study was
published, Spitzer (2003a) reported, "...there was a marked reduction on
all change measures. This was not only on the three measures of overt
behavior and sexual orientation self-identity...but also on the seven
variables assessing sexual orientation itself" (p. 410). In addition,
119 of his sample of 200 participants reported achieving "Good
Heterosexual Functioning," which was defined in terms of increasing
satisfaction in opposite sex sexual behaviors and decreased same-sex
fantasy.
Among
the peer commentaries that agreed with Spitzer's original
interpretation, Wakefield (2003) noted that, "...to assume without
evidence that reports of changes must be deceptions begs the question of
whether change sometimes occurs" (p. 457). Spitzer (2003b) himself
responded to the critics by noting:
Therefore,
the critics are correct in claiming that significant response bias
could have been present but they certainly have not proved that it was
present. They also did not point to anything in the study results that
suggests response bias. I acknowledge that some response bias could
certainly have occurred, but I find it hard to believe that it can
explain all of the reported changes...Surely if bias were present, one
would expect that subjects (as well as their spouses) would be motivated
to give particularly glowing accounts of marital functioning. They did
not. (p. 471)
It
is curious that Spitzer's (2012) apology seems to imply that he earlier
claimed his research proved the efficacy of SOCE. As was understood at
the time, the design of Spizter's study ensured his research would not
definitively prove that SOCE can be effective. Certainly it did not
prove that all gays and lesbians can change their sexual orientation or
that sexual orientation is simply a choice. The fact that some people
inappropriately drew such conclusions appears to be a factor in
Spitzer's reassessment. Yet the fundamental interpretive question did
and still does boil down to one of plausibility: Given the study
limitations, is it plausible that some participants in SOCE reported
actual change?
In
spite of all the recent media hoopla, nothing has really changed
regarding the interpretive choice one faces regarding the limitations of
self-report in this study. Either all of the accounts across all of the
measures of change across participant and spousal reports are
self-deceptions and/or deliberate fabrications, or they suggest it is
possible that some individuals actually do experience change in the
dimensions of sexual orientation. Good people can disagree about which
of these interpretive conclusions they favor, but assuredly it is not
unscientific or unreasonable to continue to believe the study supports
the plausibility of change.
4.
There is an unspoken double standard in the reports of Spitzer's
reassessment. The probable influence of political and other
non-scientific factors in how Spitzer's reassessment is being portrayed
can be seen in which interpretations of self-report data receive favored
notoriety and which are relegated to unfavored exile. Yarhouse (2003)
observed this lack of consistency at the time of the study:
Memory
recall of this sort can be unreliable. To be fair, however, much of
what we know about LGB experiences, including theories for the etiology
of sexual orientation and studies of sexual identity development and
synthesis, is based upon retrospective studies utilizing memory recall.
Any time proponents of the biological hypothesis for the etiology of
homosexuality cite the Bell et al. (1981) study they are referencing a
study that utilized retrospective memory recall. The Shidlo and
Schroeder (2002) study also relied upon memory recall and is subject to
the same criticism. (p. 462).
Spitzer
(2003b) had similar observations in defending his findings, implying
that demand characteristics could have influenced the self-reports of
participants in other related research:
This
study had essentially the same design and a similar recruitment
strategy of ex-gay subjects as in the Beckstead (2001) and Shidlo and
Schroeder (2002) studies. This raises the question of why so very few of
their subjects gave answers consistent with a change in sexual
orientation whereas the majority of my subjects did. The possibility of
researcher bias must be considered. (p. 471).
A
triumphal embrace often accompanies self-report data that suggests harm
from SOCE, the equivalence of gay and heterosexual parenting, and other
foci that fit with the preferred narrative of gay activists. It is
unfortunate but not surprising that reports of sexual-orientation change
are subject to unrelenting skepticism while other self-report data such
as that of Shidlo and Schroeder (2002) seem to be reified as universal
fact even though they suffer from similar limitations. If Spitzer's
study is to be rejected for its use of self-report data, should not
methodologically equivalent research against SOCE receive a similarly
skeptical reception? While scientific fairness would seem to demand
this, political interests clearly do not.
5.
Personal and sociopolitical contexts may provide insights into
Spitzer's reassessment. I once spoke briefly with Dr. Spitzer by phone
years ago following the publication of his research. He seemed to be a
kind and compassionate man who exemplified the spirit of genuine
scientific curiosity. No doubt he was grieved that some used his work to
make unsupportable claims of SOCE efficacy and this may have resulted
in unfulfilled expectations by some gay and lesbian consumers. Yet it is
certainly possible that other needs beyond his concern for human
welfare were at play in his apology.
It
is hard to imagine the fall from professional grace that Spitzer took
due to this study. In a very short period of time, his status within his
profession changed from that of a heroic pioneer of gay rights to that
of an unwitting mouthpiece for practitioners of SOCE, whom many of his
colleagues deem morally reprehensible. Before and after the study was
published, Spitzer confirmed that he was getting a high volume of hate
mail and anger directed at him (Spitzer, 2003b; Vonholdt, 2000). A
decade of being hammered by your friends, colleagues, and the gay
community that once revered you would surely take a toll on any of us.
Spitzer
currently suffers from Parkinson's disease and is in the twilight of
his life, which makes it understandable that he would reflect on what
sort of legacy he wants to leave. Hero or villain, icon or pariah-which
legacy would anyone prefer to have? I can not say for sure that these
non-scientific considerations influenced Spitzer's decision to "retract"
his study, but I can say that it is hard for me to conceive how they
would not. Spitzer likely knows infinitely more gay and lesbian persons
than he does individuals who report change in sexual orientation. This
may have made it difficult for him to see that in trying to atone for
the harm gay men and lesbians in his professional network claimed
resulted from the study, he simultaneously caused harm to participants
in his study who experienced change and now are told they were deceived
or lying. All of this serves to underscore how personal and subjective
the practice of social scientific discourse can be when the subject
matter is entangled in a major sociopolitical debate.
Conclusion
A
purely scientific approach to the limitations of Spitzer's research
would be to conduct more rigorous outcome research, something that he
along with others have been calling for all along (Spitzer, 2003a,
2003b; Jones, Rosik, Williams, & Byrd, 2010). Even the APA Task
Force's Report on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual
Orientation (American Psychological Association, 2009) issued a call for
such studies to be undertaken. Unfortunately, the reality appears to be
that the APA and other institutions in a position to fund and conduct
outcome research on SOCE in conjunction with NARTH and other SOCE
practitioners have no real interest in doing so. They have nothing to
gain by such research, as outcomes unfavorable to SOCE would not
meaningfully change their current skepticism, while outcomes favorable
to SOCE would be a public relations and public policy disaster for them.
I
doubt that Spitzer would "retract" his assessment of the likelihood
that needed follow up studies would be conducted (Spitzer, 2003b):
Given
the cost and complexity of such a study and the current view in the
mental health professions of the benefits and risks of reorientation
therapy, such a study is not going to happen in the near future. This is
unfortunate because of the real questions raised, albeit admittedly not
resolved, by this study (p. 472).
So
instead of more and better research on SOCE, we find activists and
their supporters in the media pouncing on a change of interpretation in
an effort to preempt legitimate scientific debate. Nuance, context, and
balanced analysis all be damned. What seems to be foremost is the use of
Spitzer's reassessment to bludgeon SOCE supporters into submission and
silence. Is it really far-fetched to suspect science is being held
hostage to political agendas here?
I
sincerely hope that this brief analysis helps clarify what did and did
not happen when Spitzer "retracted" his earlier study. No new scientific
finding was discovered that discredited SOCE. No egregious
methodological flaw was identified. The same arguments forwarded in
favor or against the study a decade ago still stand. Legitimate debate
about the study's significance can and should still take place. Nothing
has changed other than Spitzer has revised his earlier interpretation
for what are likely to be a host of understandable but inherently
non-scientific reasons. This is his right to do, but let no one tell you
that in doing so he has discredited his research or alternative
interpretations more favorable to those who report change in their
same-sex attractions and behavior.
References
American
Psychological Association (2009). Report of the APA task force on
appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
Beckstead,
A. L. (2001). Cures versus choice: Agendas in sexual reorientation
therapy. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(3/4), 87-115.
Bell, A. P., Weinberg, M. S., & Hammersmith, S. K. (1981). Sexual preference: Its development in
men and women. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Dreger, A. (2012, April 11). How to ex an "ex-gay" study. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://psychologytoday.com/blog/fetishes-i-dont-get/201204/how-ex-ex-gay-study
Jones, S. L., Rosik, C. H., Williams, R. N., & Byrd, A. D. (2010). A
Scientific, Conceptual, and Ethical Critique of the Report of the APA
Task Force on Sexual Orientation. The General Psychologist, 45(2), 7-18.
Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/divisions/div1/news/fall2010/Fall%202010%20TGP.pdf
Shidlo,
A., & Schroeder, M. (2002). Changing sexual orientation: A
consumers' report. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33,
249-259.
Spitzer,
R. L. (2003a). Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual
orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to
heterosexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32(5), 403-417.
Spitzer,
R. L. (2003b). Reply: Study results should not be dismissed and justify
further research on the efficacy of sexual reorientation therapy.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32(5), 469-472.
Spitzer,
R. L. (2012). Spitzer reassesses his 2003 study of reparative therapy
of homosexuality [Letter to the editor]. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-9966-y
Wakefield,
J. C. (2003). Sexual reorientation therapy: Is it ever ethical? Can it
ever change sexual orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32(5), p.
457-459.
Vonholdt,
C. R. (2001). Interview with Robert L. Spitzer: Homosexuality and the
reality of change. Bulletin of the German Institute for Youth and
Society, 1, 33-36. Retrieved from http://www.dijg.de/english/homosexuality-reality-of-change/
Yarhouse,
M. A. (2003). How Spitzer's study gives a voice to the disenfranchised
within a minority group. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32(5), 462-463.
