Philip Tromovitch

A meta-analytic examination of assumed properties of child sexual abuse using college samples

Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported.

A meta‐analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse

In response to the availability of a growing literature on the psychological correlates of child sexual abuse (CSA), numerous researchers have conducted literature reviews of these correlates. These reviewers have generally reported that CSA is associated with a wide variety of adjustment problems, and many have additionally implied or concluded that, in the population of persons with CSA experiences, (a) CSA causes psychological harm, (b) this harm is pervasive, (c) this harm is intense, and (d) boys and girls experience CSA equivalently. However, with few exceptions, these reviewers have included in their reviews mostly studies using clinical and legal samples; these samples cannot be assumed to be representative of the general population. To evaluate the implications and conclusions of these reviewers, we conducted a literature review of seven studies using national probability samples, which are more appropriate for making population inferences. We found that, contrary to the implications and conclusi...

The validity and appropriateness of methods, analyses, and conclusions in Rind et al. (1998): A rebuttal of victimological critique from Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001).

The authors respond to 2 victimological critiques of their 1998 meta-analysis on child sexual abuse (CSA). S. J. Dallam et al. (2001) claimed that B. Rind, P. Tromovitch, and R. Bauserman (1998) committed numerous methodological and statistical errors, and often miscoded and misinterpreted data. The authors show all these claims to be invalid. To the contrary, they demonstrate frequent bias in Dallam et al.s criticisms. S. J. Ondersma et al. (2001) claimed that Rind et al.s study is part of a backlash against psychotherapists, that its suggestions regarding CSA definitions were extrascientific, and that the moral standard is needed to understand CSA scientifically. The authors show their suggestions to have been scientific and argue that it is Ondersma et al.s issue-framing and moral standard that are extrascientific. This reply supports the original methods, analyses, recommendations, and conclusions of Rind et al.

Science versus orthodoxy: Anatomy of the congressional condemnation of a scientific article and reflections on remedies for future ideological attacks

Abstract In July 1999 the U.S. Congress passed a formal resolution condemning our article on child sexual abuse (CSA), an article in which we concluded, based on 59 meta-analytically reviewed studies using college samples, that the assumed harmfulness of CSA had been overstated ( Rind, Tromovitch, & Bauserman, 1998 ). The condemnation followed months of attacks by social conservatives and by mental health professionals specializing either in curing homosexuality or in treating patients by inducing them to recover memories of CSA. In this article, we detail the chronology behind the attacks. Then we discuss the science behind our meta-analysis, showing that the attacks were specious and that our study employed sound science, advancing the field considerably by close attention to issues of external, internal, and construct validity, as well as precision and objectivity. Next, we discuss orthodoxies and moral panics more generally, arguing that our article was attacked as vehemently as it was because it collided with a powerful, but socially constructed orthodoxy that has evolved over the last quarter century. Finally, we offer reflections and recommendations for fellow researchers, lest this kind of event recur. We focus on the need for greater cognizance of historical attacks on science to anticipate and deflate future attacks. We argue that our research should stand as another reminder among many that sacred-cow issues do not belong in science. We discuss nonscientific advocacy in the social sciences and the need to recognize and counter it. We discuss the failure of psychology to adequately deal with the study of human sexuality, a problem that enabled the faulty attacks on our article, and we suggest directions for becoming more scientific in this area. And last, we raise the issue of how professional organizations might deal more effectively with such attacks in the future.

Manufacturing Mental Disorder by Pathologizing Erotic Age Orientation: A Comment on Blanchard et al. (2008)

If I had been a peer-reviewer for the Blanchard et al. (2008) article, ‘‘Pedophilia, Hebephilia, and the DSM-V,’’ with only minor revisions, I would have recommended publication. The article appears to provide a solid, basic science investigation of some of the categories of erotic age orientation. The bulk of this peer-reviewed article appears to be scientific and to contribute to the advancement of knowledge. Regrettably, however, Blanchard et al. did not merely report on their research and draw appropriate conclusions. Instead, they recommended a potentially dramatic expansion or addition to the DSM diagnostic categories of mental disorders without any evidence or reasoning that those who would be newly included under the mental disorder rubric can be properly categorized as mentally disordered. Blanchard et al. did not define mental disorder. They did not measure mental disorder. They did not examine associations with mental disorder. They did not provide reasoning that leads to a conclusion of mental disorder. However, they did assert, without evidence or reasoning, that the DSM should be expanded to include more people as having a mental disorder— and they did this in the most prominent ‘‘take home message’’ locations in their article—in the abstract and in the first paragraph of their discussion section—even the title alludes to the article’s connection to DSM modification. In the first paragraph of the discussion section, Blanchard et al. wrote:

Child Sexual Abuse Definitions, Meta-Analytic Findings, and a Response to the Methodological Concerns Raised by Hyde (2003)

Abstract This paper begins with a review of two meta-analyses on the sexual and psychological adult correlates of child sexual abuse (CSA). One meta-analysis was based on nationally representative samples and the other on college student samples. Results of both meta-analyses suggest that: (1) CSA is only weakly associated with later adjustment problems in the general population; (2) this association in the typical case cannot be safely attributed to the CSA; and (3) males react much less negatively, or much more positively, than females do. The second part of the paper presents a response to the methodological concerns raised by Hyde (2003). She offered eight criticisms. It is shown that the criticisms did not stand up to empirical examination and that none of them validly cast doubt on the findings of either meta-analysis.

A Response to Hyde's (2007) Follow-Up to Tromovitch and Rind (2007)

Abstract Hyde (2003) critiqued our meta-analyses of child sexual abuse (CSA) correlates done on national and college samples (Rind & Tromovitch, 1997; Rind, Tromovitch, & Bauserman, 1998). Earlier in this issue, we argued point by point that her criticisms were not valid or did not affect our basic conclusions (Tromovitch & Rind, 2007). Next in this issue, Hyde (2007) continues to dispute some aspects of our studies, such as drawing conclusions from college samples. Hyde offered what she called “superior” studies and offered a diathesis-stress hypothesis for how CSA produces harm. In this rebuttal, we once again show that the college samples were quite informative in terms of assessing CSA-adjustment correlations, which are small on average, as they are in national, high school, and junior high school samples. We show once again that our treatment of the college and national data was proper and accurate. We also show that her “superior” studies have their own drawbacks and in any case do not alter our findings. Finally, we demonstrate weaknesses in her proposed hypothesis for CSA effects. Our rebuttal highlights the need for scientists to be more conservative in choice of terms for behaviors that are labeled “CSA,” because current practices produce poor predictive and face validity, are misleading, and contribute to the type of dispute present in the discussion between Hyde and us.