Readers may have noticed the casual claims by Exodus president Alan Chambers and vice president Randy Thomas concerning the success rates of “change” and perhaps even vague references to an ongoing study. These have led to an increasingly common, though entirely unsubstantiated figure of 30% “real change in orientation.” A statement on the Exodus International website goes even further:
On the statistical side, careful reviews of research studies on sexual orientation change suggest that real change is indeed possible. Studies suggesting change rates in the range of 30-50% are not unusual, although “success rates” vary considerably and the measurement of change is problematic.
A link follows to further studies but we could find none there. We have discouraged the use of these figures in posts to avoid the “Paul Cameron Effect” whereby junk science becomes the de facto standard after repetitive use without attribution to any authoritative sources. So far, Exodus has done little to qualify the term “change” in this setting, much less substantiate any figures. That may change soon.
A couple of weeks ago, the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) published its 2007 conference schedule (PDF). The one there now is a revised version, which came out a couple of days later, but in the original there is an interesting entry:
General Session:
Dr. Charles Socarides Lecturer
Stanton Jones, Ph.D.
Title: Can Homosexuals Change? Is the Attempt Harmful?Results of a Prospective, Longitudinal Study of Religiously‐Mediated Change Attempts
While mention of the study has been removed, Jones is still listed as the keynote speaker. That would put the announcement, assuming it will still happen, in late October if Exodus doesn’t make it themselves before then.
With the previous Exodus references in mind, this struck a chord. What is this study about and does it connect with the statements by Exodus over the past year or so? There is very little on the Web about it but some bits did appear. The following is part of an email exchange (personal info redacted by them) archived for others to read on the The Paraclete Forum as early as mid 2002:
I’m in communication with Dr. Stanton Jones, Provost of Wheaton College, who is undertaking a large, 5-year outcome study of Exodus ministries. Based on his work that I have read so far, I am quite confident that his research will be methodologically sound, with a commitment to truth rather than politics. Hopefully, it will help us to better define and understand the issues around both reorientation/reparative therapy and transformational ministries.
The forum is provided to help answer spiritual questions and this was in a thread of email exchanges to that end. The reference seems genuine and germane, but we needed more to be certain. The last piece of the puzzle came from a reliable source – Exodus’ own Form 990 submitted to the IRS. Under “Objectives for Fiscal Year Beginning January 1, 2007” the first listing is:
Will publish the results of our 5 Year Tracking Study, which will give an indication of the success rate of those who endeavor change from homosexuality. Dr. Stanton Jones from Wheaton College is heading this research.
It should be noted that Dr. Stanton Jones has corroborated extensively with Dr. Mark Yarhouse, a professor at Regent University and co-author of the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework with Dr. Warren Throckmorton. Jones and Yarhouse also co-authored a book, Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church’s Moral Debate, in 2000. In fact, Jones was also Yarhouse’s graduate professor and is considered by some his mentor as well.
We don’t yet know the details of this study, but it appears that NARTH was quite anxious to give notice that the results would be presented at their conference. As far as we can determine, NARTH has no connection to the actual study, but it’s not a leap to expect they will be pushing the results around as support for their brand of therapy. Perhaps by hosting the speech, NARTH leaders are hoping to reclaim some relevance.
Many have been asking for a long-term follow-up study on ex-gays, so it’s likely this is Exodus’ answer. With so little information available, however, it is unlikely to have been peer reviewed. Expect to hear more in the next month or two.
Hat Tip: grantdale for Form 990 info.
The problem with such studies is that people who are fervently religious have a strong motivation to lie. They often lie consciously to the public or unconsciously to themselves. But lying and faith are intricately connected.
If one were to do a longitudinal study of the sex lives of fundamentalists they would indicate monogamy, heterosexuality, etc. Yet so frequently we find that what they say publicly is false privately. Ministers who preach in public against pornography, prostitution, and infidelity, and who claim to live morally pure lives are often exposed to be involved with the very things they condemn. They lie to cover it up.
We find that many exgays did the same thing and got caught lying. Surely we haven’t caught all the liars? We know of so many who said they changed, and even participated in past studies claiming this, who later turned out to be deceptive. So that would indicate that there are more, perhaps participants of the new study.
Individuals with a strong ideological, or faith, commitment are prone to twist evidence to fit what they believe. And the more religious the person the more inclined they are to this sort of twisting.
Wow, impressive work guys.
Good job, guys.
With so little information available, however, it is “unlikely to have been peer reviewed.
“.
That’s all I need to know. Not peer reviewed, not able to stand up to scientific scrutiny, not credible.
Case closed..
Very interesting. The unveiling of this research would be sufficient motivation to attend the NARTH conference, though the link to NARTH appears to be the weakest of your findings. Good work, on the whole.
Phil: your comment does much to reveal your motivations concerning the study. You, yourself, quoted the word “unlikely” from the post; Ex-Gay Watch is only speculating, yet you’ve declared “Case closed.” Wouldn’t it be a little more reasonable to examine the findings yourself, listen to the responses of respected members of the scientific community, and then draw conclusions about the study?
I agree, this is going to be very interesting. Perhaps the study will be so interesting as to merit a video be produced to examine its methodology. I hear someone made one about the Spitzer Study 😛
James said:
Actually, if not for NARTH we most likely would not have known to look in the first place. The only link there seems to be their invitation to Dr. Jones to speak, and subsequent (and apparently premature) disclosure of the study about which he will speak. So the link, as far as it goes, is solid.
Any ex-gay study without physical measures are essentially meaningless and not the slightest bit interesting. The fact is, there are four methods available to test if Exodus leaders have really converted (or even believe in God, for that matter).
1) No Lie MRI
2) Penile thing I can never spell
3) Polygraph
4) Facial expression experts who can tell if a person is lying.
Considering these methods do exist, a study without corroborating physical evidence is a sham and not to be taken seriously. The fact that Exodus clients report change to a biased right wing researcher is hardly news. Without the No Lie MRI – this study is just more glorified storytelling by a group that is known for its leaders claiming a transformation that did not occur. Ho Hum.
Finally, great investigative work by Ex-Gay Watch!!! 🙂
Beyond speculating what may or may not be presented, here’s a few of the basic questions that we expect any (educated) reader of that study should be able to find answers to:
1) Can you work out some basic ratios? i.e. do they openly provide you some basic integers — how many started with this study, how many ended the 5 years living as exgay, how many were lost to the researchers. AT a minimum, you should know how many started… and everyone should be accounted for at the end of the 5 years.
2) Can you find what the experience was like for all those who initially participated? eg of the group that started, how many required — for the first time — professional therapy for depression etc during the period? Did any suicide? Did any denounce the program? Did any refuse, point blank, any further contact?
3) Can you know who were the people in the final outcome group? In the initial group? i.e. was the initial group a broad cross section of people entering exgay groups, and was the final group a select group of professional exgays. etc.
4) Can you find any initial assessments etc for the starting group? i.e. what was their history (personal and sexual), their motivations, their ambitions, a K-rating before etc
5) Can you find a clear, unchanging and measurable definition of the outcomes? i.e. watch for that notorious exgay flip-flopping on what “change” or “success” means.
6) in a similar vein: Can you find any evidence of bait-and-switch? i.e. do people begin the 5 years aiming to be 100% heterosexual (and are promised that this is a achievable outcome), but end the 5 years “compromising” (eg aiming for lifelong celibacy but expecting a “fall” every so often is a now what they consider to be a successful outcome)? Did they go from K6 to K0, or something rather less interesting and open to interpretation or manipulation? (like “K4 to K2”).
7) Can you find the particular therapies, treatments or programs each participant was involved in? (and can you match these against eventual outcomes etc)
8) Can you count more and more therapists etc becoming involved in the study, as the 5 years progressed? i.e. it should be expected that at least some of the initial participants will drop out etc — was an effort made to follow them, and did the study seek the opinions of therapists that were dealing with any subsequent issues etc?
9) Can you see something more than self-report? — particularly if red flags are otherwise raised. We don’t have the same faith in the “tests” that Wayen Besen does, but was there a genuine attempt to interrogate the participant? Were their stories checked against (say) the views of ex-boyfriends, long-time friends, current wives?
10) Can you find who were the therapists etc? ie by name, who provided the subjects? Are these trustworthy people, or a roll-call of NARTH members with vested interests?
There’s more, — much more — but you get the drift, in the scientific sense: if something cannot ever be measured, it simply doesn’t exist. If something does exist, it can be measured: somehow. All else is mere speculation, and no proof of anything.
A double-blind type study is too much to expect — and ethically very hard to do in this area — but knowing these types of questions can be answered by the reader indicates whether this is indeed a useful study … or merely yet another useless list of personal testimonies by exgays.
Frankly, we haven’t waited 5 years to be told that Alan Chambers said he’d changed in 2001, that he still says he’s changed in 2007, and that his whole experience was completely wonderful. That much we know, already.
(And, up-front, for very obvious reasons, we do not “trust” Stanton L. Jones — nor should anyone have to.)
I still want a comparative study on trying to turn heterosexuals into gay people. I want to see some counter research done and see what it would take to achieve actual change in hetero orientation to homo.
Why isn’t there as much vested interest to support what the straight state of mind is for that to happen?
Why is this not even suggested or a part of the routine?
Concentrating so much on how or IF or what it takes to turn from straight to gay might be utterly meaningless otherwise.
The flow of interest is in one direction. And it IS especially necessary for such research to be incorporated because affect isn’t change. The ‘heterosexual lifestyle’ and the influence and confluence of media, social support and all that would have to be added.
Especially since orientation is no indicator of ability or character or virtue.
It’s a condition without cause or choice, really. So why is the matter of choice ONLY considered in gay people (despite this orientation being there regardless of threat to the gay person, or virginity and lack of sexual experience.)
I’d like to know EXACTLY how this research gets concluded so thoroughly without a large sampling or variance of sampling?
And why was it ‘secret’?
This is a group that’s very proud of trumpeting what they’ve accomplished who they have helped and what they can influence.
If they are THIS good and successful, what if someone straight needed to know the same alternative info I do?
What if someone asks, what makes a person straight and what would it take to make them gay?
Why hasn’t anyone considered trying to MAKE someone gay?
Losing one’s sex drive, fertility or not having sex….are also situational conditions that has no sexual orientation.
But the onus is on gay people to lose theirs, while all around them, heteros are ASSERTING their sexual prowess and influence.
THAT alone is something that already makes me wanna holler!
I can only imagine how painful and unfair that must feel for a gay kid.
is it just me or this sound like the spitzer study. sounds like they repeated his methodology
Regan, I so agree with what you say, “The things that make a person more important, special and secure….have little to do with their gender or sexual orientation.
But their hearts and achievements as caring human beings.” But Bible worshippers will never see it that way.
As I have stated in my blog about Exodus International, they are at war with homosexuality and they want to take the Christianity with them. And we in the GLBT community are the enemy. So of course they are not going to acknowledge anything that would even hint that a gay person can live a healthy, productive life with a stable partnership, and be able to achieve heights in the military and other fields. Everytime I read any of Exodus Int.’s statements it always seems they are 2 seconds away from calling themselves “Abel” and calling us “Cain.”
But as damaging they are to not only the gay community and to the Christian community, they ultimately are damning themselves, because they refuse to worship the God OF the Bible but rather settle for the Bible as their God. Just recently, a friend of mine who, though we had been friends for over 5 years and he knew I was an Orthodox Catholic and Gay, decided to attack both my beliefs and my sexual orientation. At the last conversation we had he told me that if he had a choice between a friendship or the Bible, he would choose the Bible. And last report I heard he and his Bible are doing fine. Instead of doing WHAT the Bible says, these Bible worshippers just want to HEAR the blood, guts, and hate of the Bible without ever figuring out its true message.
By the way, I highly recomend a book by Rev. Gayy Commins…Becoming Bridges. It is written by the Priest at the Episcopal parish I attend. It is available at amazon.com . I recomend it not because he is the priest at the church I attend, but because I think all Christians would benefit from it, gay, straight, latino, white, african-american, etc. It is about allowing all to come to the altar. It is about unity and coming together.
Regan, I so agree with what you say, “The things that make a person more important, special and secure….have little to do with their gender or sexual orientation.
But their hearts and achievements as caring human beings.” But Bible worshippers will never see it that way.
As I have stated in my blog about Exodus International, they are at war with homosexuality and they want to take the Christianity with them. And we in the GLBT community are the enemy. So of course they are not going to acknowledge anything that would even hint that a gay person can live a healthy, productive life with a stable partnership, and be able to achieve heights in the military and other fields. Everytime I read any of Exodus Int.’s statements it always seems they are 2 seconds away from calling themselves “Abel” and calling us “Cain.”
But as damaging they are to not only the gay community and to the Christian community, they ultimately are damning themselves, because they refuse to worship the God OF the Bible but rather settle for the Bible as their God. Just recently, a friend of mine who, though we had been friends for over 5 years and he knew I was an Orthodox Catholic and Gay, decided to attack both my beliefs and my sexual orientation. At the last conversation we had he told me that if he had a choice between a friendship or the Bible, he would choose the Bible. And last report I heard he and his Bible are doing fine. Instead of doing WHAT the Bible says, these Bible worshippers just want to HEAR the blood, guts, and hate of the Bible without ever figuring out its true message.