I just finished the book, The Trauma Myth by Susan Clancy and it's extremely relevant to the article Marie cites by Scott on "When Worlds Collide." In her conclusions she states how many severe and angry attacks she received due to her conclusion most of the adults she interviewed who had experienced sexual abuse did not perceive the sexual molestation as a traumatic at the time. Sadly, many also reported that their childhood was lacking in attention and affection and appreciated the affection the abuser was providing. Almost always, the offenders were trusted adults in the family or community. However, Clancy then states that the personal attacks she experienced were nothing compared to those directed at Bruce Rind and his co-authors in response to their article published in the Psychological Bulletin 10 years ago that suggested that sexual abuse often does not immediately and directly lead to harm. She states that the APA called for a public repudiation of the article and other public figures(such as Rush Limbaugh and Dr. Laura--what a surprise) attacked Rind's article as garbage science, showing a desire to sexualize our children as well as to normalize pedophilia. There also was a congressional condemnation ordered in which the body voted unanimously to demean the Rind article for its moral and methodological flaws. But what bothered me, and take note Scott, is that she provides a footnote to these various attacks on Rind to that article written by you and cited below by Marie. I'm sure it was inadvertent but it needs to be corrected. She only gives credit for the correction of the misperception of the Rind research to an independent evaluation by the AAAS that was published in one of APS's journals. This independent article states unequivocally that they found absolutely no methodological flaws in Rind's research and proceeded to sharply rebuke Rind's critics for misrepresenting his research to the media. Scott, I believe strongly that your research should have been given its' due and represented more accurately in her conclusion.
That aside, I would highly recommend this book as another classic example of how well-embedded beliefs are so immune to empirical evidence. As she states, "I naively assumed that my data that ran contrary to the trauma theory would encourage people to revisit (reconsider) this (trauma) hypothesis." Instead, she found herself simply being attacked by many practitioners who appeared "utterly resistant to facts that have been revealed for over the past 20 years." She then quotes Kenneth Galbraith's wise comment that, "What we like to believe is not what is true but what is simple, is comforting and comfortable . . and will not do damage to our self-esteem or stature." Chancey also discusses her conversations with a large number of women who knew of or suspected that their children were being abused but did not report it. Their motives for not reporting varied, such as 1)it that it would damage the reputation of their husband, who they loved, or 2) that it would have a painful impact on their their social network to report a respected teacher or priest, or 3) the possibility that they would be viewed as a bad mother or 4) that something might be perceived as being wrong with their family or child. I wish I had the book with me as I should cite the pages where she discusses these interviews and will soon. This aspect of child sexual abuse has been given very little attention, along with the majority of the sexually exploited children stating when adults that during childhood they felt deprived of affection and attention. Both of these areas of research relating to sexual abuse of children are extremely uncomfortable, disquieting and certainly not enhancing to our general self-esteem. But would seem deserving of further study. Joan Joan Warmbold Boggs Professor of Psychology Oakton Community College [email protected] > In my senior seminar class I have a week (next week) on science and > politics. I've assigned (our own) Lilienfeld's excellent article on the > Rind et al debacle and the APA's response (refs below). > I'd like to draw on other cases on when (psychological) science and > politics collide. Do any of you have suggestions for videos, readings, or > websites about other examples. For example, there are current politicians > who keep websites of "studies that shouldn't funded because they seem > stupid to me"? Any leads on that? Any sources for which controversial > topics (on gays, drugs, etc.) are currently difficult to get federal > funding for? Etc. > > Marie > > Garrison, E. G. & Kobor, P. C. (2002). Weathering a political storm. A > contextual perspective on a psychological research controversy. American > Psychologist, 165-175. > Lilienfeld, S. O. (2002). When worlds collide. Social science, politics, > and the Rind et al. (1998) child sexual abuse meta-analysis. American > Psychologist, 176-186. > > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=2075 or send a blank email to leave-2075-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
