Don't have time to respond to this review at length (barely know where to begin
with it). but the claim that our journal "claims to be peer-reviewed" is close
to libelous. It is indeed peer-reviewed, and the McNally and Clancy article in
our journal was most certainly sent out for peer review; indeed, if I recall
correctly, it underwent at least one round (and perhaps two) of revisions in
response to reviewers' comments. The reviewer also uses the frequent
pseudoscientific rhetorical ploy of disqualifying nontherapists from
criticizing the claims of therapists (astrologers, parapsychologists, and the
like have used comparable rhetorical ploys for decades). BTW, the reviewer is
correct that Sue Clancy is not technically a clinical psychologist, but she
received her Ph.D. in experimental psychopathology from Harvard University.
Referring to her as an "experimental psychologist" might be technically
accurate, but it's somewhat misleading in my view.
I'll leave it to others on TIPS who've read Sue's book (admittedly, I've
only read parts of it) to rebut the reviewers' substantive claims. If others
don't seize the bait, I'll be happy to, but it will have to wait a couple of
days. .....Scott
________________________________________
From: Michael Smith [[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 11:24 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] Science and Politics
Here is a rather lengthy review of the book by a reader which presents
some interesting points
--Mike
Clancy uses circular reasoning to conclude that sexual abuse is not
traumatic in her book, "The Trauma Myth".
Her book is based in part on an article she co-authored with Richard
J. McNally, entitled, " 'Who Needs Repression? Normal Memory Processes
Can Explain Forgetting' of Childhood Sexual Abuse", published in The
Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice (2005/2006, Fall/Winter
4(2)).
In this study, Clancy asked 27 adults who reported sexual abuse as
children to rate their levels of trauma at the time of their abuse on
a 10-point scale, with #10 to indicate "extremely traumatic" and #1 to
indicate "not traumatic at all". The average rating was 7.5.
Any logical person would consider 7.5 on a 10-point scale to be quite high.
Not Susan Clancy!
She concluded that child sexual abuse "experiences were unpleasant,
distressing, or confusing, but not traumatic (e.g., terrifying) at the
time they occurred." (p. 70)
How did she arrive at this conclusion?
She limited her definition of "trauma" to abuse that was
"overwhelmingly terrifying or perceived as life threatening". (p. 67)
Then she determined that only two of her subjects perceived that level
of threat, and parenthetically dismissed one of these subjects'
reports as "bizarre" and "questionable" (p. 68).
Clancy discounted all lesser levels of distress as nontraumatic,
essentially re-rating them all as #1 on her 10-point trauma scale.
Why did she even bother asking them to rate their levels of trauma if
she planned to ignore their reports?
Clancy considers the following reports of two of her subjects as
lacking in trauma:
"I went from confused to bewildered to scared . . . it culminated in
me feeling somewhat angry and betrayed."
"I didn't think of it as sex, I just thought of it as disgusting . . ."
To further make her case, she wrote that two men, "while reporting
that the [rape] was painful, did not describe it as traumatic [recall
Clancy's definition of trauma: 'overwhelmingly terrifying or perceived
as life threatening']. In the words of one of the victims, 'He would
always say if you love me you'll do it. It hurt, and after a while I
knew it was wrong, but not at the beginning.' The other victim of
penetration reported, 'I didn't like it-- I knew it was wrong-- but it
was better than having to go back to DYS [Department of Youth Services
custody]'."
Clancy dismisses painful rape of a child as nontraumatic simply
because the victims did not describe the abuse as "overwhelmingly
terrifying or perceived as life threatening".
She also dismissed as nontraumatic all other painful emotional states
described by her 27 subjects, including:
"definitely feeling dirty"
"I couldn't breathe"
"I was shocked at what was happening, and I think I was afraid, there
was a lot of weirdness, insecurity, a lot of anger"
"I thought it was my fault."
Clancy categorizes all such psychological reactions as, "unpleasant,
distressing, or confusing, but not traumatic."
Clancy acknowledges that, "All of our subjects (1) had either symptoms
or diagnoses of PTSD [posttraumatic stress disorder] and (2) reported
negative life effects from the abuse." (p. 71)
Yet, this does not influence Clancy to consider that they might have
suffered trauma at the time of their abuse. Instead, she states that
since child sexual abuse is, "not necessarily traumatic at the time it
occurs", "it may be the retrospective interpretation of the event,
rather than the event itself, that mediates its subsequent impact."
(P. 72)
In her words, the later PTSD is the result of, "an understandable
tendency to project our adult fears, repulsion, and horror onto child
victims".
So, she claims, it is adults, especially therapists per her book, "The
Trauma Myth", who project their own project fear, repulsion, and
horror onto child sexual abuse.
She ignores her subjects' own reports of contemporaneous fear,
repulsion, and horror.
And then she entitles her book, "The Trauma Myth", categorically
painting sexual abuse as nontraumatic with one sweeping brush stroke.
To reiterate, a mean score of 7.5 on a 10-point scale of trauma is very high.
Clancy has no objective basis to dismiss as a myth her subjects'
experiences of having been traumatized by their sexual abuse, simply
because their reports did not meet her overly-restrictive criteria of
overwhelming terror or having feared for their lives.
It is important to note that the McNally-Clancy article was published
in the journal, "The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice",
which claims to be peer-reviewed and endorsed by, "The Commission for
Scientific Medicine and Mental Health" (CSMMH). Scott Lilienfeld is
founder and editor of this journal and of the CSMMH. Many of the
coordinating committee and fellows of the CSMMH have a long history of
affiliation with the False Memory Syndrome Foundation and of
advocating on behalf of accused sex abuse offenders in legal actions.
These fellows include Elizabeth Loftus, Paul McHugh, and Harrison
Pope. I believe it is necessary to question the degree of scientific
objectivity of the peer-review process of this article by Clancy and
McNally.
Clancy's book also oddly neglects to adequately incorporate the vast
body of psychological research documenting the myriad short-term
damaging effects of sexual abuse on children. It is standard for
psychologists to first conduct an unbiased review of the literature on
our subject and to include that review in our books and papers. Clancy
failed to do conduct such a review. Instead, she selectively cites
only a few studies that support her position. This approach suggests
that Clancy has a biased agenda rather than an objective of honestly
representing the work in the field. This raises questions of potential
bias in her research methods, her interviews of victims, and her
interpretation of her results.
As a psychologist for 24 years, I have treated hundreds of abused
children and adults abused as children. Cases of children experiencing
only "confusion" her thesis) during the time period of their abuse are
very rare. In most cases, abused children and adults abused as
children report that during the time in which they were abused, in
addition to confusion of various types, they experienced a combination
of many of the following:
1. Physical pain, in some cases extreme.
2. Disgust for the sexual acts, abuser genitalia and emissions.
3. Terror in cases of extreme force, restraint, or restriction of the
child's breathing, gagging, etc.
4. Terror based in threats to self, loved one, pets, etc., to ensure
compliance and/or to prevent disclosure.
5. Fear based in the abuser over-riding their attempts to escape,
ignoring their pleas for the abuser to stop, etc.
6. Fear, shame, and guilt, based in an awareness that private parts
should be covered and not bothered (molested), and an awareness that
the abuser was making great efforts to hide the abuse, to keep it
secret, and to ensure that they kept it secret, causing the child to
understand that these acts were harmful and morally wrong, as in
hitting someone, stealing, lying, etc.
7. Betrayal and hurt in cases of abuse by loved ones, based in an
awareness that the abuser was engaging them in harmful and immoral
acts, and in many cases, that family members were allowing the abuse
to continue.
8. Guilt and shame for not escaping or physically fighting off the
abuser. (The truth is that children usually understand in the moment
that they will be overpowered or assaulted for resisting)
9. Feeling like an "accomplice" based in receiving gifts and special
privileges from the abuser. Clancy portrays these "gifts" as
"benefits" that the child derives from sexual abuse. This equates
child victims with prostitutes who trade money for sex. But, children
cannot enter "contracts" to be sexually exploited. Sexual abuse is
imposed on children against their will and with no knowledge of the
meaning of sexuality. Abusers then use gifts and favors to further
manipulate and entrap children.
10. Anxiety-producing sexual arousal during the abuse, in cases in
which the abuser took precautions to prevent or minimize the
perception of pain.
11. Residual sexual feelings and responses that caused great anxiety,
crying, tantrums, pleas to caregivers to, "Make it [the sexual
response] stop", etc.
12. Rage at the abuser for inflicting the above.
13. Social, behavioral, and cognitive (including academic) problems
driven by the above.
14. Physical damage, including damage to internal organs, sexually
transmitted diseases, pregnancy, and in some rare cases, death.
In addition, when children first disclose their abuse, the supportive
caregivers in their life typically are devastated to have discovered
the true basis for their children's recent psychological and physical
problems, such as separation anxiety, nightmares and night terrors,
frequent crying, assorted fears, defiance, temper tantrums, academic
problems, urinary and bowel "accidents", etc. All of these are clear
indicators that the sexual abuse was damaging to the child
pre-disclosure.
I do not discount the rare cases of children feeling only "confused"
during the period of their sexual abuse. However, this reaction
usually occurs only in cases that do not involve pain, coercion, and
threats, that involve more "mild" sexual acts, that are very
short-term, and in younger children.
My internet search reveals that Susan Clancy is an experimental
psychologist. I have found no evidence that she is a licensed
psychologist or psychotherapist of any kind. I do not believe that a
non-therapist is adequately experienced to write a book about the
effects of child sexual abuse.
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9b2f&n=T&l=tips&o=2087
or send a blank email to
leave-2087-13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).
---
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=2089
or send a blank email to
leave-2089-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
