The Rind et al. controversy was a debate in the scientific literature, public media, and government legislatures in the United States regarding a 1998 peer reviewed meta-analysis of the self-reported harm caused by child sexual abuse (CSA). The debate resulted in the unprecedented condemnation of the paper by both chambers of the United States Congress. Some in the social science research community was concerned that the condemnation by government legislatures might have a chilling effect on the future publication of controversial research results.
The study's lead author was psychologist Bruce Rind; it expanded on a 1997 meta-analysis for which Rind was also the lead author. The authors stated their goal was to determine whether CSA caused pervasive, significant psychological harm for both males and females, controversially concluding that the harm caused by child sexual abuse was not necessarily intense or pervasive, that the prevailing construct of CSA was not scientifically valid, as it failed empirical verification, and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on other factors, such as the degree of coercion or force involved. The authors concluded that even though CSA may not result in lifelong, significant harm to all victims, this does not mean it is not morally wrong and indicated that their findings did not imply current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed.
The Rind et al. study has been criticized by many scientists and researchers, on the grounds that its methodology and conclusions were poorly designed and statistically flawed. Its definition of harm, for example, has been the subject of debate, as it only examined self-reported long-term psychological effects in young adults, whereas harm can have several forms, including short-term or medical harm (for example, sexually transmitted infections or injuries), a likelihood of revictimization, and the amount of time the victim spent attending therapy for the abuse. Numerous studies and professional clinical experience in the field of psychology, both before and after Rind et al.'s publications, have long borne out that children cannot consent to sexual activity and that child and adolescent sexual abuse cause harm. Psychologist Anna Salter commented that Rind et al.'s results are "truly an outlier" compared to other meta-analyses.
A later CSA study by Heather Ulrich and two colleagues, published in The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, attempted to replicate the Rind study, correcting for methodological and statistical problems identified by Dallam and others, and it ultimately supported some of the Rind findings but also acknowledged the limitations of the findings, and, ultimately did not endorse Rind's recommendation to abandon the use of the term child sexual abuse in cases of apparent consent in favor of the term adult-child sex.
The Rind paper has been quoted by people and organizations advocating age-of-consent reform, pedophile or pederasty groups, in support of their efforts to change attitudes towards pedophilia and to decriminalize sexual activity between adults and minors (children or adolescents).
Studies and findings In 1997, psychology professor Bruce Rind of Temple University and doctoral student Philip Tromovitch of the University of Pennsylvania published "A meta-analytic review of findings from national samples on psychological correlates of child sexual abuse", a literature review of seven studies regarding adjustment problems of victims of child sexual abuse (CSA). To avoid the sampling bias that, they argued, existed in most studies of CSA (which drew from samples mostly in the mental health or legal systems and thus were, they claimed, not representative of the population as a whole), the 1997 study combined data from studies using only national samples of individuals expected to be more representative of the population of child sexual abuse victims. This study examined 10 independent samples designed to be nationally representative, based on data from more than 8,500 participants. Four of the studies came from the United States, and one each came from Great Britain, Canada, and Spain.
Based on the results, they concluded that the general consensus associating CSA with intense, pervasive harm and long-term maladjustment was incorrect. In 1998, Rind, Tromovitch and Robert Bauserman (then a professor at the University of Michigan) published "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples", a meta-analysis in the Psychological Bulletin of 59 studies (36 published studies, 21 unpublished doctoral dissertations, and 2 unpublished master's theses) with an aggregate sample size of 35,703 college students (13,704 men and 21,999 women).
In most of the 59 studies, CSA was defined by the authors based on legal and "moral" criteriaintegrating the sometimes disparate and conflicting definitions, CSA was defined as "a sexual interaction involving either physical contact or no contact (e.g., exhibitionism) between either a child or adolescent and someone significantly older, or between two peers who are children or adolescents when coercion is used." "Child" was sometimes defined, not biologically, but as underaged or as a minor under the legal age of consent. All these studies were included in the meta-analysis because many CSA researchers, as well as lay persons, view all types of socio-legally defined CSA as morally and/or psychologically harmful. When this research, the U.S. Congress, and the APA refer to CSA and "children" in the context of sexual relations with adults, they are not only referring to biological (prepubescent) children, but to adolescents under the age of consent as well; this age varies between 16 and 18 years old in the U.S.
The results of the meta-analysis indicated that college students who had experienced CSA were slightly less well-adjusted compared to other students who had not experienced CSA, but that family environment was a significant confound that may be responsible for the association between CSA and harm. Intense, pervasive harm and long-term maladjustment were due to confounding variables in most studies, rather than to the sexual abuse itself (though exceptions were noted for abuse accompanied by force or incest). Both studies addressed four "assumed properties" of CSA, identified by the authors: gender equivalence (both genders affected equally), causality (CSA causes harm), pervasiveness (most victims of CSA are harmed) and intensity (the harm is normally significant and long-term), concluding that all four "assumed properties" were questionable and had several potential confounds.
Based on the closely mirrored results of both studies, Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman questioned the scientific validity of a single term "child sexual abuse" and suggested a variety of different labels for sexual contact between adults and non-adults based on age and the degree to which the child was forced or coerced into participating. They concluded with a discussion of the legal and moral implications of the article, stating that the "wrongfulness" and "harmfulness" of sexual acts are not inherently linked, and finished with the statement:
Controversies The first set of peer reviewers for Psychological Bulletin, it was later discovered by researcher Stephanie J. Dallam, had "thoroughly" rejected the paper, and asked the authors not to submit it again. However, following a change of editors at the journal, they did resubmit the paper; this time, at least one of the new peer reviewers, who spoke to Dallam anonymously, turned it down. None of the other reviewers came forward, and it is still unknown what portion of the reviewers approved the paper, whether it passed peer review at all, and who, if anybody, recommended it for publication.
The paper was published by the American Psychological Association (APA) in July 1998, in Psychological Bulletin. Strong reactions ultimately resulted, from both psychologists and psychiatrists who study sexual abuse and treat victims, and from social conservatives and later, from most of the US Congress.
Scholars familiar with the literature on sexual abuse, as well as experts in the field, found the study's conclusions surprising.
Initial reactions The first substantial public reaction was a December 1998 criticism by the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, an organization dedicated to the discredited view that homosexuality is a mental illness that can be cured by psychotherapy.
In March 1999, conservative talk show host Laura Schlessinger criticized the study as "junk science" and stated that, since its conclusions were contrary to conventional wisdom, its findings should never have been released. She criticized the study's use of meta-analysis, saying. "I frankly have never seen this in general science. ... This [pooling of studies] is so outrageous."Schlessinger, L. (1999 March 23) The Dr. Laura show [Radio Broadcast] Los Angeles, CA: Premiere Radio Networks. "This was not a study. They didn’t do a study. They arbitrarily found 59 studies that other people had done [and] combined them all."
Shortly thereafter, the North American Man/Boy Love Association posted an approving review of the study on their website, furthering the impression that the piece was an endorsement of pedophilia.
On March 28, columnist Debra Saunders published an article in the San Francisco Chronicle titled "Lolita Nation", in which she stated "the APA showed appalling judgment in printing this pedophilia propaganda", and wrote about the paper's findings, "most boys liked it, or didn't mind it, which is the same to the three researchers. Some girls – probably those they refer to as 'mature' – liked it, too. Heterosexual pedophiles have been making the same argument for years. The little girls liked it. The little girls wanted it. You expect that sort of cynical excuse from a cruel pervert, but you don't expect to read it in an APA journal."
Government The paper eventually provoked a reaction from several conservative American members of Congress, notably the Republican representatives Matt Salmon of Arizona and Tom DeLay of Texas, who both condemned the study as advocating for the normalization of pedophilia.
In response, the APA declared in a press statement that child sexual abuse is harmful and wrong, and that the study was in no way an endorsement of pedophilia. The APA mandated a policy change by which APA journal editors would alert the organization of potentially controversial topics in order to be more proactive with politicians, the media and other groups. In an internal organization email, APA Executive Vice-President Raymond D. Fowler stated that, because of the controversy, the article's methodology, analysis, and the process by which it had been approved for publication had been reviewed and found to be sound. In June 1999, Fowler announced in an open letter to DeLay that there would be an independent review of the paper and stated that, from a public policy perspective, some language used in the article was inflammatory and inconsistent with the position of the APA's stance on CSA. The APA also implemented a series of actions designed to prevent the study from being used in legal arguments to defend CSA, and stated an independent review would be undertaken of the scientific accuracy and validity of the report. The request for an outside review of a controversial report by an independent scientific association was unprecedented in APA's 107-year history.
In April 1999, a resolution was introduced in the Alaska Legislature condemning the article, with similar resolutions introduced in California, Illinois, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania over the subsequent two months. Some of these states' psychological associations reacted by asking the APA to take action.