In 2007, Mark Yarhouse of Pat Robertson’s Regent University co-wrote an informal study of ex-gay therapy. The study was funded by Exodus International — the North American network of evangelical ex-gay activists — and co-written by Stanton Jones, another evangelical who is employed by the conservative Wheaton College in Illinois.
Exodus falsely marketed the study as “peer-reviewed” — it wasn’t — and Yarhouse and Jones were criticized for rigging the sample of subjects and standards of success or failure in order to guarantee a result that would satisfy Exodus.
Specifically, Jones and Yarhouse’s work suffered from the following flaws:
- The study originally sought 300 participants, but after more than a year of seeking to round up volunteers, they had to settle on only 98 participants.
- During the course of the study, 25 dropped out, and one participant’s answers were too incomplete to be used.
- Of the remaining 72 only 11 reported “satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment.” Most of these 11 remained primarily homosexual in attraction or, at best, bisexual, but were satisfied that they were just slightly more attracted to the opposite sex, or slightly less attracted to the same sex.
- After the study ended, but before the book was finished, one of the 11 wrote to the authors to say that he lied — he really wanted to change, had really hoped he had changed, and answered that he had changed. But he concluded that he hadn’t, came out, and is now living as an openly gay man.
- Dozens of participants experienced no lessening of same-sex attraction and no increase in opposite-sex attraction, but were classified as “success” stories by Jones and Yarhouse simply because they maintained celibacy — something many conservative gay people already do.
- The study purposely declined to interview any ex-gay survivors: people who claim to have been injured by ex-gay programs and who have formed support groups such as Beyond Ex-Gay. Despite — or because of — this omission, Yarhouse and Jones made the unfounded claim that there is little or no evidence of harm resulting from unproven, unsupervised, unlicensed, and amateur ex-gay counseling tactics.
In short, the study design was so flawed that no mainstream, peer-reviewed, mental-health journal would publish it.
Nevertheless, Exodus, Focus on the Family, and other Christian Right political groups immediately cited the study as proof that anyone can change their orientation without fear of ill effects from disproven methods or disreputable amateur counselors.
Now, however, Yarhouse is backing away from some of the early reactions to the study.
At a Sept. 25 symposium at Regent, Yarhouse said — according to The Virginian-Pilot — that while same-sex attraction may be changeable in some individuals, not everyone can change.
“For me, in my own practice, I would not focus on change of orientation,” said Yarhouse, a psychologist and counselor who teaches at Regent, an evangelical Christian school. …
Yarhouse’s study focused on those who said their same-sex attractions collided with their religious beliefs. He said his research found that there was “modest” movement away from homosexuality among some Exodus participants, but categorical conversions to heterosexuality were rare.
Yarhouse recommended that counselors avoid uniformly steering struggling gays toward heterosexuality and focus instead on the best outcome for the individual.
That could include celibacy or exploring different faith groups with various attitudes toward gays and lesbians, he said.
Despite Yarhouse’s statements, no one on the Christian Right who misreported the study’s findings in 2007-2008 has yet retracted their false boasts. Until Yarhouse becomes much more vocal, the public in general and Christian Rightists in particular will remain purposely misinformed about the inability of most same-sex-attracted persons to change their orientation.
I wonder why Yarhouse has waited about two years befoe correcting the exaggerated claims of the “Christian” Right.
Wayne,
I am wondering if you are considering doing book 2, Scared Celibate, mainly for Christian gays that know they cannot change their orientations, know they will always be gay, but are too scared by religious dogma to be whole with their sexuality.
There seems to be this growing Mother Teresa, Ghandi-like “glow” coming from some of these gay people to justify their choice to become celibate, when in truth, it is fueled by shame.
Anyway, food for thought.
Goes to show that the claim of the ex-gay movement that hundreds of thousands have been “repaired” is just a huge lie.
It is sad really. The one place where people are supposed to find love, refuge, and spiritual guideance has become the one place where none of this is no longer true. Being raised southern Baptist, I was exposed to these lies, and for a long time, believed them. I then became a youth pastor and tried (within the “system”) to de-brain wash my youth. I’m not sure if it worked, but to see what the church has now become is very political place where all this propraganda is being forced into the ears and mind of others…I have become so fed up that I no longer want to go to church, period…that is not a good place to be. It is very sad the lengths people will go to in order to cover up lies and spread ignorance…very sad.
Excellent research Wayne. We know that no one actually changes from gay to straight. Not only from our own experience but from the many 1000′s of people who have contacted us after leaving ex-gay groups and ‘therapy’. Any ‘research’ that says otherwise will eventually be found wanting in the basics of true scientific research.
With respect, it seems to me (as one who has done a fair amount of objective research)that the above comments are, themselves, seriously biased. On the one hand they criticize the study under dispute for its flaws, yet show their own pro-gay bias through their colourful prejudicial language. For example, “scared celibate”, “religious dogma”, “Mother Teresa, Ghandi (sic)-like glow”, “a huge lie”, “propaganda” and “to cover up lies and spread ignorance”. One cannot make a valid criticism of any research, flawed or otherwise, using such language if they are to be taken seriously.Even AVB’s comment “Any research that says otherwise will eventually be found wanting in the basics of true scientific research” is couched in appallingly UNscientific language!
not so sure I was trying to be scientific Anne….just commenting on the flaws that have eventually appeared with the various research projects that ‘demonstrated’ that change in sexual orientation is possible.
Ann,
Where in my article did I use such language?
It seems that you are pre-empting all criticism of the study and just looking for excuses not to pay attention.
Michael, you misread me! If you look at what I said above, I was referring to the five comments on the article you posted, not the article itself which seems to be, on the whole, (in my humble opinion!) quite a balanced criticism of Jones & Yarhouse’s work. So please don’t take offence. I just felt that the comments themselves were rather prejudiced in favour of the gay ’cause’, which I guess is to be expected. So, are we friends?
Ann,
Such non scientific language is more of an advertising lure, i.e. Scared Celibate etc, the science and stats would of course have to be substantiated via professional basic research if such were available.
David Michael
Gee, I have tried to change my bisexuality for 29 years, since I became aware of it when I was 15. Guess what? It hasn’t worked. I have a fairly solid marriage, and do desire to stay in the monogomous marriage, but, at the same time, I do know that I am still also attracted to women. No, I didn’t choose to be bisexual when I was a teen, and while I chose to live the straight lifestyle, it hasn’t changed the fact I am still bi.
Hi, Ann, yes we’re still friends :-)
Beth, your desire to maintain a monogamous marriage while being honest about your orientation seems perfectly reasonable and honorable to me (not that you need my approval).