A Critique of Jones and Yarhouse's "Ex-gay" Study

Having studied the "ex-gay" programs in dept in the past, I have previously posted about the new Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse book, Ex-gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, which is based on a study of participants in the Exodus International ex-gay ministries, in which the authors intended to answer two questions: 1) can a homosexual orientation be “healed,” specifically can a person change their orientation using religious-based therapy, and 2) are attempts at change harmful. To be candid, from their past work and their - in my view religiously biased desire to find "change" possible - I was always sceptical of any pro-change conclusions they might claim.

Now, Ex-gay Watch has a critique of their supposed study by Patrick M. Chapman, PhD, an academic with a PhD in biological anthropology, and someone who tried for over a decade to change his own sexual orientation. His conclusions are found here (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/11/a-critique-of-jones-and-yarhouses-ex-gays-part-2/#more-2721) and confirm all my doubts as to this study being anything more than yet another attempt to give Exodus and other ex-gay programs undeserved legitimacy. No doubt the book will sell well with the Christianists - and make money for its authors - and be improperly cited for supporting "cure" programs that are little better than having treatment from a witch doctor. Here are highlights of the critique:

In the opening chapter Jones and Yarhouse honestly and correctly state this study cannot establish if long-term, permanent and enduring change occurs because that would require a long-term study (p. 17). Contrarily, they later suggest the results demonstrate sexual orientation is changeable (pp. 42, 325), evidenced by 11 “Success: Conversion” cases out of the original 98. The conclusion is unwarranted because: 1) they acknowledge multiple anecdotal cases from previous “ex-gay” success stories who later recanted their “conversion” to heterosexuality (pp. 63-64, 72); 2) they freely acknowledge that people in ex-gay programs declare they are heterosexual even if they experience exclusive and powerful homosexual attractions (p. 220); 3) they admit that one of their 11 “Success: Conversion” cases recanted his claim of change, confessing his homosexual attraction was unchanged after the book manuscript neared completion (p. 285; Jones and Yarhouse did not remove his “success” from their data); and 4) the only way to determine if change actually occurred is through a long-term study, which this is not.

This study is littered with biased and sloppy scholarship. The authors suggest the results presented in Tables 7.4 through 7.6 (pp. 239-240) present a “modest portrait of positive progress” in the change process (p. 246). Yet, there is no change based on the data presented in Table 7.4: at both the start and end of the study nine participants declare themselves heterosexual while 51 declare themselves homosexual. Jones and Yarhouse state there is “no indication of significant change” based on the data presented in Table 7.5 (p. 248) and no statistically significant change in Table 7.6 (p. 249). Nonetheless Jones and Yarhouse declare the results represented in these three tables to be “positive progress.” Simply put, their conclusion is not based on the evidence: progress requires positive change.

Meanwhile, the authors report 23 percent of the participants achieved success in changing their sexual orientation by embracing chastity. However, once again the actual desires and longings of the individuals remain homosexual. One “Success: Chastity” female relinquished her goal of getting rid of homosexual feelings and longings (p. 302), a “Success: Chastity” male admits to continued same-sex attractions (p. 303), while another male still fantasizes to the point of orgasm about being with a man and admits continued homosexual feelings and longings (p. 304). While Jones and Yarhouse acknowledge these individuals did not experience a “strong movement toward heterosexual attraction” (p. 291), they nonetheless consider them “successes.”

Despite explicitly stating that this study cannot demonstrate whether long-lasting change is possible, despite admitting that individuals in ex-gay ministries misreport their condition, despite knowing that previous testimonies of change were untrue, despite knowing that one of their own “Success: Conversion” participants later recanted his proclaimed “conversion” to heterosexuality, and despite the fact that “Success: Conversion” and “Success: Chastity” participants retain a homosexual orientation (using Jones and Yarhouse’s own definition), the authors claim that homosexual orientation is changeable! Clearly their conclusion is not consistent with the evidence: a continued homosexual orientation is not evidence of “healing” from homosexuality.