NCJ Number
196525
Date Published
2001
Length
26 pages
Annotation
This article in the volume of Misinformation Concerning Child Sexual Abuse and Adult Survivors examines whether the study entitled “A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples” by Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman and published in 1998 is best characterized as unpopular science or pedophile propaganda.
Abstract
In the article, “A Meta-analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples” published in 1998 in the Psychological Bulletin, the study’s authors, Rind, Tromovitch, and Bauserman analyzed the findings of 59 earlier studies on child sexual abuse (CSA) and determined that mental health researchers have greatly overstated CSA’s harmful potential. A recommendation was set forth that a willing encounter with positive reactions would no longer be considered sexual abuse but labeled adult-child sex. The study received enormous amounts of media attention and was formally rejected by the United States House of Representatives. It was viewed as pedophile propaganda. This review/examination suggests that this study was a serious misrepresentation. Poorly constructed or morally repugnant studies have the potential to shake public confidence in science and lessen the public’s willingness to base public policy on legitimate scientific research. Therefore, it must be challenged and corrected. Strident efforts must be taken to assure that research articles adhere to the ethical and scientific standards and not promote personal agendas. References