Robert Spitzer Retracts 2001 Ex-gay Study

Psychiatrist Bob Spitzer, author of a 2001 ex-gay study, told American Prospect journalist, Gabriel Arana, that he wants to retract his study:

Spitzer was growing tired and asked how many more questions I had. Nothing, I responded, unless you have something to add.

He did. Would I print a retraction of his 2001 study, “so I don’t have to worry about it anymore”?

Knowing this article was coming, I talked last evening with Bob and asked him what he would like to do about his study. He confirmed to me that he has regret for what he now considers to be errant interpretations of the reports of his study participants. He told me that he had “second thoughts about his study” and he now believes “his conclusions don’t hold water.” He added that he now believes that the criticisms of the study expressed in the 2003 Archives of Sexual Behavior issue are “more true to the data” than his conclusions were.

He told me that he had expressed these thoughts to Ken Zucker, editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior several months ago. He wondered aloud to Dr. Zucker if there was some obligation to say the critics were right and that the study should be withdrawn. Although Spitzer said he did not recall Zucker’s exact reply, he did not feel encouraged to withdraw the paper. The Prospect article also references the issue of a formal retraction:

I asked about the criticisms leveled at him. “In retrospect, I have to admit I think the critiques are largely correct,” he said. “The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.” He said he spoke with the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior about writing a retraction, but the editor declined. (Repeated attempts to contact the journal went unanswered.)

However, when I asked Zucker via email about his stance, he told me that Bob had not submitted anything for review, but he is free to submit a letter to the Editor or other communication expressing regret and his current views. The ball is in Bob’s court. My guess is that Bob will take him up on that offer.

There is much else to consider in this article which I will get to later today.  The material and personal experience with Joseph Nicolosi is well worth reading.

72 thoughts on “Robert Spitzer Retracts 2001 Ex-gay Study”

  1. It appears to me that our left-leaning culture is dictating us that whatever ex-gays (like participants in Spitzer’s study) are saying, they must be outright lying and we should ignore anything they say, but we should never ever accept the possibility that gays and gay rights activists, like Arana, could be exaggerating, crying crocodile tears, or outright lying. This is so unfair.

  2. Arana couldn’t change his orientation because he was not doing it for himself but felt pressured by his parents, ie he did not have a strong will, but what about all those people with unwanted SSA who are actually pursuing SOCE on their own desires? Could they change?

    Also, it looks like Arana has manipulated Spitzer into believing that Nicolosi wanted to use him for a study of success. He played on good doctor’s emotions thus influenced him to update his study. That wasn’t very nice of Gabriel.

    1. What are you trying to do here ?

      You are making ridiculous assertions on topics you clearly know nothing about. And you are making them on a blog where there are people who know a great deal about these topics.

        1. Of Russian origin I am beginning to think. Now he is reaching back 7 years to find new opportunities. It might be time to limit this particular distraction.

          1. Why do you want only people who who are against SOCE to post here? And because my parents lived in Russia under Communism, I see a similarity between the hostility of Communists and of leftists in the USA towards biblical Christianity. For those who never lived there, you are in no position to condemn and judge me for seeing this similarity .

          2. Simply put, I don’t find you credible, and your motives seem highly suspect. Further discussion with you would be unproductive.

          3. Well, regarding this thread, my motives are to defend SOCE because it can be helpful to people who really want it. Obviously, it was not the right therapy for Arana. With this being the case, it can be seen that those who are pressured into SOCE are likely to find it unproductive for themselves. I observed how Arana’s article has been used to make an argument that SOCE does not work for anybody, and I don’t find it credible .

          4. SOCE doesn’t work. There is no valid scientific evidence that it works.

            Again, you don’t know what you are talking about.

          5. I hope that your opinion will not ever become the law of the land. When people lived homosexually but after seeking therapy found happiness in pursuing members of the opposite sex, then getting married, having children, that shows me evidence. These are some things that emerged in Spitzer’s study at hand, as well as other self-reported change at feelings. It has not been proven that all the participants were lying (as many leftist activists hope they would be), thus the data allows rooms for different interpretations, including to that SOCE might work.

        2. It makes me feel very sad that Arana’s article does not appear questionable to you, as a professional psychologist. I could be wrong, of course, but you act like you’re accepting it at a face value. I, certainly, in good conscience cannot do that.

          1. I accepted Arana’s article because Bob Spitzer and I became friends after I interviewed him in 2004. We had regular contact after that and he confided his doubts about the study before he finally retracted it. I also spoke to him after he issued his apology.

          2. Who did you interview in 2004? Bob Spitzer or Arana? So, it is Bob Spitzer (God rest his soul) who believed everything Arana has written. I see. Still, Arana was not part of Spitzer’s study, and from the way the article is written it is doubtful that Nicolosi (RIP, too) ever asked Arana to participate in it. In his mind, maybe. Even if Nicolosi considered Arana a success and might have recommended him to Spitzer, Arana’s story is just his story, and it cannot be used for all people who experienced SOCE. Interestingly, the editor of Journal of Sexual Archives, Kenneth Zucker, did not retract Spitzer’s study, and the last update on it, is that Spitzer is not sure whether his participants were actually telling the truth when talking about their experience of change. He also apologized for hurting feelings of people for his previous statement that some motivated individuals could change from homosexuals to heterosexuals. That’s all there is to it.

      1. I am making an analysis on the article of Arana, and I am posing a legitimate question for discussion. Why instead of trying to answer them, you make biased assumptions about me and about what I know? Believe me, I’ve read substantial literature on how homosexuality became normal in 1973, and I came to conclusion that it more had to do with political activism than with rigorous scientific research, therefore I’m also questioning the motives of people who want to slam SOCE at every opportunity possible. The reason why they get so angry every time I raise these questions is probably because they are fighting a cause they fear they could lose, or it could be totally something else, something entirely personal, of course.

        1. you clearly don’t have enough background to make any kind of legitimate analysis of Arana or Spitzer or conversion therapy.

          You attack Arana based on your misguided and out-dated biases. Which (along with your posting history here) makes it pretty clear you aren’t really interested in any kind of honest discussion of the issues.

          As for your “extensive research” I doubt it consists of more than reading a bunch of propaganda from anti-gay web sites.

          Since it hasn’t dawned on you yet, I’ll just point out the obvious. Warren and most of the posters on this blog are a LOT smarter than you are. And many here know more about the topic of sexuality and “conversion therapy” than you ever will.

          1. Well, there are many professional psychologists who have PhD in related fields and who support SOCE. Their views are as valid as Warren’s. They advocate for people with unwanted SSA to get the suitable therapy and so do I. That doesn’t make them and me antigay because they respect the choices of people to embrace gay identity. Arana’s own words demonstrate that he did not personally want to change but it was his mother’s thing. By simply acknowledging it, I am not attacking him.

          2. Yes, Warren was one of those psychologists. However, after viewing the science he changed his views on it. And these “many professional psychologists” are stuck in the past and most refuse to acknowledge the advances in understanding about sexuality that has happened in the last 30 years.

            and you did attack Arana, the entire last paragraph of your 1st post here was a malicious, underhanded attack on Arana’s character. You aren’t fooling anybody here.

            As I said, you aren’t that smart.

          3. So far, no professional psychological guild ever declared SOCE to be unethically harmful to anybody who ever tries it, even though there is a substantial amount of caution among them.

            I think it was Arana who was malicious who bragged about telling Spitzer that Nicolosi wanted to use his therapeutic sessions as success. Based on his failure to mention this when he was telling about his experience with Nicolosi, and me never hearing Nicolosi publicly revealing information about his former clients, I find it unbelievable. Since Arana told this myth to Spitzer when the latter was heavily battling Parkinson, it really shocked me.

          4. There was nothing “malicious” about what Arana did. Again, that is YOU attacking his character because you don’t like what he says.

            Again, you aren’t that smart. And I’m through trying to engage with you.

          5. I couldn’t care less what Arana is saying about his life, but it bothers me that he and his supporters are using his story while attempting to change laws that are threatening other people’s First Amendment rights. Maybe, Arana’s writing his article is not malicious but just dirty.

          6. If sam80 is legitimate, one of the more interesting aspects of him is that he seems to assume we just haven’t studied the same things he has. For many of us, those were our starting positions, multiple posters on here came from strong conservative backgrounds and positions, including Warren himself. In my home growing up, Mike Pence would have seemed like a moderate at best, and we learned every bit of ‘evidence’ that disproved the claims of LGBTQ, sexism, racism and socialism. We listened to Rush Limbaugh routinely, but we always had the caveat that he wasn’t a declared Christian so we had to be somewhat skeptical. G. Gordon Liddy was often referenced in our home as a patriot.

            It took me literally decades to learn otherwise on many topics. I am still only moderately to the left, but I’ve taken seriously the need for evidence, research and eliminating bias. I now recognize that my previous positions on climate change, women’s rights & abortion, LGBTQA, racial and economic disparity and many other issues were in fact not evidence based, and I have adjusted my views to reflect that reality while attempting to correct the record with as many people who previously listened to me as possible. I am not afraid to admit I was wrong, and that there are some things I am likely still wrong on, but at least I’m aligning with the best available evidence now.

            We didn’t all grow up as commie liberals, many of us grew up to the right of mainstream Republicans, and only our ability to learn and grow changed our views.

          7. that’s the problem. I don’t think he is legitimate.

            When some people see evidence that is contrary to they beliefs they will dig deeper to find out what the facts are. However, there are others who will ignore/discount anything that doesn’t fit with their preconceived notions.

          8. Just because I am willing to believe based on evidence that in general people can change their sexualities, it doesn’t mean that I support everything that other conservatives advocate. For example, I hate what George Bush did in the Middle East and Afghanistan, even though I’m registered Republican and I’ll probably vote for Trump. Obama seemed a little better than Bush but not good enough for me. I also understand that sometimes abortion is the only necessary option to save a woman’s life, hence, it should be legal, safe, and rare.

            Let’s get back to the subject of Spitzer’s study and the issues surrounding it. It was actually he, who contributed to homosexuality being declassified as a mental disorder. Btw, disorder does not mean illness and by 1973, homosexuality was considered so, particularly as a deviation. Like, schizophrenia was/is mental illness, but homosexuality was not, more along claustrophobia. Spitzer and like minded individuals concluded that because homosexuals cannot feel comfortable with practicing heterosexuality it does not make them disordered. They also concluded that homosexuals can, in generally, function well and contribute to society. A lot of it was based on studies of Evelyn Hooker, but Hooker did not specify whether homosexuality itself is either good or bad thing for humanity. I got this information from books “The politics of a diagnosis” by Ronald Bayer and “Destructive trends in mental heath” by Nicolas Cummings, past APA president. Both people, like Spitzer were socially liberal and supportive of gay rights, but they admitted that they felt pressured by activism to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder.

            This is why, it was a shock for LGBT community, when Spitzer published his study by claiming that some people can completely change from homosexuals to heterosexuals. His critics accused him for not checking whether these people were telling the truth. Finally, after having conversations with Arana, he publicly admitted that because he did not test credibility of his participants, he no longer has such firm conclusions. I’m fine with it, but I personally find the same thing about Arana’s article: it’s not clear whether everything he said is the truth. Also, SOCE’s therapists argue that when people do not pursue change on their own desires, it would not work for them. Arana’s own words prove that.

          9. You are basically having an argument that is at this point 15-20 years in the past and long since debunked. Lots of newer studies disproved the conclusions drawn from the research you cite. Yes, people often cling to very old research in order to not have to adjust their beliefs. I’m sorry you have chosen to be one of them.

            I’m not going to engage in a debate with you where we have to pretend there hasn’t been two decades of research superseding the work you cite, or do all the catching up in this thread. Should you get to the modern state of the science, it’s possible people may engage with you, if they believe you are arguing in good faith.

          10. So, are you saying that Arana’s article posted in this thread is totally debunking Spitzer’s study? There were studies done by Shidlo & Shroeder on the effects of repairative therapy, done after Spitzer twice, and they both did not replicate, by showing that people who try it cannot change and can even feel harmed by such therapy. Yet Shidlo & Shroeder did not come to conclusions that SOCE is generally harmful. There was a also a study of Jones & Yarhouse showing positive outcomes of SOCE, and a study done by Lisa Diamond, who interestingly enough opposes SOCE, came to conclusion that there is a fluidity in human sexuality, especially among women.

          11. I see that you are the kind of people who knew the Truth but intentionally chose to reject it and follow the Devil in order to please the feelings of various ungodly people who are proud of their sinful wicked ways and rebelling against God. Well, 2 Peter 2 has a proper description of your kind: you are false teachers behaving like dogs returning to their vomits. But no matter what you do, and how much you are trying to silence us, your lies and hypocrisies will always be exposed and the Truth will prevail over your lies.

          12. Well that’s a pretty silly take. I’m not worried about my relationship with God these days, in fact I am far more secure than I ever was before. It turns out that loving my neighbor was pretty important.

          13. Encouraging people to sin because it makes them feel happy is not loving your neighbors. Actually, it contradicts the definition of love. Speaking of love, I suggest you check out 1 Corinthians 13.

  3. Video on msnbc.com: Gabriel Arana, reporter and web editor at The American Prospect and author of the piece “My So Called Ex-Gay Life,” talks with Rachel Maddow about Dr. Robert Spitzer recanting the one paper that served as the basis for “scientific” justifications for programs to “cure” homosexuality.

    http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.msnbc.msn.com%2Fthe-rachel-maddow-show%2F47094765&h=oAQEb3baGAQHSsZXnURR7caVrwQF0bM3ramenur7L_fXwuQ

  4. Spitzer’s apology reminds of another one:

    “If I need to apologize for something, it is that I misled evangelicals for several years on the matter of sexual orientation. I did not intend to do so. When I made the documentary I Do Exist, I really believed the stories told. I know the people making the video did as well. I believed my clients; I believed people who told me they changed completely. In hindsight, I acknowledge that my work was complicated by the culture war.” ~ Warren Throckmorton

    /2011/11/04/a-new-test-of-orthodoxy/

  5. SPITZER APOLOGIZES FOR HIS STUDY:

    “Several months ago I told you that because of my revised view of my 2001 study of reparative therapy changing sexual orientation, I was considering writing something that would acknowledge that I now judged the major critiques of the study as largely correct. After discussing my revised view of the study with Gabriel Arana, a reporter for American Prospect, and with Malcolm Ritter, an Associated Press science writer, I decided that I had to make public my current thinking about the study. Here it is.

    Basic Research Question. From the beginning it was: “can some version of reparative therapy enable individuals to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual?” Realizing that the study design made it impossible to answer this question, I suggested that the study could be viewed as answering the question, “how do individuals undergoing reparative therapy describe changes in sexual orientation?” – a not very interesting question.

    The Fatal Flaw in the Study – There was no way to judge the credibility of subject reports of change in sexual orientation. I offered several (unconvincing) reasons why it was reasonable to assume that the subject’s reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying. But the simple fact is that there was no way to determine if the subject’s accounts of change were valid.

    I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some “highly motivated” individuals.”

    Robert Spitzer. M.D.

    Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry

    http://www.truthwinsout.org/news/2012/04/24542/

  6. Spitzer’s apology reminds of another one:

    “If I need to apologize for something, it is that I misled evangelicals for several years on the matter of sexual orientation. I did not intend to do so. When I made the documentary I Do Exist, I really believed the stories told. I know the people making the video did as well. I believed my clients; I believed people who told me they changed completely. In hindsight, I acknowledge that my work was complicated by the culture war.” ~ Warren Throckmorton

    /2011/11/04/a-new-test-of-orthodoxy/

  7. SPITZER APOLOGIZES FOR HIS STUDY:

    “Several months ago I told you that because of my revised view of my 2001 study of reparative therapy changing sexual orientation, I was considering writing something that would acknowledge that I now judged the major critiques of the study as largely correct. After discussing my revised view of the study with Gabriel Arana, a reporter for American Prospect, and with Malcolm Ritter, an Associated Press science writer, I decided that I had to make public my current thinking about the study. Here it is.

    Basic Research Question. From the beginning it was: “can some version of reparative therapy enable individuals to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual?” Realizing that the study design made it impossible to answer this question, I suggested that the study could be viewed as answering the question, “how do individuals undergoing reparative therapy describe changes in sexual orientation?” – a not very interesting question.

    The Fatal Flaw in the Study – There was no way to judge the credibility of subject reports of change in sexual orientation. I offered several (unconvincing) reasons why it was reasonable to assume that the subject’s reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying. But the simple fact is that there was no way to determine if the subject’s accounts of change were valid.

    I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some “highly motivated” individuals.”

    Robert Spitzer. M.D.

    Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry

    http://www.truthwinsout.org/news/2012/04/24542/

  8. “After the show, the American Psychoanalytic Association sent this e-mail:

    “This issue deserves coverage in the news as long as individuals and the “ex-gay movement” use faulty science and bias to advance their agenda.

    APsaA states in its 1999 position statement on reparative therapy that efforts to “convert” or “repair” an individual’s sexual orientation are against the fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized homophobic attitudes.

    We emphasize that anti-homosexual bias, just like any other societal prejudice, negatively affects mental health and contributes to feelings of stigma and low self-worth.

    Reparative therapy is nothing more than quackery fueled by bias.”

    http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmaddowblog.msnbc.msn.com%2F_news%2F2012%2F04%2F23%2F11311871-reparative-therapy-is-nothing-more-than-quackery-fueled-by-bias&h=3AQFAZAVpAQEq-ecStjfYDgtXitO_MKDZ7RBMt1wqNMXkRg

  9. “After the show, the American Psychoanalytic Association sent this e-mail:

    “This issue deserves coverage in the news as long as individuals and the “ex-gay movement” use faulty science and bias to advance their agenda.

    APsaA states in its 1999 position statement on reparative therapy that efforts to “convert” or “repair” an individual’s sexual orientation are against the fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized homophobic attitudes.

    We emphasize that anti-homosexual bias, just like any other societal prejudice, negatively affects mental health and contributes to feelings of stigma and low self-worth.

    Reparative therapy is nothing more than quackery fueled by bias.”

    http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmaddowblog.msnbc.msn.com%2F_news%2F2012%2F04%2F23%2F11311871-reparative-therapy-is-nothing-more-than-quackery-fueled-by-bias&h=3AQFAZAVpAQEq-ecStjfYDgtXitO_MKDZ7RBMt1wqNMXkRg

  10. “The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.” ~ Robert Spitzer

    Couldn’t the very same thing be said about the Jones and Yarhouse study?

  11. “The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.” ~ Robert Spitzer

    Couldn’t the very same thing be said about the Jones and Yarhouse study?

  12. Video on msnbc.com: Gabriel Arana, reporter and web editor at The American Prospect and author of the piece “My So Called Ex-Gay Life,” talks with Rachel Maddow about Dr. Robert Spitzer recanting the one paper that served as the basis for “scientific” justifications for programs to “cure” homosexuality.

    http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.msnbc.msn.com%2Fthe-rachel-maddow-show%2F47094765&h=oAQEb3baGAQHSsZXnURR7caVrwQF0bM3ramenur7L_fXwuQ

  13. Considering that Robert Spitzer has now retracted his 2001 Ex-gay Study, Exodus may want to remove this endorsement of the Spitzer study from the Exodus homepage:

    “Perhaps the greatest shock to the mental health community came in 2001 when Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University published his study on the efficacy of efforts to change one’s sexual orientation….After extensive study, the skeptical Spitzer published his findings in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2001 concluding that sexual orientation can successfully be changed.”

    http://exodusinternational.org/2009/04/what-does-science-say/#more-2654

    Further, Alan Chambers has recently admitted that “99,9% don’t change their sexual orientation”. So why continue to use Spitzer’s study as proof that they do?

  14. Considering that Robert Spitzer has now retracted his 2001 Ex-gay Study, Exodus may want to remove this endorsement of the Spitzer study from the Exodus homepage:

    “Perhaps the greatest shock to the mental health community came in 2001 when Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University published his study on the efficacy of efforts to change one’s sexual orientation….After extensive study, the skeptical Spitzer published his findings in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2001 concluding that sexual orientation can successfully be changed.”

    http://exodusinternational.org/2009/04/what-does-science-say/#more-2654

    Further, Alan Chambers has recently admitted that “99,9% don’t change their sexual orientation”. So why continue to use Spitzer’s study as proof that they do?

  15. Michael Bussee I am glad you brought up Jones & Yarhouse again. I have asked Warren in the past to request of Yarhouse the raw data because it is never explained in the Jones & Yarhouse study if the people who moved towards heterosexuality were mainly women. The study fails to break out the gender. Overall I do think the Jones and Yarhouse study needs a peer review of the RAW data. Why should we have to wait decades for this to happen like with Spitzer?

    I looked up the rules of the APA and the rule says that if you publish research you HAVE to provide the raw data to any qualified researcher, and the reviewing researcher has to maintain the confidentiality of the subjects. This is an American Psychological Association rule. You cannot publish research and refuse to give up your RAW data for review. Why is no one doing this? Why do we let research stand with open questions that remain unanswered? Why won’t a qualified research psychologist request the RAW data from Jones and Yarhouse? Why does everybody simply accept their conclusions?

  16. Michael Bussee I am glad you brought up Jones & Yarhouse again. I have asked Warren in the past to request of Yarhouse the raw data because it is never explained in the Jones & Yarhouse study if the people who moved towards heterosexuality were mainly women. The study fails to break out the gender. Overall I do think the Jones and Yarhouse study needs a peer review of the RAW data. Why should we have to wait decades for this to happen like with Spitzer?

    I looked up the rules of the APA and the rule says that if you publish research you HAVE to provide the raw data to any qualified researcher, and the reviewing researcher has to maintain the confidentiality of the subjects. This is an American Psychological Association rule. You cannot publish research and refuse to give up your RAW data for review. Why is no one doing this? Why do we let research stand with open questions that remain unanswered? Why won’t a qualified research psychologist request the RAW data from Jones and Yarhouse? Why does everybody simply accept their conclusions?

  17. Boo :

    True, but then Spitzer never claimed anyone everyone who didn’t fit his model must be lying.

    There, fixed it for you.

  18. “The study was exciting and interesting when it was published. The reaction was rabid, and similar reactions occurred to Michael Baily.”

    True, but then Spitzer never claimed anyone who didn’t fit his model must be lying.

  19. “The study was exciting and interesting when it was published. The reaction was rabid, and similar reactions occurred to Michael Baily.”

    True, but then Spitzer never claimed anyone who didn’t fit his model must be lying.

  20. Scott Rose says:

    April 11, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    “Nicolosi says he’s never met a gay male who had a good relationship with the father. I would invite Nicolosi to meet me with my wonderful dad, but I fear I would be wasting my time and would not even receive a response.”

    Even better, I’d like to see him participate in the following study. Out of 30 straight men and 30 gay men, have each interviewed about their relationships with their fathers. Then see if Nicolosi can determine who is gay and who is straight based only on their responses. I doubt he’d be willing to participate in such a study.

  21. Scott Rose says:

    April 11, 2012 at 5:13 pm

    “Nicolosi says he’s never met a gay male who had a good relationship with the father. I would invite Nicolosi to meet me with my wonderful dad, but I fear I would be wasting my time and would not even receive a response.”

    Even better, I’d like to see him participate in the following study. Out of 30 straight men and 30 gay men, have each interviewed about their relationships with their fathers. Then see if Nicolosi can determine who is gay and who is straight based only on their responses. I doubt he’d be willing to participate in such a study.

  22. David Hart says:

    April 11, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    “What I want to know is how did this ever get through peer review in the first place. Surely the referees knew that Spitzer’s samping was flawed and without scientific controls. ”

    Spitzer didn’t need to worry about sampling any more than Hooker did in her study. He wasn’t trying to prove how likely change was, merely whether it occurred or not.

  23. Jones and Yarhouse may have to rethink this:

    “Perhaps the highly publicized recent study in which participants reported successful change of sexual orientation was authored by research psychiatrist Robert L. Spitzer. Spitzer could be construed to be the most qualified person in the world to conduct this sort of research; in addition to a distinguished research career, he was the lead scientist responsible for revision of the DSM of the APA.” ~ “Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation”, Stanton L. Jones and mark A. Yarhouse (Pg. 89)

  24. David Hart says:

    April 11, 2012 at 12:34 pm

    “What I want to know is how did this ever get through peer review in the first place. Surely the referees knew that Spitzer’s samping was flawed and without scientific controls. ”

    Spitzer didn’t need to worry about sampling any more than Hooker did in her study. He wasn’t trying to prove how likely change was, merely whether it occurred or not.

  25. So, Spitzer’s study doesn’t hold water. Neither did the Pattison study. Now, if only Jones and Yarhouse would be very clear that their study doesn’t provide solid evidence of orientation change… Even if they did, what do you want to bet that some folks will continue to cite these studies as “proof”?

    For example, Exodus continues to promote the Spitzer study (and NARTH) on its homepage:

    “Information about Dr. Robert Spitzer’s 2003 study on orientation shift can be found on the NARTH (National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) website.”

    http://exodusinternational.org/2009/12/whats-your-success-rate-in-changing-gays-into-straights/

  26. Nicolosi says he’s never met a gay male who had a good relationship with the father. I would invite Nicolosi to meet me with my wonderful dad, but I fear I would be wasting my time and would not even receive a response.

  27. Bummer…even the best of intentions, leads to bad conclusions. Way to stay strong with the data and let it guide your conclusions Warren. I feel so honored to know you.

  28. Jones and Yarhouse may have to rethink this:

    “Perhaps the highly publicized recent study in which participants reported successful change of sexual orientation was authored by research psychiatrist Robert L. Spitzer. Spitzer could be construed to be the most qualified person in the world to conduct this sort of research; in addition to a distinguished research career, he was the lead scientist responsible for revision of the DSM of the APA.” ~ “Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation”, Stanton L. Jones and mark A. Yarhouse (Pg. 89)

  29. The study was exciting and interesting when it was published. The reaction was rabid, and similar reactions occurred to Michael Baily.

    Neither one of these men were political advocates or homophobes, just curious men asking important questions.

    Of course the data is flawed…and hindsight is 20/20. Thank gawd for hindsight. Great post Warren…now to modify further “I do Exist.” ;(.

  30. So, Spitzer’s study doesn’t hold water. Neither did the Pattison study. Now, if only Jones and Yarhouse would be very clear that their study doesn’t provide solid evidence of orientation change… Even if they did, what do you want to bet that some folks will continue to cite these studies as “proof”?

    For example, Exodus continues to promote the Spitzer study (and NARTH) on its homepage:

    “Information about Dr. Robert Spitzer’s 2003 study on orientation shift can be found on the NARTH (National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) website.”

    http://exodusinternational.org/2009/12/whats-your-success-rate-in-changing-gays-into-straights/

  31. Nicolosi says he’s never met a gay male who had a good relationship with the father. I would invite Nicolosi to meet me with my wonderful dad, but I fear I would be wasting my time and would not even receive a response.

  32. Bummer…even the best of intentions, leads to bad conclusions. Way to stay strong with the data and let it guide your conclusions Warren. I feel so honored to know you.

  33. What I want to know is how did this ever get through peer review in the first place. Surely the referees knew that Spitzer’s samping was flawed and without scientific controls.

    Nevertheless, I am profoundly grateful for someone who has corrected a wrong. It took courage and intellectual honesty to do so.

  34. I don’t think Spitzer needs to retract anything, clarify maybe. Basically, what Spitzer said in the paper was that it may be possible to change orientation and that there needs to be more research into the efficacy of therapy to change orientation. I think anybody who honestly read his 2001 paper (rather than those who simply grabbed the parts they wanted to support their personal biases) saw that.

    At best, I think all Spitzer should really do is submit a letter to the editor saying the lack confirmation to his results indicates his results were anomalous and people are unlikely to change their orientation through therapy.

    And frankly, I’m surprised Nicolosi hasn’t been sued by any of his former patients.

  35. The study was exciting and interesting when it was published. The reaction was rabid, and similar reactions occurred to Michael Baily.

    Neither one of these men were political advocates or homophobes, just curious men asking important questions.

    Of course the data is flawed…and hindsight is 20/20. Thank gawd for hindsight. Great post Warren…now to modify further “I do Exist.” ;(.

  36. It’s a fine article, far more tempered and even-handed than I could have managed under the circumstances. Among many notable details, Nicolosi’s complete inability to understand the results of his actions stands out. One wonder how he still could have a license. His obsession with the idea of masculinity is telling. Like many, he seems to view homosexuality as a lack of masculinity, a trait he associates with morality and the stays quo. So ‘therapy’ becomes a way of reinforcing a particular view of social order. Perhaps I’ve led a sheltered life but I’ve never heard of phone calls as being an acceptable or appropriate way for a psychiatrist – if that’s what he is – to conduct analysis. I didn’t think anybody did that outside Hollywood.

    The language of ‘choice’ and lifestyle’ is front and centre. One sees the devastation wrought by ‘the parents (read mother) are to blame folly. An idea that tortured my own mother during my very harrowing coming out. But the writer’s personal experience coupled with his measured tone is refreshing and welcome.

  37. What I want to know is how did this ever get through peer review in the first place. Surely the referees knew that Spitzer’s samping was flawed and without scientific controls.

    Nevertheless, I am profoundly grateful for someone who has corrected a wrong. It took courage and intellectual honesty to do so.

  38. I don’t think Spitzer needs to retract anything, clarify maybe. Basically, what Spitzer said in the paper was that it may be possible to change orientation and that there needs to be more research into the efficacy of therapy to change orientation. I think anybody who honestly read his 2001 paper (rather than those who simply grabbed the parts they wanted to support their personal biases) saw that.

    At best, I think all Spitzer should really do is submit a letter to the editor saying the lack confirmation to his results indicates his results were anomalous and people are unlikely to change their orientation through therapy.

    And frankly, I’m surprised Nicolosi hasn’t been sued by any of his former patients.

  39. It’s a fine article, far more tempered and even-handed than I could have managed under the circumstances. Among many notable details, Nicolosi’s complete inability to understand the results of his actions stands out. One wonder how he still could have a license. His obsession with the idea of masculinity is telling. Like many, he seems to view homosexuality as a lack of masculinity, a trait he associates with morality and the stays quo. So ‘therapy’ becomes a way of reinforcing a particular view of social order. Perhaps I’ve led a sheltered life but I’ve never heard of phone calls as being an acceptable or appropriate way for a psychiatrist – if that’s what he is – to conduct analysis. I didn’t think anybody did that outside Hollywood.

    The language of ‘choice’ and lifestyle’ is front and centre. One sees the devastation wrought by ‘the parents (read mother) are to blame folly. An idea that tortured my own mother during my very harrowing coming out. But the writer’s personal experience coupled with his measured tone is refreshing and welcome.

Comments are closed.