“In addition, at least one participant with whom I’ve spoken at length indicated that they strongly inferred from the researchers that the results of this study would help “struggling Christians” and therefore a positive outcome would be preferred.”

Spot on. And that was true when E. Mansell Pattison did “research” on the same subject back in the day. He interviewed 33 pre-selected Exodus subjects who sincerely felt it was their Christian duty to “convey the hope of change”. By “proclaiming” it, they were helping to make it happen. “As a man speaks, so is he” was the basic idea. Except that when it came to sexual reorientation, we were dead wrong.
Gary and I were two of the eleven described by Pattiston as having made “significant change” in our orientation. He concluded this because we were both heterosexually married — and because we minimized just how strong the “same sex attractions” still were. I know for a fact that the remaining nine subject with “siginificant change” were also giving overly positive reports.

MgS – I agree which I why I wrote about bisexuality in the post. Ex-gay studies in general have not taken this into account in a way that reflects the experience of the people involved, imo.

These subjects were, after all, Christians who felt strongly about the “wrongness” of homosexuality, were participating long-term in ex-gay ministries and would naturally have felt a sense of what this study might mean to their “cause.” And frankly, I think any of us who call ourselves Christian — especially those of us who have Charismatic backgrounds — can understand the intensity and certainty of believing in one’s “healing.” This could easily cause a subject to enthusiastically report change that has not in fact occurred.

This is my anecdotal experience from a Charismatic setting as well. I have not found this “healing” pressure in non-fundamentalist settings among Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Latter-Day Saints.