“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.

…Evidence from the study suggested that change of homosexual orientation appears possible for some and that psychological distress did not increase on average as a result of the involvement in the change process…

I would be interested in learning how “psychological distress” is defined and measured. It seems surprising that there was no increase. From my own experience, most participants are compelled to enter ex-gay therapy out of personal crisis. While is seems plausible that some participants could report less psychological distress, it may be relative to the extreme traumatic circumstances they entered the ex-gay program.
It seems reasonable to assume that those who experienced higher psychological distress would drop-out and therefore would be excluded from the psychological distress average. Of course, it can’t be assume that all drop-outs had higher psychological distress — but it seems unlikely participants would willingly leave a program that was alleviating their distress.
I would also be interested in hearing how the researchers differentiated between psychological distress that resulted from the change process versus distress that resulted outside of the change process. Again, from my experience, ex-gay therapy is nearly life-encompassing including spirituality, sexuality, lifestyle, etc. In-depth interviews would be required to determine whether distress is from the change process or not.

One defensible way of describing the outcome is that the participants went from one end of bisexual spectrum to another.

I see nothing in the Jones and Yarhouse study that is inconsistent with seeing the participants as shifting within a bisexual continuum, developing cross orientation relationships…

The participants views of themselves and their behavior have changed but they continue to disclose attraction to the same sex in the way that a bisexual person might do.
These observations lead me to consider other explanations for the study results. For instance, I think bisexuality is a significant conceptual issue for ex-gay studies.

I think so too. This is basically what Joe Dallas of Exodus said during a debate with me on the Joan Rivers Show some years ago. He told her audience “the change that we are talking about is not a change from one end of the spectrum to the other…we are all both.” Joe’s personal testimony includes a history of bisexual attraction and behavior — feelings which he (wrongly) assumes are true for everyone.

The participants in the study were involved in religiously based support groups which primarily had as a goal to reinforce a traditional moral view of sexuality. Clearly, the participants hoped they would change and engaged in various religious interventions to assist that end.

Hoping that they would “change” does not mean they did “change”. Ask John Smid. Ask other leaders of “ex-gay” programs who thought they had “changed”. Ask hundreds of people who “hoped” — and were told there was something wrong with them and their faith when they didn’t “change”.
They may have changed behavior, lifestyle and “identity”, but their orientation did not change from gay to straight. (Except perhaps for some bisexuals who alreay had both attractions and were able to resists their gay feelings.) Many claimed “change” because that’s what they were taught to do: “Name it and claim it”. As though saying they had “changed” would magically make it so.