Choosing research to prove your point

What the study really discovered
Both sides distorted Spitzer’s findings. He did not prove that homosexuality could usually be reversed, but neither did he prove that reorientation therapy was invalid.

What Spitzer actually found was that “contrary to conventional wisdom, some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation” along a 100-point scale. But complete reversal of sexual orientation, he said, “is generally considered an unrealistic goal in psychotherapy [and] is uncommon, particularly in male subjects.”

It was Spitzer himself who warned that his sample was not representative of the general gay population. He sought out only people who claimed to have changed their sexual orientation, many of whom were referred to him by prominent ex-gay ministries. A large majority said religion was “extremely” or “very” important in their lives.

Moreover, Spitzer noted, his study relied exclusively on the self-reported outcomes of the subjects — he had to take them at their word. “Of course the big question is, given that these are subjects highly motivated to provide support for the value of reorientation change efforts, to what extent are their reports merely self-deception, or gross exaggerations?” he asked.

But among this “unique sample,” Spitzer said he had indeed found that a statistically significant number had “achieved good heterosexual functioning.” And while depression was reported to be a common side effect of attempts to change sexual orientation, “this certainly was not the case for our subjects, who were often ‘markedly’ or ‘extremely’ depressed BEFORE, and rarely so depressed AFTER.”

Accordingly, he concluded, “mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation.”

Giving up the battle
Two years later, after his report was formally published, Spitzer elaborated in a commentary in The Wall Street Journal.

“In reality, change should be seen as complex and on a continuum,” he wrote, citing four key indicators — arousal, fantasy, behavior and self-identity — that could be measured. “Change in all four is probably less frequent than claimed by therapists who do this kind of work; in fact, I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation.”

Spitzer again said more research was needed, especially controlled longitudinal studies that tracked self-identified ex-gays over a long period of time. Last April, in an interview with Christianity Today, he said he was not the man for the job: The attacks on him by gay and lesbian activist groups had left him feeling “a little battle fatigue.”

“The second reason,” he said, is that “if somebody proposed that the National Institute of Mental Health do such a study, I think almost certainly any gays in the study section would say this is a total waste of time: They would say, ‘We already know it’s hokum, so why do it?’ ”

MORE FROM POLITICS

Politics Section Front

Reid tasks 10 senators to find public option fix NYT: U.S. forecasts smaller loss from bank bailout Biggest climate meeting in history begins U.S. donates gear needed in Afghan fight to Iraq   With election near, Florida's Gov. Crist changes Newsweek: McCain and Obama — together again?   Senate to confront abortion in health debate Salahis join lengthy list of security breaches Obama pushes health bill in Capitol visit NYT: Turning point for surge decision   Politics Section Front   Add Politics headlines to your news reader: