Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 05:04:04 -0400 (edt) From: Sam Damon Subject: Re: Advise for Christian Cures/shock therapy/Kinsey scale The Feldman articlc cited below has a nice table of various aversive techniques, their effectiveness and retention as defined by Solomon and Brush (1956). Keep in mind however that this article was written in 1965 and advocated shock aversion/conversion therapy for homosexuality. > The "best" that can usually be hoped for is asexuality. The assumption > that heterosexuality is the absence of homosexuality is stupid. (Ah yes, > aversion therapy includes "rewards" associated with het porn.) Absolutely. That is pointed out by the APA. It is also the reason why the Kinsey scale is so limited and often inaccurate. The scale, by definition of being a line, is one dimensional. There is no indication of amplitude or strength. After going through aversive therapy, many patients do indeed show less of an interest in their own gender (although this may be short-lived). Yet, there is no increased interest in the opposite sex. In other words, they are no more heterosexual than they were before. The APA had a very good review article on this. Here is an example of where the Kinsey scale fails: After therapy, "have your sexual interests/experiences been predominantly homosexual or heterosexual?" Most recent patients will reply somewhere near 0 or 1 (0 is totally heterosexual), if there was any pre-therapy heterosexual feelings at all, misleading the questioner as to the therapy's effectiveness. Yet the patient is not lying because there is indeed no longer any homosexual interest. Furthermore, an asexual person -- not uncommon after such traumatic procedures -- is forced to answer near a 3, or bisexual. Researchers often prefer the Klein Grid, which is two dimensional and takes into account the strength of desire. ==================== Related references (I have lots more if anyone is interested): Feldman MP, MacCulloch MJ. The application of anticipatory avoidance learning to the treatment of homosexuality: Theory, treatment and preliminary results 1965;2:165-183. (This one is pretty frightening; a shock device is illustrated) Haldeman DC. The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1994;62:221-227. McConaghy N, Armstrong MS, Blaszczynski A. Controlled comparison of aversive therapy and convert sensitization in compulsive homosexuality. Behaviour Research and Therapy 1981;19:425-434. Morin SF, Rothblum ED. Removing the stigma: Fifteen years of progress. American Psychologist 1991;46:947-949. Weinrich JD, Snyder PJ, Pillard RC, Grant I, Jacobson DL, Robinson SR, McCutchan JA. A factor analysis of the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid in two disparate samples. Archives of Sexual Behavior 1993;22:157-168. The Journal of Homosexuality has also had some excellent articles, including one reviewing all the various historical techniques used. A 1982 book edited by Hetrick has a collection of a chapters on then-current techniques, explaining why they don't work. These are all at the office now so I can't give you a specific citation. I know of two studies dealing specifically with religious conversion. The most controversial one by far showed a positive result (Pattison EM, Pattison ML. Ex-gays Religiously mediated change in homosexuals. American Journal of Psychiatry 1980;137:1553-1562). Halderman points point its flaws in a review later article.