Many lay persons and professionals believe that child sexual abuse (CSA) causes intense harm, regardless of gender, pervasively in the general population. The authors examined this belief by reviewing 59 studies based on college samples. Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported.

No abstract

No abstract

R o b e r t B a u s e r m a n Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, State of MarylandOn July 12, 1999, our meta-analysis on child sexual abuse published in Psychological Bulletin, one of the American Psychological Association's (APA) premiere journals, was condemned by the U.S. Congress (H. Con. Res. 107).The condemnation followed months of attacks on the article, the APA, and us by various social conservatives and psychoanalytically-oriented clinicians. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) was asked by the APA to independently review our article. After considering criticisms of it and the article itself, AAAS declined, but commented that it was the criticisms, not our methods or analyses, that troubled them because these criticisms misrepresented what we wrote. The current article chronicles this whole affair. First, we provide background, explaining why an article such as ours was needed. Then we accurately summarize the article, given that it has been so widely misrepresented. Next we present a chronology of the events leading up to and following the condemnation. We then present and refute all the major criticisms of the article, which have included both methodological and conceptual attacks. Next we discuss the threat to science that these events portend. We conclude by discussing the need to separate moral judgments from scientific research, the conflation of which formed the basis for the distortions and condemnation.

This article comments on the Najman, Dunne, Purdie, Boyle, and Coxeter (2005) study on the relationship between childhood sexual abuse (CSA) and later sexual functioning in an Australian national sample. We note the value of the Najman et al. study, being well conducted and using a generalizable sample, but critique Najman et al.'s interpretation that their study showed "significant impairment" due to the CSA. We computed effect sizes to show that the "effects" were small, and then show using meta-analysis that these small effects were consistent with results in a series of national samples from other countries. We argue that Najman et al.'s causal statement about CSA's "impairment" effect was unwarranted given their lack of causal analysis, the well-established fact in other research that CSA is often confounded with third variables, and the fact that CSA was confounded with a key third variable in Najman et al.'s study. Given the hyperbole that surrounds the issue of CSA, we emphasize the need for researchers to adhere to valid scientific principles in inference and precision when reporting the results of CSA research.