Reviewed by Christopher H. Rosik, Ph.D.

A recent article published in the highly esteemed journal Psychological Bulletin (Dar-Nimrod & Heine, 2011a) addressed the timely subject of the psychological effects of considering genetic foundations to human nature.  The article and invited responses considered the effects such genetic explanations have for a number of areas, which are worth reading on their own right, but this review will of necessity focus on the authors’ discussion of the genetic foundations of sexual orientation.

Psychological Essentialism

The authors begin their discussion by asserting that human beings tend to “essentialize” certain entities that they encounter.  That is, they perceive “natural” categories to living organisms that make them what they are.  The authors note, “People demonstrate psychological essentialism when they perceive an elementary nature or essence, which is underlying, deep, and unobserved, that causes natural entities to be what they are by generating the apparent shared characteristics of the members of a particular category” (p. 801).  People rely on presumed essences and assume essentialist judgments when they attempt to understand the behavior of social groups.  Dar-Nimrod and Heine postulate that psychological essentialism is likely to be a universal aspect of human functioning.

Although the essence of any category is not observable, people use “essence placeholders” to overcome the abstractness of the essence.  The authors contend “…that ‘genes’ (or at least the way that most laypeople conceive of genes) often serve as the placeholder for this imagined essence, and this has important implications regarding how individuals respond when they encounter genetic information about people” (p. 801).  The defining elements of psychological essentialism (namely viewing a characteristic as immutable, fundamental, homogenous, discrete, and natural) are similar to the common lay perception of genes.

Genetic Essentialism Defined

The authors offer four consequences of genetic essentialism:

1. It may  lead people to view outcomes as immutable and determined, unfolding  according to some fixed underlying genetic process that are assumed to be  largely independent of environmental influences and beyond individuals’ control.  Consequently, people view genetically  influenced outcomes as inescapable and predestined.
2. It may lead people to view the relevant genes as entailing the fundamental cause of the condition.  The perception of a genetic foundation thus leads people to devalue the role of environmental and experiential factors. It may lead to people viewing groups that share a genetic foundation as being homogenous and discrete.  All members of a group that share a genetic essence have the potential to possess the associated condition and that condition is not expected to be observed in those who do not share the underlying genetic foundation. It causes people to view the outcome as natural, and, in some domains, this may prompt the naturalistic fallacy, which results in the associated outcomes being perceived as more morally acceptable.  Here ethical properties (i.e., the moral “ought” or “good”) are erroneously derived from resumed natural properties (i.e., the natural “is” or fact of existing).

The authors observe that the naturalistic fallacy has benefited gays and lesbians but worked against criminals and the obese, since this fallacy emerges most strongly when outcomes are associated with behaviors that are seen as voluntary.  Thus, perceiving homosexuality as natural leads to greater acceptance of same-sex behavior, while the opposite is true for criminal behavior or obesity.

Overall, these four biases lead people to attend more to genetic causes of a condition at the expense of considering environment, experience, or gene-environment interactions. Thus, genetic essentialist biases likely result in people giving more weight to genetic contributions than is justified.

Strong and Weak Genetic Explanations

Dar-Nimrod and Heine assert that genetic essentialism reflects a biased and often undesirable response to understanding genetic information.  They describe “strong genetic explanations” as valid when genes influence phenotypes through major biochemical pathways that can be measured and understood, as is the cases for monogenic diseases such as Huntington’s disease or cystic fibrosis.  However, since genotype-phenotype relationships are usually complex, it has to be kept in mind that monogenic diseases account for only about 2% of genetic-based diseases.

On the other hand, the authors indicate that, “Much of the ways that genes relate to human conditions can be described as weak genetic explanations” (p. 802).  Here the condition has a genetic influence or basis (i.e., heritability > 0) yet the mechanisms that transmit it are mostly unknown or are unknowable.  Almost all human behaviors are heritable in this manner, including voting behavior, cigarette smoking, and divorce.  But since the nature-nurture interaction is typically complex for human phenomena and since these complexities are difficult to communicate and understand, all genetic explanations are viewed by many people as being strong genetic explanations.

Genetic Essentialism and Sexual Orientation

The authors examine the subject of sexual orientation as an example of how a political debate can hinge on the proposed existence of relevant genes.  They discuss Hamer, et al.’s (1993) claim to have found a genetic marker (Xq28) that partly accounted for male homosexuality.  They observe that the public reaction to this study provides a case study in genetic essentialism.  The study led to media responses proclaiming a lack of choice in adopting a homosexual lifestyle as well as eugenics concerns such as elective abortions for “suspected” fetuses.  Dar-Nimrod Heine observe,

Both reactions underscore how an immutable causal relationship between genes and homosexuality was perceived.  The same kind of essentialist reactions did not follow, for example, psychoanalytic propositions that overbearing mothers and detached, cold fathers may be responsible for homosexual tendencies, although infants’ conscious control over these kinds of parental behaviors is arguably no greater than their control over their genes.  Again, this is evidence that genetic arguments lead to qualitatively different reactions than environmental ones (p. 806).

The authors also note the connection between perceived genetic origin and reduced prejudice toward homosexuals.  They comment that, “This relationship between a perceived genetic foundation and tolerance toward homosexuals demonstrates how genetic essentialism can lead to the naturalistic fallacy in some domains….Apparently, behaviors with moral implications lose their moral force if people view those behaviors as beyond the individual’s volition” (p. 806).  While a reduction of negative evaluations of gay and lesbian persons is a potentially positive feature of genetic essentialism, the authors also sound a cautionary note since political contexts tend to be dynamic: “Given potential scientific advances (e.g., identification of genetic markers that may relate to homosexuality) or a change in political climate, the association that currently acts as a positive moderator of prejudice toward homosexuals could one day be used as grounds for eugenic practices” (p. 806).

Although the expression of genes for most human traits and behaviors—including those associated with homosexuality–is dependent on the presence of certain environmental variables and interactions with other genes, genetic arguments activate people’s essentialist biases. This, in turn, can provide them with seemingly unassailable materialistic explanations for why people act in the ways that they do.

Genetic Essentialism and the Media

The media is singled out by Dar-Nimrod and Heine for contributing to the spread of genetic essentialism, although they also lay some blame at the feet of the researchers themselves.  As far as the media is concerned, the authors offer several reasons why the media are complicit in making genes appear to play a more central role than the data actually suggest.  Research findings that portray genes as a cause of behaviors often receive far more coverage than compared with later disconfirmations.  In addition, the media consistently provide an overly simplified picture of genetic research, dubbed the “one gene—one disease” (OGOD) concept, where a one-to-one deterministic relationship between a specific gene and a specific trait is offered (i.e., a strong genetic explanation).  Another example not mentioned by the authors may be the media’s propensity to equate opponents of same-sex marriage to those who opposed mixed race marriage.  Equating the etiologically complex phenomenon of homosexuality with the genetically determined trait of race very effectively serves to evoke essentialist biases.

Researchers, who are competing for media attention and grant funding, can also contribute to genetic essentialism in communicating about their work in ways that resonate with people’s essentialist biases (e.g., suggesting OGOD relationships or affording a sense of agency to genes by describing them as “selfish” or “wanting”). The result of these portrayals, according to the authors, is that “…people who gain their knowledge of genetics largely through the media are likely to conceive of genetic influences in overly deterministic, immutable, and ultimately erroneous ways” (p. 812).

By way of conclusions, Dar-Nimrod and Heine assert that in a variety of domains, including sexual orientation, attributions go beyond the scientific evidence, with weak genetic explanations being interpreted as strong genetic explanations.  This is the unfortunate legacy of genetic essentialism.

Biogenetic and Neuroessentialism

The first response to Dar-Nimrod and Heine came from Haslam (2011), who generally approved of the genetic essentialism treatise yet wanted to extend it to the biological and neurological realms. Haslam examined the relationship of stigma to such essentialism in mental disorders and drew three conclusions:

1. Biogenetic explanations are generally associated with greater desired social distance from people with such disorders.
2. The only dimension of stigma that biogenetic explanations consistently reduce is perceived blame and personal responsibility.  However, explanations that diminish the perceived personal responsibility of affected persons may have the unfortunate side effect of leaving them passive in the face of their own recovery.
3. These mixed effects of biogentic explanation on stigma make sense in light of psychological essentialism.

Expanding on his third point, Haslam observes that, “Explanations that draw deep distinctions between kinds of people would be expected to promote social distance, explanations that invoke unchanging identities would be expected to yield pessimism about change, and explanations that refer to causes that are beyond personal control would be expected to attenuate blame but amplify fears of uncontrollable behavior” (p. 821).  While Haslam does not directly address sexual orientation in this context, his discussion does raise interesting questions about the extent to which the employment of strong genetic and biological explanations might promote social distance, create heightened pessimism regarding the modification of same-sex attractions, and suggest the inevitability of certain homosexual sexual practices.

Genetics and Human Agency

In the second response to the featured article, Turkheimer (2011) suggests that genetic essentialism has a counterpoint in naïve environmentalism, whereby the theoretical challenges of behavioral genetics are basically ignored. “Psychoanalysts were wrong to think that overbearing mothers made their children gay, and genetic essentialists were wrong about gay genes and similar nonsense,” Turkheimer observes, “but what is the right way to think about genetic influences on sexual orientation?” (p. 825). He then asserts that the preferred way to think about this is not in terms of heritability, because contrary to common wisdom, traits do not have heritabilities because heritability depends on the population in which it is measured.  “No matter how heritable height may be in some particularly time and place,” notes the author by way of example, “neither height in a single individual nor differences in height among individuals can develop without an environment.”

Instead of heritability, then, Turkheimer looks to the language of a typical biometric analysis of a trait, such as found in twin studies. In such analyses, heritability is contrasted with two environmental components attributable to the shared variance and the nonshared variance.  The shared component is comprised of environmental forces that make children in the same family more alike. By contrast, the nonshared environment comprises the nongenetic reasons that cause siblings raised in the same family to be different.  It is the only reason identical twins raised in the same family have any differences at all. As such, the nonshared environment is the most important component for understanding the personal and ethical consequences of behavior genetics.

Turkheimer indicates there are two reasons why identical twins raised in the same family do not have identical outcomes.  One is measurement error. The other, more intriguing reason “…is the self-determinative ability of humans to chart a course for their own lives, constrained but not determined by the genes, family, and culture, and in response to the vagaries of environmental experience with which they are presented. The nonshared environment, in a phrase, is free will” (p. 826).

The nonshared environment addresses what is at stake when we are concerned about whether people are able to control their own weight or choose their sexual orientation.  Turkheimer presents the nonshared environment proportions (NEP) for the traits examined by Dar-Nimrod and Heine (2011a) and orders them in terms of their controllability and moral relevance, as displayed below.

Trait                                            NEP

Height                                        .1

Weight                                       .3

Adult intelligence                      .2

Personality                                 .6

Schizophrenia                             .15

Depression                                 .6

Criminality                                 .4

Sexual orientation                      .5

According to Turkheimer, we have a particular concern for the genetics of behavior, because behavior genetics is experienced genetics, and the interaction of genetics with human agency. While we are free to become what we want, doing so will take more effort for some traits than for others and will require a Herculean effort for the most ingrained.  As seen in the table above, sexual orientation change generally appears to take somewhat more effort than the achievement of change in personality or depression and less effort than for reducing criminality or weight. Thus the comparative nonshared variance statistics suggest that while change in same-sex attractions is possible, it is by no means a simple or easy process. For Turkheimer, the NEP serves to prevent coarse and absolute claims about people either “having a choice” or being “hard wired” for their traits.

Concluding Rejoinder

The article series concludes with a rejoinder by Dar-Nimrod and Heine (2011b). The authors indicate that they agree with Haslam that biochemical substances and neurological mechanisms can also serve as effective primes for essentialist thinking.  Extreme nature and nurture positions have a magnetic draw and tend to overwhelm more nuanced thinking. Dar-Nimrod and Heine view the interaction of nature and nurture as the most scientifically defensible explanation for human behavior, whereby genes are relevant to human behavior but do not determine it. This has implications for determining the morality of behavior, presumably including sexual behavior:

As there are no known complex human behaviors in which genetics render the actor unable to resist performing a behavior, we contend that genetic etiological accounts should not serve as the basis for moral evaluations.  Genes provide one source of influence (depending upon how those genes are expressed in interaction with other genes and experiences and following a developmental trajectory), but there are many other sources of influence at play, making the role of genes in producing any complex behaviors far from deterministic. Furthermore, the amount of influence that genes have on behaviors is considerably smaller than one might think. (p. 831)

Dar-Nimrod and Heine do believe that genetic essentialist biases have greater potency than environmental essentialist biases or even interactionist accounts, since the former are much more likely to be perceived as offering an underlying, materialistic, immutable, and fundamental cause of an individual’s nature.

Finally, the authors agree with Turkheimer’s criticism of how heritability estimates have been misused.  In addition, they offer for consideration another way heritability estimates have been misinterpreted.  They note that in the heritability research one large component of environmental influence is never taking into account people’s cultural background.  Experimental designs are not capable of accounting for the role of different cultural backgrounds, which results in a substantial restriction of range problem in making estimates.  This means that the role of environmental influence on these behaviors is going to be grossly underestimated and the estimates of heritability overestimated. Heritability estimates therefore are most meaningful when their relative size is contrasted between characteristics assessed in the same samples and contexts.

This would appear to have serious consequences for understanding the degree of heritability of sexual orientation, since we have little if any such research coming out of non-Western cultures to compare with what has been reported in the West.  Researchers may currently and erroneously assume genetic heritability estimates are universally valid when in fact this is far from the truth. These estimates may well be far smaller than we think.

In summary, Dar-Nimrod and Heine, as well as their respondents, have provided a valuable service by raising awareness of the causes and effects of genetic essentialism and some ramifications of it for our thinking about sexual orientation. It is difficult to do justice in a brief review to the depth of insights and thought provoking analysis that are contained within these pages. Interested readers who wish to dig into the original sources will not be disappointed with their investment of time. Portrayals of the origin of homosexuality in the media as well as in some of the relevant science appears to provide potent examples of genetic essentialism (and perhaps biochemical essentialism too). We would be wise to keep the lessons of Dar-Nimrod and Heine’s analysis in mind as we consider the causes of homosexuality and the claims of its immutability.

References

Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2011a). Genetic essentialism: On the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychological
Bulletin, 137(5), 800-818.

Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S.J. (2011b). Some thoughts on essence placeholders, interactionism, and heritability: Reply to Haslam (2011) and Turkheimer (2011). Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 829-833.

Haslam, N. (2011). Genetic essentialism, neuroessentialism, and stigma: Commentary on Dar-Nimrod and Heine (2011). Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 819-824.

Hamer, D. H., Hu, S., Magnuson, V.L., Hu, N., & Pattatucci, A.M.L. (1993, July 16). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261, 321-327.

Turkheimer, E. (2011). Genetics and human agency: Comment on Dar-Nimrod and Heine (2011). Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 825-828.

Approved by the NARTH Board of Directors on January 25, 2012

Current discussions of homosexual sexual orientation change are unavoidably occurring within a sociopolitical climate that makes nonpartisan scientific inquiry of this subject very difficult.  In light of this reality, a few considerations are crucial for accurately understanding the sometimes contradictory opinions regarding the possibility of sexual orientation change.   First and foremost, it is important to recognize that how change is conceptualized has vast implications for our thinking about change.  Some of the more ardent proponents and opponents of homosexual sexual orientation change may view change in strictly categorical terms, where change is an all-or-nothing experience.  Proponents and opponents with this view differ only in the direction of their desired outcome.  Proponents of change understood in categorical terms may view a homosexual sexual orientation as a lifestyle choice that merely needs to be renounced. Opponents who take this viewpoint, on the other hand, may conceive of sexual orientation as essentially hard wired and simply not modifiable.  NARTH does not support either of these perspectives.

NARTH believes that much of the expressed pessimism regarding sexual orientation change is a consequence of individuals intentionally or inadvertently adopting a categorical conceptualization of change. When change is viewed in absolute terms, then any future experience of same-sex attraction (or any other challenge), however fleeting or diminished, is considered a refutation of change. Such assertions likely reflect an underlying categorical view of change, probably grounded in an essentialist view of homosexual sexual orientation that assumes same-sex attractions are the natural and immutable essence of a person.  What needs to be remembered is that the de-legitimizing of change solely on the basis of a categorical view of change is virtually unparalleled for any challenge in the psychiatric literature.  For example, applying a categorical standard for change would mean that any subsequent reappearance of depressive mood following treatment for depression should be viewed as an invalidation of significant and genuine change, no matter how infrequently depressive symptoms reoccur or how diminished in intensity they are if subsequently re-experienced.  Similar arguments could be made for any number of conditions, including grief, alcoholism, or marital distress.  The point is not to equate these conditions with homosexuality, but rather to highlight the inconsistency of applying the categorical standard only to reported changes in unwanted same-sex attractions.

Rather than pigeonholing homosexual sexual orientation change into categorical terms, NARTH believes that it is far more helpful and accurate to conceptualize such change as occurring on a continuum.  This is in fact how sexual orientation is defined in most modern research, starting with the well known Kinsey scales, even as subsequent findings pertinent to change are often described in categorical terms. NARTH affirms that some individuals who seek care for unwanted same-sex attractions do report categorical change of sexual orientation.  Moreover, NARTH acknowledges that others have reported no change. However, the experience of NARTH clinicians suggests that the majority of individuals who report unwanted same-sex attractions and pursue psychological care will be best served by conceptualizing change as occurring on a continuum, with many being able to achieve sustained shifts in the direction and intensity of their sexual attractions, fantasy, and arousal that they consider to be satisfying and meaningful. NARTH believes that a profound disservice is done to those with unwanted same-sex attractions by characterizing such shifts in sexual attractions as a denial of their authentic (and gay) personhood or a change in identity labeling alone.  Attempts to invalidate all reports of such shifts by presuming they are not grounded in actual experience insults the integrity of these individuals and posits wishful thinking on an untenably massive scale.

Finally, it also needs to be observed that reports on the potential for sexual orientation change may be unduly pessimistic based on the confounding factor of type of intervention.  Most of the recent research on homosexual sexual orientation change has focused on religiously mediated outcomes which may differ significantly from outcomes derived through professional psychological care.  It is not unreasonable to anticipate that the probability of change would be greater with informed psychotherapeutic care, although definitive answers to this question await further research.  NARTH remains highly interested in conducting such research, pursuant only to the acquisition of sufficient funding.

To summarize, then, those who are  highly pessimistic regarding change in sexual orientation appear to have assumed a categorical view of change, which is neither in keeping with how sexual orientation has been defined in the literature nor with how change is conceptualized for nearly all other psychological challenges.  NARTH believes that viewing change as occurring on a continuum is a preferable therapeutic approach and more likely to create realistic expectancies among consumers of change-oriented intervention.  With this in mind, NARTH remains committed to protecting the rights of clients with unwanted same-sex attractions to pursue change as well as the rights of clinicians to provide such psychological care.

____

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)

In addition to peer-reviewed papers and book reviews, volume 3 of the Journal of Human Sexuality contains a new section, “Official Statements of NARTH.” This section documents attempts by NARTH to respond to initiatives regarding the right to receive and to offer professional care for unwanted same-sex attractions. These initiatives include those from state (California Association for Marriage and Family Therapists) and national (American Psychological Association) mental healthcare professional associations and from the British Medical Association. Abstracts of the papers and the titles of the book reviews and Official Statements are included below.

PAPERS

A. Dean Byrd, Homosexual Couples and Parenting: What Science Can and Cannot Say

Abstract

Relatively little empirical research has been done on homosexual parenting. Although there is a dearth of methodologically sound studies, the literature provides evidence of significant differences between heterosexual and homosexual parenting. While more research is needed in this area, current literature identifies differences in child-rearing, relationship dynamics, mental health, relationship stability, and physical health between heterosexual and homosexual parents, differences that support the position that living in a homosexual family structure may not be in the best interest of a child.

Walter R. Schumm, Child Outcomes Associated with Lesbian Parenting: Comments on Biblarz and Stacey’s 2010 Report

Abstract

Biblarz and Stacey (2010a), as well as Biblarz and Savci (2010), recently reviewed the literature on lesbian parenting and concluded that lesbian parents were probably more effective parents than heterosexual parents. They went so far as to question the need for fathers as parents. That literature has been reexamined in this paper. It appears that parental role modeling is important for children of lesbian as well as heterosexual parents. It appears that lesbian parents do tend to divide household labor more equally than do heterosexual parents, which appears to carry over to encouraging their children to adopt less traditional gender roles compared to heterosexual parents. Furthermore, it appears that sons of lesbians tend to be more feminine than sons of heterosexual parents, while daughters of lesbian mothers tend to be more masculine than daughters of heterosexual parents. Thus, parental influence seems important for gender modeling, though complete role reversal is rare.

Likewise, lesbian parents appear to be more open to their children at the very least expressing a nontraditional sexual orientation when compared to heterosexual parents. Again, parental influence seems to be an influence, since increasing evidence suggests that children of lesbian mothers, perhaps especially their daughters, are more likely to adopt a nonheterosexual sexual orientation. Some research also suggests that children of lesbian parents are more likely to adopt sexually permissive attitudes, even if they have a heterosexual orientation. Since the children of lesbian parents appear to have much higher exposure to nonheterosexual role models in terms of adult contacts other than their parents, there may be additional modeling from those other adults with respect to nontraditional gender roles and nontraditional sexual orientations, if not sexual permissiveness.

It remains challenging to sort out the effects of sexual orientation on a child’s psychological adjustment. First, virtually all studies and outcomes that have yielded adverse results for lesbians’ children have been marginalized in the literature; published research has shown that outcomes favorable toward gay or lesbian parenting are more likely to be cited academically than those that are unfavorable, in spite of greater methodological limitations. Second, any significant effects of gay or lesbian parenting most likely operate over long periods of time through intervening variables such as parental goals for their children. In addition, such effects would most likely be tied to gender role or sexual orientation/sexual permissiveness outcomes rather than other variables. The extent to which parents model and encourage delayed gratification choices-especially those involving sex-may be important intervening variables for understanding children’s psychological outcomes as a function of parental gender and sexual orientation.

Consequently, it appears that recent conclusions about the consequences of lesbian parenting (Biblarz & Savci, 2010; Biblarz & Stacey, 2010a, 2010b) are far from scientifically correct. Parental modeling does appear to play an important role in child socialization for both lesbian and heterosexual parents. However, what is modeled does appear to differ substantially between lesbian and heterosexual parents, with significant consequences for children in terms of a variety of outcomes, most often keyed to gender role orientations or expressions of sexuality. Recent claims that lesbians make better parents than heterosexuals are not warranted scientifically.

Neil E. Whitehead, Neither Genes nor Choice: Same-Sex Attraction Is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors

Abstract

This paper uses the seven largest twin registry studies to emphasize that same-sex attraction (SSA) is mostly caused neither by genetics (weak to modest influence) nor direct shared environment (very weak), but by many nonshared individualistic events and reactions, none of which is more than a small minority of total influences, and may well be differing reactions to shared environment. Twin studies sum up all influences (known and yet to be found) and their interactions, so this conclusion about the importance of nonshared factors is unlikely to change with future research into biological or social causes. The mean genetic percentages of shared genetic and environmental factors combined for men and women are 22 and 33% respectively and are not significantly different statistically. They are almost certainly maxima, likely to halve with further research. Recent findings of nonshared environmental epigenetic causes (genetic expression influenced by the environment) lead again to a conclusion that the genetic influence has possibly been overstated. Nor is deliberate choice of orientation significant; even for adult sexual choice (e.g., heterosexual mate selection), chance predominates. For the development of sexual orientation (ten being the mean age of first attraction), deliberate choice must be a very unusual event.

Neil E. Whitehead, Sociological Studies Show Social Factors Produce Adult SSA

Abstract

An important path analysis study by Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith (1981a) is usually interpreted in the literature as proving there are no social/upbringing effects on development of adult SSA (same-sex attraction). Instead, the study said that varying social factors leading to SSA occur in different ways in various classes, such as bisexuals, blacks, and effeminate homosexuals. It correctly points out that individual factors contribute to SSA for the whole population in small and diverse ways and that any single cause will result in SSA only in small percentages of a population. The present paper shows that these social factors are collectively significant. An important follow-up study (Van Wyk & Geist, 1984) showed sexual experience factors were very important. Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith (1981a) believe that adolescent SSA development is biologically preprogrammed-in other words, it is fixed in childhood and shows no further change. This is shown to be quite erroneous on
several counts. For example, recent work on teenage twins with SSA (Bearman & Brueckner, 2002) shows no genetic influence and a predominant nonshared environmental component. The conclusion regarding factors contributing to SSA is that social factors are significant, confirming the observations of clinicians, but the influence of the factors is heavily dependent on personal idiosyncrasy.

BOOK REVIEWS

Review of Lisa M. Diamond’s SexualFluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire by Mary Beth Patton, Janelle M. Hallman, and Shirley E. Cox.

Review of Cheryl Weill’s Nature’s Choice: What Science Reveals About the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation by Neil E. Whitehead.

OFFICIAL STATEMENTS

NARTH response to American Psychological Association (APA) 2009 Task Force Report-November 12, 2009

NARTH response to the American Psychological Association (APA) Public Interest Directorate Public Comment Solicitation Program First Round Concerning APA’s Proposed Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients-April 30, 2010

A Formal Response to the Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation by The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)-May 4, 2010.

NARTH letter to Professor Sir Michael G. Marmot, President, British Medical Association-June 30, 2010

NARTH’s response to the American Psychological Association (APA) Public Interest Directorate Public Comment Solicitation Program Second Round Concerning APA’s Proposed Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients-October 27, 2010.

Please note: Copies of volume 3 of the Journal of Human Sexuality (JHS) may be obtained through the NARTH / Pilgrimage Resources: www.shop.pilgrimageresources.com

Copies of volume 2 and 3 may also be obtained through the Pilgrimage bookstore.

Recent findings from the longest-running, prospective study of same-sex parented families indicate that 17-year-old daughters of lesbian mothers who were conceived via donor insemination were more likely to report same-sex behavior and identify as bisexual than daughters of heterosexual parents (Gartrell, Bos, Goldberg, 2011).

Nearly 20% of the sample of 39 girls from lesbian families reported a bisexual identity, while none of the girls self-rated as predominantly or exclusively homosexual.  Same-sex sexual contact with other girls was reported by 15.1% of lesbian parented daughters compared to 5.1% of daughters from heterosexual families.

No differences were found between the sample of 39 sons from lesbian families and a matched sample of sons of heterosexual parents on these dimensions. Among the sons from lesbian families, 2.7% reported a bisexual identity and 5.4% indicated they were predominantly or exclusively homosexual.

Sexual contact with girls was reported by only 37.8% of sons from lesbian-parented families.  This is significantly less that the 58.8% of boys from heterosexual families who acknowledged such activity.

In addition, the authors found that among the lesbian-parented families, not a single adolescent reported physical or sexual abuse by a parent or other caregiver.  Thus the study’s authors concluded that adolescents raised in lesbian families are less likely than their peers to experience victimization by parents and caregivers.

These findings add to a growing body of literature that suggest that children of lesbian and gay parents are more inclined than their peers to explore same-sex sexual behavior and same-sex orientation (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010; Schrumm, 2010a). That this may occur especially among daughters is consistent with the research on fluidity in sexual attractions and identity among lesbian women (Kinnish, Strassberg, & Turner, 2005).

Comment

While this small study is valuable as a starting point for longitudinal research into same-sex parenting, professionals and policy makers should be very wary of making any meaningful conclusions from its findings.  Serious methodological limitations also argue against making sweeping generalizations.  As is the case for the vast majority of studies in this area, the sample size is quite small, constituting only 78 adolescents.  The sample of lesbian parents is self-selected and appears to be different from the general population on important demographics such as socioeconomic status and educational attainment.  Demand characteristics (i.e., external influences such as political goals that might motivate study participants to respond in a particular manner) are not considered or assessed by the study’s authors with respect to the lesbian mothers or their adolescent children.

Along these lines, Schrumm (2010b) noted, “By using a comparison group of children of heterosexual parents who had no similar motivation to participate in research, the study design may have confounded group differences with social-desirability response bias, an issue which Gatrell and her colleagues acknowledged in their first report” (p. 964). For all these reasons and more, the authors’ conclusions should not be generalized beyond this small, non-representative sample of lesbian parents and their adolescent children.

It is also worth noting that the authors give particular significance to their finding that none of the lesbian-parented adolescents reported physical or sexual abuse by a parent or other caregiver.  They subsequently assert that “This finding contradicts the notion, offered in opposition to parenting by gay and lesbian people, that same-sex parents are likely to abuse their offspring sexually” (p. 1204). They compare this finding favorably with statistics from national surveys of adolescents in the U.S. that report 26.1% experienced physical abuse and 8.3% reported sexual assault by a parent or other caregiver.

To explain the discrepancy regarding accounts of abuse reported by the lesbian- versus heterosexual-parented families, Gatrell and colleagues (2011) observe that

“…most of the [lesbian-parented] adolescents grew up in households in which no adult males resided.  Since the sexual abuse of children that occurs within the home is largely perpetrated by adult heterosexual males, growing up in lesbian-headed households may protect children and adolescents from these types of assault.  In addition, corporal punishment is less commonly used by lesbian mothers as a disciplinary measure than by heterosexual fathers” (pp. 1204-1205).

These suggestions may well have some merit, but what is glaringly left unconsidered by the authors is the logical corollary to their reasoning, i.e., that if these factors are present, then might we also predict adolescent children in gay (male) parented families would report greater physical and sexual abuse by a parent or caregiver than their counterparts in heterosexual families?  Unless one assumes that child abuse is primarily a function of sexual orientation rather than gender, it is hard to understand how this corollary would not be predicted.  Since studies of gay-headed families are extremely sparse, there may well be no research available that addresses this potential concern.

Certainly the Gatrell, et al. (2011) study provides some intriguing though entirely non-generalizable findings that are consistent with the hypothesis that non-heterosexual experiences and identities are more common among daughters of lesbian families than those raised in heterosexual families.  However, the study’s most interesting feature may be what it seems to imply but leaves unspoken about same-sex parenting by gay men.

Hopefully, future researchers will have the fortitude to examine such questions and begin to fill the large holes that exist in this literature.

References

Biblarz, T., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 73, 3-22.

Gartell, N. K., Bos, H. M. W., & Goldberg, N. G. (2011). Adolescents of the U.S. national longitudinal lesbian family study: Sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and sexual risk exposure. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1199-1209.

Kinnish, K. K., Strassberg, D. S., & Turner, C. W. (2005). Sex differences in the flexibility of sexual orientation: A multidimensional retrospective assessment. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 173-183.

Schumm, W. R. (2010a). Children of homosexuals more apt to be homosexuals? A reply to Morrison and to Cameron based on an examination of multiple sources of data. Journal of Biosocial Science, 42, 721-742.

Schumm, W. R. (2010b). Stastical requirements for properly investigating a null hypothesis. Psychological Reports, 107, 953-971.

This year NARTH presented the President’s award to Michel Lizotte, M.A., for the great work that he is doing with regard to the issue of homosexuality. Mr. Lizotte has made great sacrifices to educate the French-speaking community on the issue of homosexuality, clearly presenting the research and providing hope and help to those who are seeking such help.

In 2004, after many years working as a francophone television and radio host in Canada, Michel Lizotte completed his Bachelor’s degree in Journalism at the University of Quebec in Montreal. Shortly thereafter, as the Canadian government began the debate on legalizing same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by same-sex couples, Mr. Lizotte began an independent journalistic inquiry on the subject matter.

Before long, Mr. Lizotte discovered that there existed a population of individuals that considered themselves to be “ex-gay”, (individuals who had once done their “coming out” and claimed a homosexual identity only to later on revise that conclusion after receiving support that helped them to develop their heterosexual potential). He then decided to pursue a Masters degree in Spiritual Anthropology on the subject, and to publish the findings of his journalistic research in a book.

In 2007, after three years of hard work, Michel Lizotte graduated from the University of  Sherbrooke and published his first book entitled “HOMOSEXUALITE: les mythes et les faits” (Homosexuality: the myths and the facts). During the following months an increasing number of individuals who were unhappy with unwanted same-sex attractions began to contact Mr. Lizotte for help.  In 2009, resulting from the public’s demand for help, Mr. Lizotte surrounded himself with a team of volunteers who rapidly put together information sessions on the subject and made them available to those who were seeking answers.

In 2010, the first network of bilingual speaking Canadian therapists willing to offer support to those with unwanted same-sex attractions was formed on the initiative of Mr. Lizotte and his team. By the end of that year the team adopted the name “Ta Vie Ton Choix” (Your Life Your Choice), and officially gained status as a non-profit organization.

In 2011, Mr. Lizotte and his team officially launched the first French speaking website in North America to offer scientific information to the wider public on homosexuality and the possibility of being free from unwanted same-sex attractions: tavietonchoix.org

All throughout this adventure Mr Lizotte has had to pay an important personal cost; his reputation has been attacked on the internet as well as through the liberal media, and along with that he has lost many jobs and employment opportunities. He has, however, never stopped defending the rights of the Canadian public to obtain access to sound scientific information on homosexuality, and the rights of those who are unhappy with same-sex attractions to receive the help that they are seeking.

Important Links and further information will be available soon on the NARTH homepage under convention.

November 6, 2011, Phoenix, AZ– This year’s convention theme was “Beyond Political Correctness: Keeping Clients First.” The convention was attended by participants from the United States, Canada, Hong Kong, Hungary, and England.

The plenary speakers and workshop presenters shared information related to this year’s theme. In a rousing address, American Psychological Association Past-President Dr. Nicholas Cummings shared his experience from his 60-year career as a psychologist and clinician. Dr. Cummings said that he has always been a champion of gay rights, and during his many years of leadership within the American Psychological Association, he influenced the organization to support many causes, including gay issues. However, as a scientist, he began to have serious concerns over the direction the APA eventually was taking in becoming more influenced by politics than by science. He began to write extensively on the ways that the APA is politically based rather than scientifically based, describing one of his recent books, “Eleven Blunders that Cripple Psychotherapy in America” (Routledge, 2008).  He described his own experience in treating homosexuals for various issues, including men and women who were troubled with unwanted homosexual attractions. Dr. Cummings says he personally worked with homosexual clients who went on to marry and live heterosexual lives, confirming the research that reports that change is possible.

Dr. Michael Brown spoke about the cultural influences and political correctness that have led to the spread of scientific misinformation concerning the issue of homosexuality. He encouraged members of NARTH to continue their work of making research available to the public.

Dr. Anthony Duk presented on the history of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) revisions, the impact of the DSM, and his concerns regarding the current revisions expected for the fifth edition.

Workshop speakers presented on various approaches to therapy, including narrative therapy, cognitive therapy, psychodynamic approaches, and family systems theories. Workshops were also offered on treating addictions, dissociative identity disorder, and transgender issues.

In addition to the annual convention, NARTH also offered a one-day training institute for the residents of the Phoenix area, presenting participants with general information on the topic of homosexuality: particularly, what science can and cannot say about homosexuality.

Participants described this information as life-changing for those who seek an alternative to their unwanted homosexual attractions. “Our organization seeks to keep clients’ interests first,” said  NARTH co-founder and former president, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, “and to offer hope and alternatives within a difficult cultural climate.”

NARTH President, Dr. Julie Hamilton, added a sobering reminder: “Although it is often considered ‘politically incorrect’ to say that people can change in the area of sexual orientation, the research makes clear that change of sexual orientation is indeed possible.  NARTH therapists offer hope and help to clients who have been misled and left hopeless by the mental health profession, and they do so at great risk both personally and professionally.”

As is often the case, this year’s NARTH convention was picketed by gay activists who, Dr. Hamilton said, “seem to lack understanding of NARTH and its mission. Once again they made false claims about our organization, carrying placards with the slogan, ‘Pray away the gay.’  In its 19 years of existence, NARTH has never used or ever promoted that slogan.” NARTH is a scientific organization made up of mental health professionals, not a religious organization. In an effort to reach out to the protestors, two of NARTH’s founders went outside the conference building to dialogue with them. In addition, after the protests, two NARTH leaders set aside time to learn about the lives of some of the protestors and have a respectful dialogue regarding some of their concerns.

Former APA President Dr. Nicholas Cummings and NARTH President Dr. Julie Hamilton

Reviewed by Christopher Rosik, Ph.D.

A significant body of research literature related to health behavior theories has assumed that health-related attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral skills precede and causally influence subsequent health behavior.  In the area of sexual risk behavior among gay and bisexual men, this has translated into an assumption that beliefs and attitudes toward safe sex practices influence subsequent sexual activity and that interventions need to focus on changing these views (e.g., psychoeducation regarding condom use).  However, a recent study has raised serious questions regarding the accuracy of this conventional wisdom (Huebner, Neilands, Rebchook, & Kegeles, 2011).

The authors observe that the vast majority of research in this area has been cross-sectional in nature, meaning that the data are collected at one point in time and thus definitive conclusions about causality between variables cannot be made. Thus, strong associations between sexual risk attitudes toward and concurrent reports of actual risky behaviors may not tell us as much as we thought about the causes of these behaviors.  In addition, the limited number of longitudinal studies, in which data is collected from the same sample over two or more time periods (making causal explanations possible), has provided decidedly mixed findings regarding causal pathways.  The authors suggest that health behavior theories may have limited value when it comes to complex sexual risk behavior among high risk populations. In spite of all these uncertainties in the literature, the pathway from attitudes and beliefs to sexual risk behavior among gay and bisexual men has frequently been assumed by mental health professionals and public health officials.

Huebner et al. observe that a generally ignored alternative theory may need to be given more serious consideration.  From this vantage point, the authors assert, “it is possible that individuals engage in sexual behavior for multiple reasons, some of which have little to do with their health-related attitudes and beliefs, but that they subsequently adjust those attitudes and beliefs accordingly so that they are consistent with their previous behaviors” (p. 112).  They note that this situation would explain significant cross-sectional correlations as well as the limited or inconsistent longitudinal effects of thoughts and emotions on actual sexual behavior.

To test this possibility, Huebner and colleagues conducted a sophisticated analysis using structural equation modeling that allows for strong causal inferences to be made with longitudinal data.  A sample of 1248 gay and bisexual men were surveyed twice in an 18 month period regarding their frequency of engaging in unprotected insertive and receptive anal intercourse with any nonprimary partner.  Peer norms and attitudes for safe sex were also measured.  The results were clear: contrary to theories of health behaviors, attitudes and norms did not predict subsequent unprotected anal sex when initial behavior was statistically controlled.  Instead, sexual risk behavior predicted subsequent norms and attitudes when initial norms and attitudes were statistically controlled.  The authors conclude, “in contrast to the causal predictions made by most theories of health behavior, attitudes and norms did not predict sexual risk behavior over time….These findings are more consistent with a small, but growing body of investigations that suggest instead that engaging in health behaviors can also influence attitudes and beliefs about those behaviors” (p. 114).

Limitations of the study included a convenience sample, significant sample attrition, and an inability to test for other potentially relevant causal pathways.  Thus, replication is needed to increase our confidence that causality does indeed flow from sexual risk behavior to changes in attitudes and beliefs about those behaviors. Nonetheless, these findings raise a number of important questions that appear to need much greater consideration.

First, if engaging in sexual risk behavior leads to changes in beliefs and attitudes that legitimize such behavior, is it wise to encourage early self-labeling and sexual activity among male adolescents experiencing same-sex attractions?  Could participation in early homosexual risk activity such as unprotected (or even protected) anal intercourse lead some adolescent boys down a path of homosexual activity and identity and away from what might have been an eventual heterosexual adjustment?

Second, how did social scientists and policy makers come to presume that the body of research pertaining to sexual risk behaviors among gay and bisexual men confirm traditional health behavior theories?   How did causal assumptions that had no definitive foundation in the methodology of most studies become the basis for public health intervention?  It seems plausible that the dynamics of groupthink or the pull of funding pressures have worked against the development of novel and, perhaps, less politically correct theories about sexual risk behavior.  If this is even partially correct, it would seem to argue in favor of more sociopolitical diversity in the development of theory and research within the health behavior literature in general and the gay, lesbian, and bisexual literature specifically.

The findings of Huebner and his associates may not provide conclusive information to answer these kinds of questions, but at the very least their research suggests there is an empirical rationale for asking them.

Reference

Huebner, D. M., Neilands, T. B., Rebchook, G. M., & Kegeles, S. M. (2011). Sorting through chickens and eggs: A longitudinal examination of the associations between attitudes, norms, and sexual risk behaviors. Health Psychology, 30(1), 110-118.