2 of 3

Naturally, research results will attract the most attention from readers. As Jones and Yarhouse themselves note, both skeptics and true believers will find evidence for their arguments. One reason is that, rather than choosing just one measurement tool for change, Jones and Yarhouse administered questionnaires for all the measurement tools currently used for sexual identity and attraction. Each of the six tools has a slightly different focus, and each tool yields slightly different results. They also reported results for three different populations: the whole group of 98 (whittled down by dropouts to 73), the "Phase 1" subpopulation (57 of the 98) who had been in the program less than a year when research began, and another subpopulation (55 of 98) they call "truly gay" because their prior behavior and inclination were distinctively one-sided.

When subjects were asked to describe whether they thought of themselves as homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, they showed clear changes after being involved in Exodus programs. Notably, the greatest average changes were found in the "truly gay" subpopulation—a surprising find considering the frequent accusation that ex-gay ministries mostly affect bisexuals who call themselves gay but have always had definite heterosexual feelings.

Jones and Yarhouse also conducted qualitative analysis, breaking subjects into six categories of response, ranging from "Success: Conversion" to "Failure: Gay Identity." They found that 38 percent could be described as "Success: Conversion" or "Success: Chastity," with another 29 percent continuing hopefully, even though they could not yet demonstrate convincing change. They compare this "success rate" to results shown in a recent, reputable study of drug therapy for depression.

As to the purported harmfulness of ex-gay ministry, they found no evidence to support this claim. Psychological distress actually diminished slightly, though the changes were too small to be statistically significant. Jones and Yarhouse found, contrary to professional consensus, that change is possible. But they did not find that change is possible for everyone. They write, "The fact that some human beings can break the four-minute-mile barrier establishes that running a four-minute mile is not impossible, but that same fact does not establish that anyone (every human being) can break the four-minute-mile barrier."

Change was complex. "Most of the individuals who reported that they were heterosexual at Time 3 did not report themselves to be without experience of homosexual arousal, and did not report heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated. Sexual orientation for the individuals in this study (and indeed for most of us) may be considerably more complicated than commonly conceived, involving a complex interplay of what we are instinctively attracted to, what we can be attracted to with proper attention and focus, what we choose to be attracted to based on how we structure our interpersonal environments, our emotional attachments, our broader psychological functioning, (of course) our religious and moral beliefs and values, and many more factors. We believe the individuals who presented themselves as heterosexual success stories at Time 3 are heterosexual in some meaningful but complicated sense of the term."

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

October 2007, Vol. 51, No. 10