Previous literature reviews examining the psychological correlates of CSA have generally
Clinical and legal samples are problematic because they are not representative of the general population, and because findings from these samples are vulnerable to information and selection biases that threaten their validity (Pope & Budson, 1995). Conclusions based on narrative and qualitative reviews are vulnerable to subjectivity and imprecision (Jumper, 1995). Therefore, the conclusions and implications presented in most of these literature reviews cannot be accepted as scientifically valid for the entire population of persons with experiences that are labeled as CSA without further scrutiny. These conclusions and implications are that, in the general population,
To evaluate these basic
conclusions and implications about population characteristics of CSA, we
examined only studies that used national probability samples, because these
samples are most appropriate for addressing questions about population
characteristics. Further, we evaluated the results from these studies
meta-analytically, in the attempt to reduce subjectivity and strengthen
precision. We
located seven studies using national probability samples that contained data
concerning correlates or effects of CSA. Four of these studies were based on U
.S. samples, and one each was based on a Canadian, British, and Spanish sample.
Not including two studies in which researchers used overly broad definitions of
CSA, we Gender EquivalenceA number of national studies presented data on respondents' self-reported effects from or reactions to their CSA experiences. A consistent finding across these studies was the greater proportion of negative responses by females. Whereas a majority of females (about two thirds) reported negative effects, only a minority of males (about two in five) did so. Across the three studies that provided self-reported effects data, the size of this sex difference was small to medium. Data on reactions at the time of the CSA experience, presented in a fourth study (López et al., 1995), further indicated that the CSA experiences of males and females are not equivalent, with a greater proportion of females reacting negatively. This sex difference was medium size. The contrast analysis of CSA-adjustment relations showed a non-significant trend in the direction of poorer adjustment for SA females compared to SA males. The
more reliable difference between SA females and males in self-reported effects
or reactions compared with current adjustment is not contradictory, because
effects or reactions may be temporary and therefore may not be reflected in
measures of current adjustment, and measures of current adjustment assess
correlates of CSA, which mayor may not reflect effects. Results from several studies reviewed suggest possible reasons for the consistent differences in self-reported effects and reactions. Bigler ( 1992) found that
fewer than a third Baker and Duncan
(1985) [Page
250] found that female CSA experiences were three to four times more likely to be incestuous than male CSA experiences. They also found that females were younger than males on average when they experienced CSA. These findings imply that, in the population of persons with a history of experiences classifiable as CSA, males and females have different responses to these experiences because they typically do not have the same type of experience. The finding of nonequivalence
of male and female CSA experiences in the national samples matches findings in
college samples in which only one third of SA males reports negative reactions
compared to two thirds of SA females (Rind, 1995). This finding of
non-equivalence, however, contradicts clinical findings, upon which most
researchers have based their conclusions. Pervasiveness
and Intensity
The se1f-reported effects data contradict the conclusions or implications presented in previous literature reviews that harmful effects stemming from CSA are pervasive and intense in the population of persons with this experience. Baker
and Duncan (1985) found that, although some respondents reported permanent harm
stemming from their CSA experiences (4% of males and 13% of females), the
overwhelming majority did not (96% of males and 87% of females). Severe or
intense harm would be expected to linger into adulthood, but this did not occur
for most respondents in this national sample, according to their self-reports,
contradicting the conclusion or implication of intense harm stemming from CSA
in the typical case. Meta-analyses
of CSA-adjustment relations from the five national studies that reported results
of adjust The unbiased effect size estimate for males and females combined was ru = .08, which indicates that CSA, assuming that it was responsible for the adjustment difference between SA and control respondents, did not produce intense problems on average. This effect size estimate is comparable to the mean effect size estimate for college students (ru = .07) in Jumper's (1995) meta-analysis, but it is considerably smaller than the effect size estimates for clinical samples in Jumper's (1995) and Neumann et al.'s (1996) meta-analyses, which were ru = .31 and d = .50 (roughly equivalent to ru = .30), respectively. Thus, whereas CSA accounted for only about one half of 1% of the adjustment variance for respondents in the national and college samples, CSA accounted for nearly 10% of the adjustment variance in the clinical samples. This substantial difference implies that clinical samples cannot be used to make valid estimates of psychological correlates of CSA in the general population. The results of the
current meta-analyses and those of previous meta-analyses (Jumper, 1995; Neumann
et al., 1996) taken together imply that clinical samples overestimate the
adjustment variance accounted for by CSA in the general population by a factor
of 15 and thereby substantially exaggerate the intensity of CSA correlates in
the general population. Researchers' reliance on clinical samples in most
previous literature reviews to estimate CSA-adjustment relations is therefore
problematic. The effect size estimates obtained from the national studies (ru = .07 for males and ru = .10 for females) cannot be interpreted as estimates of the effects of CSA on adjustment for several reasons. First, these values estimate correlates, of which only a portion is likely to be effects. Therefore, the actual effects of CSA on adjustment in the general population are likely to be lower than the obtained effect size estimates, implying that the intensity of CSA effects in the population of persons who have experienced CSA is of very small magnitude. Second, the effect
sizes from Boney-McCoy and Finkelhor's (1995) study should not be combined with
the effect sizes from the other studies because these researchers restricted the
SA population to persons with unwanted experiences. If the goal is to estimate
CSA psychological correlates in the population, then the sample of SA
respondents obtained must accurately reflect the population of SA persons, which
Boney-McCoy and Finkelhor's sample did not. Thus, the lower unbiased effect size
estimates obtained without Boney-McCoy and Finkelhor's effect sizes (ru =
.06 for males and ru = .07 for females) are likely to be more precise
population estimates. Bigler (1992) provided information on the distributions of his participants' responses, which are relevant to examining whether CSA produces intense and pervasive effects. The distributions were positively skewed for both sexual dysfunction and level of trauma, with most scores falling in the non-problematic range. This information suggests that, assuming a causal role for CSA, CSA affects a small portion of individuals in an intensely negative way but has a much smaller negative effect, if any, on most individuals. This finding is consistent with
Baker and Duncan's (1985) data on self-reported effects, in which only a small
minority of SA individuals reported permanent harm. Clinical and legal samples
are the sample types that are mostly likely to consist of these extreme negative
cases (Okami, 1991). This bias highlights the problem of focusing on clinical
and legal samples to describe the correlates of CSA-a focus that has
characterized nearly all previous literature reviews. Causality
The results of several studies reviewed in this article are relevant to the issue of the role of CSA in causing harm. Laumann et al. (1994) found that, although SA
respondents consistently reported more sexuality-related problems than control
respondents, they were also consistently more sexually active and had
consistently [Page 251] experienced
more diverse types of sex than control respondents. This confounding variable of
extent and type of sexual experience renders the difference in adjustment
between the SA and control respondents un-interpretable in terms of cause and
effect. Laumann et al. argued that greater sexual activity may have subjected SA
respondents to more untoward outcomes, which may then have led to poorer
adjustment. Two studies used statistical control in assessing the relationship between CSA and current adjustment in an attempt to overcome problems of confounding variables (Boney-McCoy & Finkelhor, 1995; Finkelhor et al., 1989). Boney-McCoy and Finkelhor
controlled for a variety of demographic variables as well as an index of
parent-child relations and found that CSA respondents remained statistically
significantly more poorly adjusted than controls. They argued that this result
strengthens the assertion that CSA, and not some other variable, caused the
poorer adjustment. However, several considerations suggest that their control variables may not have been adequate to support this assertion. First, demographic variables have been found
not to be important correlates of CSA in other national probability samples (Ageton,
1988; Laumann et al., 1994).
For example,
Wisruewski (1989), who used path analysis to examine CSA-adjustment relations
among female students from 32 U.S. colleges and universities, chosen to be
representative of all institutions of higher leaming in the
Finkelhor et al.'s (1989)
control variables were similar to those of Boney-McCoy and Finkelhor (1995), and
hence their conclusion that a causal link between CSA and adjustment was
supported because most CSA-adjustment relations remained statistically
significant after statistical control is subject to the same criticisms. The findings from another study using a national sample, not included in the current review because it did not report psychological correlates of CSA and because of its exclusive focus on female respondents, are particularly relevant for interpreting causation in national samples (Ageton, 1985, 1988). Ageton reported the results of longitudinal data collected on U.S. respondents aged 11 to 17 at the beginning of the study and found that girls experiencing unwanted sexual contacts differed from those who did not in terms of family, school, and social factors.
We computed effect
sizes for these measures for the last year for which data were taken to obtain
estimates of the magnitude of confounding between CSA and social environment.
Effect
sizes ranged from small-medium to large.
These results suggest that the small differences
in adjustment between CSA and control respondents observed in other national
samples may be attributable to larger differences in social environment, rather
than to the CSA. To
address the issue of whether CSA was the result or cause of negative social
factors, Ageton (1988) analyzed the longitudinal data prospectively. She
investigated whether any social factors measured in earlier years of the study
were predictive of CSA that occurred in later years of the study and found that
a number of factors were predictive.
These
results, with effect sizes of small to medium magnitude, imply that negative
social factors predispose children and adolescents to CSA, rather than the
reverse. These results are consistent with the possibility that negative social
factors lead to poorer adjustment and to CSA and that the relation between CSA
and adjustment in the general population is either spurious or of lower
magnitude than we estimated. QualificationsSeveral qualifications of the findings from the national probability samples need to be discussed. The first concern involves the measures of effects used in
these studies. [Page 252] adjustment,
leading them to underreport this impact. This argument is consistent with the
recovered memory view (see Loftus & Ketchum, 1994). Although
these false negatives may occur in some cases, their occurrence may be
counterbalanced by the occurrence of false positives in other cases. Persons
with current adjustment problems who attribute these problems to their CSA
experiences may make invalid causal inferences because of their "effort
after meaning," in which they have been motivated to explain their current
difficulties and have chosen their CSA experience as the causative factor
because of the salience of CSA in our culture at the present time as an
explanation for maladjustment (Pope & Hudson, 1995). Thus, false negatives
and false positives may both occur, with the result that overall bias in
measurement may be small and may not necessarily be in the direction of
underestimation of negative effects. Self-reports of harm stemming from CSA experiences are generally accepted by child abuse researchers as valid indicators of harm. This being the case, it seems inappropriate to dismiss self-reports of no harm. Baurmann (1983), who examined
psychological correlates of CSA using the largest sample ever employed in CSA
research of children and youths who experienced CSA, argued for the inclusion of
self-reports of effects. One basis for his argument was that self-reported
effects corresponded well to standardized measures of adjustment in his study. Another possible shortcoming of the studies reviewed in the current article is that a number of these researchers did not use standardized measures of adjustment but instead used just a few common sense items. Although this criticism applies to two of the five studies with measures of adjustment
it does not apply to the other three
Bigler and
López et al. used
standardized measures; The results across studies were
fairly consistent, regardless of measurement instrument, suggesting the validity
of the non=standardized measures. Another criticism that might be made is that the measures employed were not sensitive to the type of harm that is assumed to result from CSA, because CSA is assumed to have particular effects (Briere & Elliot, 1993). Nash, Hulsey, Sexton, Harralson, and Lambert (1993b, p. 290) argued, however, that because "almost every conceivable form of pathology" has been attributed to CSA, any given measure of adjustment should be sufficiently sensitive. Furthermore, the majority of studies using measures of adjustment in the current
review specifically assessed sexual adjustment, which is one type of adjustment
that has been frequently hypothesized by child abuse researchers to be
vulnerable to CSA experiences. Aside
from measurement concerns, another possible shortcoming is response rate. Finally,
it is important to consider Boney-McCoy and Finkelhor's (1995) results more
closely, because their effect sizes were larger than those in the other national
studies. It is possible that their effect sizes were larger not because they
asked only about unwanted
CSA, in contrast to the other national studies in the meta-analysis, but because
their participants were younger. The effects of CSA might have been more salient
and thus detectable for their SA respondents because of the recency of the CSA;
these effects may tend to diminish over time, resulting in the smaller effect
sizes in the other national samples based on older respondents. This
possibility would suggest that CSA has effects that are more intense, at least
initially, than is indicated in the current review. First, when age of participants is held constant (i.e., only college samples are used), unwanted CSA is associated with larger effect sizes (Rind, 1996). Second, respondents in Boney-McCoy and Finkelhor's
sample who reported CSA were likely to have been unrepresentative of all
respondents in their sample who experienced events classified by our society as
CSA. These
findings suggest that many respondents in Boney-McCoy
and Finkelhor's sample who experienced contact CSA may not have reported it.
Respondents who did report CSA may have tended to have had more negative
experiences resulting in parents or guardian being more likely to be aware of
the
CSA. [Page
253] nearby
while they answered questions over the telephone -- respondents participated only
after parents or guardians were informed about the study and gave
permission. Therefore, CSA correlates may have been inflated by a bias in
willingness to report the CSA. These considerations suggest that CSA does not on
average have effects that are more intense, at least initially, than is
indicated in the current review. Summary
and Conclusions
Our goal in the current study was to examine whether, in the population of persons with a history of CSA, this experience causes pervasive, intense psychological harm for both genders. Most previous literature reviews have favored this viewpoint. However, their conclusions have generally been based on clinical and legal samples, which are not representative of the general population. To address this viewpoint, we examined studies that used national probability samples, because these samples provide the best available estimate of population characteristics. Our review does not support the prevailing viewpoint. The self-reported effects data imply that only a small proportion of persons with CSA experiences are permanently harmed and that a substantially greater proportion of females than males perceive harm from these experiences. Results from psychological adjustment measures imply that, although CSA is related to poorer adjustment in the general population, the magnitude of this relation is small. Further, data on confounding variables imply that this small relation
cannot safely be assumed to reflect causal effects of the CSA. Browne
and Finkelhor (1986, p. 178) cautioned "advocates not [to] exaggerate or
overstate the intensity or inevitability of [ CSA) consequences," because
such exaggeration has iatrogenic potential. Results of analyses of the national samples show that such characterizations are exaggerated at the population level. This exaggeration may stem from our
culture's tendency to equate wrongfulness with harmfulness in sexual matters
(Money, 1979). CSA is violative of norms and laws in our culture; these facts,
however, do not imply its harmfulness in a scientific or psychological sense
(Kilpatrick, 1987). Finally,
analysis at the population level may obscure characteristics of particular
segments of the population.
then CSA might produce intense harm;
then harm may be absent (Constantine, 1981).
Combining the former and latter types of experiences into one category labeled
CSA is problematic, because both negative and neutral effects can become
obscured. By moving beyond socio-legal definitions of CSA and employing strictly scientific definitions (cf. Ames & Houston, 1990; Rind & Bauserman, 1993), researchers can better describe psychological correlates of the heterogeneous collection of experiences currently labeled as CSA. |