Rind Et Al. Controversy

The Rind et al. controversy was a debate in the scientific literature, public media, and government legislatures in the United States regarding a 1998 peer reviewed meta-analysis of the self-reported harm caused by child sexual abuse (CSA). The paper was a follow-up and expansion of a 1997 meta-analysis by two of the paper's three authors. The debate resulted in the unprecedented condemnation of the paper by both Houses of the United States Congress. The social science research community was concerned that the condemnation by government legislatures might have a chilling effect on the future publication of controversial research results.

The authors stated their goal was to determine whether CSA caused pervasive, significant psychological harm for both males and females, controversially concluding that the harm caused by child sexual abuse was not necessarily intense or pervasive, that the prevailing construct of CSA was not scientifically valid, as it failed empirical verification, and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on other factors such as the degree of coercion or force involved. The authors concluded that even though CSA may not result in lifelong, significant harm to all victims, this does not mean it is not morally wrong and indicated that their findings did not imply current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed.

Seven years after the publication of Rind et al.'s (1998) meta-analysis, Heather Marie Ulrich, with two colleagues, replicated the study in The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice and confirmed its main findings.

The Rind paper has been quoted by age of consent reform organizations in support of their efforts to change attitudes towards pedophilia and to decriminalize sexual activity between adults and minors (children or adolescents), as well as by defense attorneys who have used the study to minimize harm in child sexual abuse cases.