Background: Voluntary therapeutic interventions to reduce unwanted same-sex sexuality are collectively known as sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE).  Currently almost all evidence addressing the contested question whether SOCE is effective or safe consists of anecdotes or very small sample qualitative studies of persons who currently identify as sexual minority and thus by definition failed to change.  We conducted this study to examine the efficacy and risk outcomes for a group of SOCE participants unbiased by current sexual orientation.       Methods: We examined a convenience sample of 125 men who had undergone SOCE for homosexual-to-heterosexual change in sexual attraction, identity and behavior, and for positive and negative changes in psychosocial problem domains (depression, suicidality, self-harm, self-esteem, social function, and alcohol or substance abuse).  Mean change was assessed by parametric (t-test) and nonparametric (Wilcoxon sign rank test) significance tests.   Results: Exposure to SOCE was associated with significant declines in same-sex attraction (from 5.7 to 4.1 on the Kinsey scale, p <.000), identification (4.8 to 3.6, p < .000), and sexual activity (2.4 to 1.5 on a 4-point scale of frequency, p < .000). From 45% to 69% of SOCE participants achieved at least partial remission of unwanted same-sex sexuality; full remission was achieved by 14% for sexual attraction and identification, and 26% for sexual behavior.  Rates were higher among married men, but 4-10% of participants experienced increased same-sex orientation after SOCE.  From 0.8% to 4.8% of participants reported marked or severe negative psychosocial change following SOCE, but 12.1% to 61.3% reported marked or severe positive psychosocial change.  Net change was significantly positive for all problem domains.   Conclusion: SOCE was perceived as an effective and safe therapeutic practice by this sample of participants.  We close by offering a unifying understanding of discrepant findings within this literature and caution against broad generalizations of our results.

Background: Voluntary therapeutic interventions to reduce unwanted same-sex sexuality are collectively known as sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE).  To date almost all evidence addressing the contested question whether SOCE is effective or safe has consisted of anecdotes or very small sample qualitative studies of persons who currently identify as sexual minority and thus by definition failed to change.  We conducted this study to examine the efficacy and risk outcomes for a group of SOCE participants unbiased by current sexual orientation.       Methods: We examined a convenience sample of 125 men who had undergone SOCE for homosexual-to-heterosexual change in sexual attraction, identity and behavior, and for positive and negative changes in psychosocial problem domains (depression, suicidality, self-harm, self-esteem, social function, and alcohol or substance abuse).  Mean change was assessed by parametric (t-test) and nonparametric (Wilcoxon sign rank test) significance tests.   Results: Exposure to SOCE was associated with significant declines in same-sex attraction (from 5.7 to 4.1 on the Kinsey scale, p <.000), identification (4.8 to 3.6, p < .000), and sexual activity (2.4 to 1.5 on a 4-point scale of frequency, p < .000).  Over 42.7% of SOCE participants achieved at least partial remission of unwanted same-sex sexuality; full remission was achieved by 14% for sexual attraction and identification, and 26% for sexual behavior.  Rates were higher among married men, but 4-10% of participants experienced increased same-sex orientation after SOCE.  From 0.8% to 4.8% of participants reported marked or severe negative psychosocial change following SOCE, but 12.1% to 61.3% reported marked or severe positive psychosocial change.  Net change was significantly positive for all problem domains.   Conclusion: SOCE was perceived as an effective and safe therapeutic practice by this sample of participants.  We close by offering a unifying understanding of discrepant findings within this literature and caution against broad generalizations of our results.

The journal is retracting the article based on unresolved statistical differences. Specifically, after receiving questions about the article, the editor determined that a statistical review of the paper, which was recommended during peer review, had not been conducted. The editor commissioned the statistical review after receipt of the questions. The statistical review identified the following concerns regarding the methodology followed in the article: 1. No common intervention was given to participants that would allow for a valid conclusion to be drawn. 2. The paper did not establish a demonstrated relationship between the intervention and the survey that measures the intervention in that the paper did not clearly address whether all respondents were treated according to the same (or similar) protocols and for the same periods of time, and/or by therapists of like or similar training and expertise. 3. The chi-square test requires groups that are similar and the reported variation in the treatment times and modalities in this study is significant, rendering the chi-square test absent a control group (which was not present in this study), an invalid measure. The authors submitted additional support for the statistical treatment of the data in the original submission. In response to the above concerns regarding methodology, the authors replied: The only uniformity needed and employed, was SOCE and therapeutic involvement. Chi-square compares an observed numerical distribution with any distribution chosen by the researcher and does not need other uniformity than the foregoing. The Editor considered this information and the authors' response and concluded that in spite of this additional information, the original review still required retraction of the paper.