Response to Campbell's "The Reliability and Validity of Gardner's Indicators of Pedophilia"
Richard A. Gardner*
My primary reaction to Campbell's article is that he painstakingly
criticizes the criteria I use to ascertain whether an alleged
perpetrator has pedophilic tendencies, but does not provide us with
any meaningful and/or useful comments about how he would assess a
situation in which such an accusation is made. He spends over 31 pages
of manuscript detailing what he considers the various weaknesses and
defects in the criteria that I use and then tells us only that a better
way to approach this problem is to use "interpersonal
events." If he is referring here to interpersonal observations among the
accuser, the accused, and the alleged child victim, this is something
that I do. However, the reader could not know this if he was not
familiar with my book (Gardner, 1992) because Campbell would have the
reader believe that my total evaluation rests on criteria applicable
to the alleged pedophile. In actuality, I make every attempt to
interview the accuser, the accused, and the alleged child victim and
repeatedly state that any evaluation that does not include the
assessment of all three parties is flawed.
Campbell does, however, give us more information about what he
considers to be "interpersonal events," among which is
"the extent to which the allegation corresponds to rumor
formation and rumor dissemination." To the best of my
recollection, this is the first time I have ever heard of
"rumor" being used as a criterion for making a medical
diagnosis (which pedophilia is) or deciding whether someone committed
a crime (which is what a pedophilic act is). Campbell has
justification when he claims that some of my criteria are somewhat
subjective. However, this substitute criterion is probably more
subjective than all of my subjective criteria put together. This is especially the
case because we are currently living in a period in which mass hysteria
prevails regarding decisions involving sex abuse (Gardner, 1991).
use of Campbell's rumor criterion would add to the parade of those who
have already been incarceratted.
Campbell tells us at the outset that my criteria have been
misused by "self-styled validators" who "exploit the
ambiguity of Gardner's indicators to serve their own biased agenda."
There will always be those who will exploit another
person's work for their own ends. Anyone who publishes runs the risk
that he will have to "bear to hear the truth he's spoken,
twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools." (to paraphrase
Rudyard Kipling). Many of the things I have done and said have been
exploited by others; however, this has never been a reason me not to state honestly what I believe.
If I were to concern
myself with such misinterpretation, I never would have published a
word. I believe, further, that Campbell himself is joining the
line of validators with his own misinterpretations of what I have
tried to do.
At this point, I will comment more specifically on Campbell's
article, primarily in the order in which he makes his comments.
regard to my present list of indicators (1992) and its
no-longer-used predecessor, the Sex Abuse Legitimacy Scale (1987),
Campbell properly quotes me:
... one should work 15 or 20 years on its development and pull
together the findings of many groups of investigators. On the other
hand, there is an urgency in that people were being jailed then and we
could not wait until 'all the data was (sic) in' before formulating an
objective scale (1992, p. xxxiv).
Dr. Campbell's gratuitous insertion of "(sic)" after "data
was" implies that I have erred in using the word "data"
as a singular. His insertion of a sic here is a reflection of his own ignorance of the proper use of the word data.
I am fully aware that "datum" is singular and
"data" is plural; just as "medium" is singular and
"media" is plural. In recent years, because of widespread
use of the word "data" to refer to a whole collection of
individual bits of information, it is correct to use it as a
collective singular, just as "media" is used as a collective
singular. Enough pedantry.
Gardner advocates that clinicians summarize their findings in terms of how many separate criteria supposedly
indicating pedophilia a particular suspect satisfies.
What he has unfortunately omitted is the important statement I make
in my introduction:
The examiner must consider the quality and quantity of the criteria
satisfied. A man who has a large collection of child pornographic
materials may not satisfy many other criteria, but the evidence for
pedophilia is still very compelling when this criterion is satisfied.
The conclusion that the accused has indeed engaged in pedophilic
behavior should not be based on these criteria alone, but on the broad
picture and additional data obtained during the evaluation, especially
data obtained from the accuser and the alleged victim(s).
As I will comment on further, Campbell's omission of this
important consideration contributes to his making an extremely absurd
statement (see below) about the use of these indicators.
Campbell then goes on to criticize both the validity as well as the
inter-rater reliability of these criteria. Although he quotes me as
saying that these criteria are an initial offering," he criticizes
me for not being able to provide studies in which the inter-rater
reliability has been assessed. We cannot have it both ways.
have initial offerings to serve as guidelines to evaluate people who
are ready to be sent to jail and have criteria that, at the same time,
have inter-rater reliability. He has already quoted me as saying that
this would take 15 to 20 years, and the accused cannot obviously wait
so long. As far as validity goes, as mentioned, whenever possible I
have quoted studies on known pedophiles as my basis for claiming
validity for some of the criteria. Others, I openly state, have
face value, and face value only, and hope that
these too will be the subject of further studies. Now to the specific
1) History of Family Influences Conducive to the Development of Significant
There is significant scientific evidence that confirms a
relationship between the development of psychopathology and a history
of family dysfunction at the time of ones upbringing. Because I
consider pedophilia to be a psychiatric disorder (as does DSM-III-R), I
consider this to be a reasonable criterion. I recognize that there are
many borderline situations in which even the most competent
individuals might have difficulty deciding whether this criterion is
satisfied. It is for this reason that I suggest that the most
blatant manifestations of family dysfunction be utilized, e.g.,
"history of violence, alcoholism, drug abuse, psychopathy,
serious psychiatric disturbance, and suicide." The presence of
these can be more objectively determined than some of the more
I am convinced that if Dr. Campbell were to make up a list of what
he considers to be manifestations of family dysfunction and were to
apply these criteria himself to groups of confessed pedophiles and a
comparison group of those who have absolutely no evidence for such
behavior, he would be able to substantiate the validity of this
criterion. On the basis of Dr. Campbell's subsequent discussion on
this point, the reader could easily be led to believe that it is my
position that the presence of any of the aforementioned factors
contributory to family dysfunction automatically produces pedophilia.
This is absurd.
2) Longstanding History of Emotional Deprivation
I am in agreement that this criterion might be difficult to apply in
certain cases. I am in agreement, also, that it might be
by those who are biased in either direction. I have included
references to studies which provide support for the inclusion of this
3) Intellectual Impairment
I recognize that some scientific studies provide support for this
criterion and others do not. I have openly admitted that this is one
of the weaker criteria, which is certainly deserving of further study
(as are all of them). The fact that smart pedophiles might avoid being
included in studies on this subject is not a reason for abandoning
entirely such lines of study. Every study has its potential flaws and
most studies raise questions regarding the purity of the population
studied. These problems in setting up such studies do not warrant
discrediting this criterion. Every study in which we compare those who
have been sexually abused and those who have not been sexually abused,
those who are pedophiles and those who are not, runs the risk of
"impure" groups. This risk does not negate the value of such
studies. We can only hope that the evaluators have taken great pains
to ensure that their groups areas pure as they can possibly select
4) Childhood History of Sex Abuse
Campbell states that ".. the limited data that appear to
support this hypothesis are less than convincing." I have
provided my references and they are obviously more convincing to me
than they are to Campbell. Campbell's conclusion here is not surprising
because he does not consider even one of my criteria to have any
validity. Actually, this is one of the more compelling criteria.
Campbell also states:
Moreover, this index implicitly assumes that sexual abuse is a
homogeneous experience leading to essentially similar outcomes for all
male children who endure it.
Once again, Campbell imputes to me the absurdity that if a person is
sexually abused as a child, he automatically must become a pedophile.
All I am saying is that some people who have been sexually abused
become pedophiles and some do not. I am also saying that such abuse
increases the likelihood that a person will become a pedophile and that
if one compares known pedophiles to non-pedophiles, more pedophiles
will have had that experience in childhood than non-pedophiles.
Throughout, Campbell brings up other false arguments in an attempt
to discredit any validity to any of the criteria. For example, here he
also states that "when self-admitted pedophiles undergo
treatment, therapy can persuade them that they were sexually abused as
children when in fact they were not." It may very well be the
case that some incompetent and/or irresponsible therapists might
convince known pedophiles to believe something that did not happen.
Such individuals might then lessen the purity of the group in which
they are placed in a study on this issue. It is not an
argument, however, for claiming that the criterion is not a valid one.
He concludes: "... this index also offers little promise for
validly discriminating between pedophiles and non-pedophiles."
am in full disagreement with him on this point. Campbell's caveats
can help researchers purify their groups, but they should not serve to
lead them to conclude that no such studies can be useful.
5) Longstanding History of Very Strong Sexual Urges
Campbell refers to this criterion as a "definitional
nightmare" because of the difficulty in objectifying "very
strong" and the inability to pinpoint any particular age of
childhood as a cutoff point for satisfying this criterion. Once again,
Campbell omits important information. I do state, "The age at
which masturbation first began can provide important information in
this regard." Once again, Campbell uses difficulties in
validating the criterion as an excuse for not only not using it now
but not even trying to validate it in the future.
Campbell ignores my substantiation from the scientific literature
and provides weak arguments like:
(P)edophiles may demonstrate impulsiveness as they sexually abuse
children; but exhibit forethought and planning in other situations not
associated with their pedophilia.
Of course, this is true. Of course, some pedophiles may only
exhibit their impulsivity in the situation when they are with
children. But this does not negate the validity of the criterion.
There will always be individuals who do not satisfy elements within a
criterion. Again, he brings up the argument about pedophiles who
escape detection and therefore would not be included in any study.
Again, this does not preclude the validity of a discriminating
criterion. It only makes it harder to prove it.
Many of the studies I make reference to, e.g., those of Abel,
Becker, Cunningham-Rathner, Mittelman, & Rouleau (1988) and
Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, and Gebhard (1948) use known, self-confessed,
and convicted pedophiles as their study group. One might argue that
some of these people really were not pedophiles and were just claiming
they were so for some morbid reason and that anything they have to say
might be suspect. One can always find some fly in the ointment, some
impure element in even the purest group. But that should only make the
evaluator wary, but should not bring about the automatic conclusion
that the criterion being studied has no value or there is no point
studying it at all.
7) Feelings of Inadequacy and Compensatory Narcissism
I recognize the difficulties in objectifying feelings of inadequacy.
The compensatory narcissism that derives from it is easier to assess.
I do not claim that this is one of the stronger criteria, but I have
provided references to provide support for my concluding it.
8) Coercive-Dominating Behavior
There is very strong evidence in the scientific literature for this
type of pedophile. They are the individuals, often fathers, who
dominate all members of their family, their wives and children, and
sexual domination is just one example of their behavior. The argument
that I do not use objective criteria such as "assaultiveness as
defined as two or more arrests, or one or more convictions" is
not convincing. Of course, one might try to provide further validation
for this criterion by such studies. But this argument would be used by
Campbell to discount the criterion as having any validity.
9) Passivity and Impaired Self-Assertion
Campbell describes difficulties in objectively assessing these
qualities. There is no question that it may be difficult to assess
these objectively in some individuals and there is no question that
some people would fall into the borderline category with regard to
whether they exhibit such qualities. There is strong support in the
scientific literature for the existence of this subtype of pedophiles.
These are the people who are fearful of asserting themselves with adult
women and therefore gravitate toward children who more predictably
comply with their sexual overtures.
10) History of Substance Abuse
Campbell's criticism that I do not provide objective cut-off points
for defining substance abuse is the reason for discounting this
criterion. Of course there are borderline situations. But there is
also strong support in the scientific literature that there is a
correlation between pedophilia and substance abuse as well as the fact
that the pedophilic act is sometimes (if not often) perpetrated under
the influence of these substances. It is almost as if Campbell works
on the assumption that if one cannot measure something especially via
the utilization of a pure scientific study it does not exist.
under the assumption that if you cannot measure something, there are
two possibilities: it might exist or it might not exist. People who
are on the verge of being sent to jail cannot wait until all the
studies come in, until all the measurements are made.
11) Poor Judgment
I recognize that this is one of the more difficult criteria to
objectively assess. I recognize also that I am not able to provide
studies to support this criterion. However, it was included because of
my repeated experience with pedophiles that they do such things as trust little
children to keep secrets and will sometimes perpetrate pedophilic acts
under such circumstances that disclosure is highly likely. The fact
that I provide little substantiation for this criterion subjects it to
two possible conclusions with regard to its validity: that it is valid
or that it is not valid. Campbell automatically assumes that it is
thereby not valid, and this criterion therefore should not be used.
also uses this as a basis for his reasoning for discarding every
single one of my criteria.
12) Impaired Sexual Interest in Age-Appropriate Women
Again, my ability to provide references to studies on this subject
is completely discarded by Campbell with the argument that this may be
hard to define in some individuals. Every criterion will have its
borderline subjects, yet it does not justify the conclusion that it
does not exist in reality.
13) Presence of Other Sexual Deviations
Thus far, this is the first criterion for which Campbell has
admitted the possibility it may be a valid one. With this
feeling he suggests further research to test empirically its
discriminative power. He ignores entirely the valuable studies by Abel
et al. (1988) in which very strong evidence is provided for the
validity of this criterion. Campbell states:
Unlike the other indices previously discussed, this particular
index is more conducive to reliable definition. As a result, this index
deserves research to empirically test its discriminative power ... Without validation to data [sic] to support it, however, this index
only amounts to interesting speculation.
This is the best that I seem to be able to get from Campbell,
namely, that a criterion might be an "interesting
speculation." But even so, at this point, he does not recommend
its use subject to these future studies.
Here, Campbell gratuitously tells us that
... it is at least possible to empirically test Gardner's
the future. Nevertheless, his assumptions regarding the relationship
between psychosis and pedophilia remain merely speculative without the
availability of validation data.
My conclusion here is that Campbell suspects that there may be some
validity to this criterion but would not recommend that it be used at
this point because it cannot be validated by studies that measure
these things. Even those that Campbell suspects might have validity
are to be discounted because we do not have numbers yet.
15) Immaturity and/or Regression
There are some pedophiles who are regressed individuals. Some
describe themselves as "We were just like two little kids playing
together." I am convinced they exist. The fact that it may be
hard to objectively define immaturity in some individuals, the fact
that it may be difficult to provide objective criteria for regression,
does not preclude the validity of this criterion. Campbell would just
have us not use it at this point.
16) Large Collection of Child Pornographic Materials
This is probably the most compelling criterion of all and the one
that was first described by Kinsey as early as 1948. The police and
even the postman who delivers these materials know about it. Campbell
would have us discount it because of a police officer who interpreted
this criterion to be satisfied by a father's taking a picture of his
daughter in a bathing suit at the beach. The fact that some zealot
would misinterpret the criterion does not warrant its being discarded.
There will always be someone who will misinterpret and misuse. If we
are to go along with Campbell, he would leave us with absolutely no
criteria at all because there will always be the possibility of
17) Career Choice That Brings Him in Contact with Children
Campbell agrees that this criterion is more easily "conducive
to reliable definition." He states, "... any male who works with
children endures a greater risk of encountering false allegations of
sexual abuse." That is true. But that does not preclude the
validity of this indicator. The fact that some people gravitate to
such fields who are not pedophiles also does not preclude the value of
this indicator, as Campbell would suggest.
18) Recent Rejection by a Female Peer or Dysfunctional Heterosexual Relationship
If many males experience rejection from adult females and never
sexually abuse children, how can this index accurately identify
Campbell's question in no way obviates the value of this indicator.
There are some individuals who resort to pedophilia after repeated
rejections by adult heterosexual females and there are certainly some
who do not resort to pedophilia after such rejection. And this is true
of just about every criterion. There are some people who were sexually
abused as children who do not become pedophiles. There are some who
abuse substances who do not become pedophiles. Each of the criteria is
satisfied by some pedophiles and there are still others who satisfy
the criterion who are not pedophiles. When one puts all of them
together, we have a highly reliable set of indicators.
19) Unconvincing Denial
I agree that this criterion may be more subjective than others and
psychopathic types can fool most people. I describe here the sense of
impotent rage that a falsely accused person has. Campbell then states:
More alarmingly, evaluators who attempt to use this index are
acting as if they possess the discriminative power of polygraphs.
I find it amusing (but not inconsistent with his worship of
numbers) that Campbell would use the polygraph as the example of an
instrument that is famous for its "discriminative power."
Psychopaths are well known for their ability to pass polygraph tests
as are people under the influence of drugs. Courts know this well and
are generally dubious about the introduction of polygraph results in
evidence. His subsequent discussion of polygraphs just extends further an irrelevant argument.
20) Use of Rationalizations and Cognitive Distortions That Justify
Here Campbell quotes some of the rationalizations that pedophiles
commonly use to justify their behavior. He concludes:
Basically, then, this index merely identifies the cognitive
strategies used by known pedophiles to rationalize and minimize the
consequences of their abusive behavior.
At that point his discussion ends. The indicator is trivialized
with the word "merely" and then offhandedly rejected. The
facts are that in our society pedophiles do rationalize their behavior
in order to justify what is considered a crime and assuage their guilt
over what is considered by many to be a sin. There may be difficulty
using this criterion but I have no doubt that, in some cases, it is a
valid one, my inability to measure it notwithstanding.
21) Resistance to Taking a Lie Detector Test
Campbell claims that this index is prejudicial against an accused
party who refuses to take the test because such refusal is often
justified considering the unreliability of the instrument. Campbell
definitely has a point here. However, this does not totally preclude
the value of this criterion because 1) there are pedophiles who refuse to take the test for the reason that they fear it will
disclose their pedophilia and 2) there are falsely accused
people who are eager to take the test even though they recognize its
fallibility. The existence of such people justifies the inclusion of this criterion.
Difficulties in using this criterion make it one of the weaker
criteria but do not warrant its being excluded (which is basically
what Campbell suggests).
22) Lack of Cooperation in the Evaluative Examination
Campbell discredits this criterion by quoting some incompetent
and/or zealot who applied it in an absurd fashion. Specifically, this
evaluator concluded that the accused satisfied this criterion because
of one missed appointment, even though the appointment was missed
because of a misunderstanding of its purpose. I cannot imagine myself
dropping a criterion because some zealot will misinterpret it. Campbell would have me do so.
23) Duplicity Unrelated to the Sex-Abuse Denial and Psychopathic
Gardner indicates that pedophiles generally exhibit a long-term
history of deception that extends beyond their pedophilia. Nevertheless, he does not
specify what kinds of deceptions pedophiles
supposedly demonstrate; and as a result, his assertion creates more
questions than answers.
Campbell is correct that I do not specify the various kinds of
deceptions pedophiles use, beyond the living lie designed to cover up
their pedophilia. However, on this basis, he discounts the value of
the criterion. What he ignores is that the criterion focuses on
deceptions the evaluator observes in the course of the evaluation.
does not concern itself with other kinds of deceptions. Campbell goes
on to make the amazing statement:
Gardner seems to suggest that the Psychopathic Deviate scale of the
MMPI discriminates between pedophiles and non-pedophiles.
There is absolutely no statement of mine which could suggest even
remotely that this is my opinion. If that were the case, I would have used it as a criterion.
does discriminate between psychopaths and non-psychopaths and that is
all I am saying here. This is an excellent example of Campbell's use
of reductio ad absurdum reasoning to discredit my criteria.
Campbell then goes on to knock down this straw man (which he has
set up in the first place) by quoting studies that indicate no
psychological test or combination thereof can differentiate between
sexual deviates and non-deviates. I am in one hundred percent
agreement with him on that point. In fact, none of the 24 of my
criteria for the accused, 30 for the alleged child victim, and 24
for the accuser (the last two of which Campbell makes absolutely no
mention of in his paper) rely on any formal psychological test.
Campbell's subsequent discussion regarding identifying psychopathic
behavior and devious behavior and the fact that different examiners
would come to different conclusions indicates that he has totally
missed the point of this criterion. It is specifically focused on
the evaluator's own observations of duplicity within the context of
24) Excessively Moralistic Attitudes
Campbell refers to this criteria as "another interesting
theoretical speculation." I suspect that when Campbell uses the
word interesting he believes that there may be some validity in
this criterion and that I may, at some deep down level, have a point.
However, he quickly raises his old argument of the difficulties in
objectifying this criterion, the problems of inter-rater reliability
and the dangers of one's own values interfering with assessing it.
He then switches to a diatribe against psychoanalysis. Although I am
in agreement with most of his criticisms here, I fail to see what all
this has to do with my criteria. It derives from my use of one
psychoanalytic term, reaction formation, a mechanism that is generally
recognized by people who have absolutely no commitment to
psychoanalysis either as a theory or as a treatment.
In his discussion statement, Campbell states:
The incremental validity of any set of indicators requires that each
indicator index stand independent of the other indices. Unless the
condition of index independence is met, satisfying one index can spuriously
lead to satisfying other related
indices (Wolfner, Faust, & Dawes, 1993). As a result, simply
summing all the indices satisfied for an indicator set can result in
very misleading outcomes.
For example, consider the following ten indices from Gardner's
"Indicators": family of origin pathology, intellectual
impairment, strong sexual urges, impulsivity, coercive-dominating
behavior, history of substance abuse, poor judgment, immaturity and/or regression, lack of
cooperation, and psychopathic tendencies.
Campbell has selected the indicators that I myself consider to be
among the weakest. He would then lead the reader to believe that an
individual who satisfies these ten criteria would be judged a pedophile by me.
At the outset, I make a clear statement about the
evaluator considering not only the quantity of indicators
satisfied but their quality.
I would suggest, in contrast, that one consider these eight
indicators: 1) Childhood History of Sex Abuse, 2) Longstanding History
of Strong Sexual Urges, 3) History of Substance Abuse, 4) Impaired
Sexual Interest in Age-Appropriate Women, 5) Presence of Other Sexual
Deviations, 6) Large Collection of Child Pornographic Materials, 7)
Career Choice That Brings Him in Contact with Children, and 8) Use of
Rationalizations and Cognitive Distortions That Justify Pedophilia.
I were to see a person who satisfies these eight indicators and only
these eight, I would come to the conclusion that there was a high
likelihood that the individual has pedophilic tendencies. However,
even then, I would compare these findings with those from the
evaluations of the accuser and the alleged child victim. By ignoring my
introductory statement about considering both the quantity and quality
of the indicators, and leading the reader to believe that I consider
them all equally valid, Campbell can come up with this absurd scenario
of what a pedophile might look like.
And now to my most important criticism of Campbell's paper, namely,
his failure to come up with a useful and/or meaningful alternative way
of discriminating between those people who have sexually abused and
those who have not. In Campbell's opinion, this is how it is to be
False allegations of sexual abuse can be considered unsubstantiated
rumors which acquire an unwarranted status of facts via socially constructed
realities (Campbell, 1992c). Mental health professionals can
assist courts in these cases by examining the history of the
allegations, and assessing the extent to which they correspond to
rumor formation and rumor dissemination (Campbell, 1992d).
I am in full agreement with Campbell that one of the things the
evaluator must do is trace in detail the history of the allegation.
many places in my book I mention this point and consider it as
important as evaluating all three parties to the allegation the
accuser, the accused, and the alleged child victim. In addition,
Campbell suggests that we compare the extent to which the allegation
corresponds to rumor formation and rumor dissemination. This is an
amazing statement for a person to make, a person who, up to this
point, is so beholden to objectivity, statistical analysis,
statistical validity, and inter-relater reliability.
Campbell goes on:
Instead of resorting to the speculation and conjecture that
frequently characterize examinations preoccupies with what transpires within suspects, evaluating the interpersonal transactions surrounding
allegations of sexual abuse addresses what transpires between people.
Campbell would have the reader believe that my total evaluation is
confined to some kind of introspective evaluation of the pedophile.
fails to inform the reader that I evaluate the other two parties, both
individually and together in joint interview. In fact, whenever
possible, I make it a proviso of my evaluation that I see all persons
in all possible combinations.
Campbell then follows with another surprising statement:
Because interpersonal events between people are more observable than
what occurs within them, this latter endeavor enjoys greater
Campbell has much more faith in the objectivity of third party
observers than I. Take the situation in which ten people are observers
to an interpersonal event, let us say, an argument between a man and a woman.
likelihood of there being significant agreement on what has transpired
is not likely to be very great if the interchange is a heated one and
if it engenders emotions in the observers. And this often happens in
cases in which one is evaluating for sex abuse. Somehow he believes
that these observations are more valid and reliable than individual
There is much more I could say about Campbell's article. When
Hollida Wakefield initially sent me this article, I felt that it
would be a total waste of my time to respond to it because, if
completely successful, I would just be getting back to point zero
after all my efforts. At this point, however, my preparing this
response has served a useful function, namely, it has provided
even more confirmation for me that my criteria are useful ones,
especially because Campbell was not able to provide a meaningful substitute.
My final question to the reader is this: If you had a party who
was being accused of pedophilia and who might very well go to jail,
would you refer the accused, the accuser, and the alleged victim to
someone who would conduct the kind of evaluation I describe in my
book (of which the list of pedophile indicators is only one segment)
or refer them to someone who would use Campbell's criteria?
Abel, G. G., Becker, J.
J., Mittelman, M. S., & Rouleau, J. L.
paraphilic diagnoses among offenders. Bulletin of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,
Gardner, R. A. (1987). The Parental Alienation Syndrome and the
Differentiation Between Fabricated and Genuine Child Sex Abuse ().
Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner, R. A. (1991). Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited
Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Gardner, R. A. (1992). True and False Accusations of Child Sex Abuse ().
Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard,
P. (1948). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male ().
|* Richard A. Gardner is a psychiatrist, author,
and lecturer at 155
County Road, P.O. Box 522, Cresskill, NJ, 07626-0317. [Back]