childadvocate
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 5:01 am Post subject: An Empirical Look at the Ritual Abuse Controversy |
 |
|
http://ritualabuse.us/ritualabuse/articles/an-empirical-look-at-the-ritual-abuse-controversy-randy-noblitt-phd/
An Empirical Look at the Ritual Abuse Controversy
Randy Noblitt, PhD
Professor and Director Clinical Doctoral Program
The California School of Professional Psychology
Alliant International University in Los Angeles
Adapted in 2007 from a paper presented at the 40th Annual Meeting of
the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis, Fort Worth, Texas, March
18, 1998. This paper is an expansion on a chapter from Accessing
Dissociated Mental States (1998), a privately published monograph by
Randy Noblitt. .
© Randy Noblitt, Ph.D., 2007
Most empirical studies of ritual abuse can be divided into four
categories. They are studies of (1) the frequency of ritual abuse
disclosures to professionals and their beliefs about such reports; (2)
suggestibility, rumor and iatrogenesis as possible explanations for
ritual abuse allegations; (3) ritual abuse allegations made by
children; and (4) ritual abuse allegations made by adults.
Studies have evaluated the frequency with which ritual abuse
allegations are disclosed to mental health and other professionals. A
national survey of 2,709 clinical psychologists with memberships in
the American Psychological Association showed that 70% denied and 30%
acknowledged seeing at least one case of “ritualistic or religion-
related abuse since January 1, 1980” (Bottoms, Shaver, &Goodman, 1991,
p. 6). The authors also found that among the psychologists who had
worked with at least one individual with allegations of ritual abuse,
93% believed that the harm had actually occurred. This report was part
of a series of five studies later published by Goodman, Qin, Bottoms
and Shaver (1994). The first of the five studies involved a survey of
a stratified random sample of clinical members of the American
Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and
National Association of Social Workers. The second study consisted of
a survey of district attorneys’ offices, social service agencies, and
law enforcement offices. The third study investigated the question of
“repressed” and later“ recovered” memory based on 490 cases from the
first study of which 43 were described as “repressed memory” cases and
447 were “no repressed memory” cases. The fourth study examined
children’s knowledge of Satanic [1] abuse. The fifth study
investigated three types of “religion-related child abuse:” abusive
acts intended to rid the child of demons, clergy abuse, and medical
neglect for religious reasons.
From the data of their first study, these investigators concluded that
31% of the combined sample of psychologists, psychiatrists and social
workers had seen at least one case of ritual or religion-related
abuse. There were 387 child ritual abuse cases, 674 adult ritual abuse
survivor cases, 171 child religion-related cases, and 234 adult
survivor of religion-related cases reported. The authors concluded
that the adult ritual abuse cases “were consistently the most
extreme” (p. 4). Of the adult ritual abuse cases 33% reported
cannibalism and 28% baby breeding for purposes of ritual sacrifice.
Among the adult ritual abuse cases, they found that the victims were
likely to be diagnosed with MPD. They also found that child cases were
“far more likely to be disclosed to authorities or professionals, to
family members or neighbors and to be linked to corroborative
evidence, but were less likely to be disclosed in therapy than adult
cases” (p. 4). The authors concluded that the psychologists,
psychiatrists, and social workers who responded to their survey
“overwhelmingly believed both the allegations of abuse and the
allegations of ritual or religious elements of the abuse” (p. 6).
Their second study of district attorneys, social services and law
enforcement agencies revealed that 23% had identified at least one
case of ritual or religion-related abuse. “In general, the ritual
cases with the most convincing evidence were unlike the satanic ritual
abuse stereotype” (p. 6). The authors expressed surprise that “the
conviction rate in ritual cases was almost as high as in religion-
related cases” (p. 7).
In their third study investigating the question of “repressed” and
later “recovered” memory they found that the “repressed memory” cases
were more likely to be “ritual cases” in comparison with the “no
repressed memory cases.” However, when they excluded what they called
“outlier” cases, the “repressed” versus no “repressed” memory effects
disappeared.
The fourth study of children’s knowledge of ritual abuse showed that
“children have relatively little knowledge of satanic child abuse” (p.
10). Their fifth study considered 271 cases of religion-related abuse.
They found that in 94% of the clergy abuse, 48% of the evil ridding
cases, and 23% of medical neglect included allegations of sexual
abuse. They found that MPD and other dissociative disorders were
diagnosed in over 20% of the evil ridding and medical neglect cases.
Another survey investigated reports of sexual and ritual abuse made to
British psychologists (Andrews, Morton, Bekerian, Brewin, Davies, &
Mollon, 1995). Of 810 British Psychological Society practitioners who
had seen sexually abused clients, the investigators found that 15% had
worked with clients reporting satanic ritual abuse. Eighty percent of
the psychologists who had seen one or more individuals with a stated
history of satanic ritual abuse believed the allegations. In their
national investigation of 270 cases of substantiated sexual abuse of
1,639 children in day care, Finkelhor, Williams, and Burns (1988)
found 13% of the cases involved allegations of ritual abuse. According
to Jonker and Jonker-Bakker, “The National Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Children in Britain reported in its 1989 Annual Report
that seven out of 66 Child Protection Teams in England and Wales were
currently working with children victimized by ritualistic
abuse” (1997, p. 542). In a survey of the membership of the
International Society for the Study of Multiple Personality and
Dissociation [2], Perry concluded that 88% of 1185 “respondents
reported belief in ritual abuse, involving mind control and
programming” (1992, p. 4).
These studies show that the overwhelming majority of surveyed
professionals believe ritual abuse allegations. What would account for
such a high degree of concurrence? If these ritual abuse allegations
are essentially false, then these therapists are at best misguided.
Some have argued that false ritual abuse “memories” are implanted or
created by inept or unethical therapists. If the patients’ allegations
are essentially true, then this high degree of concurrence may simply
reflect the professionals’ accurate assessment of their informants’
reports. I hypothesize that patients who make ritual abuse allegations
appear to be genuinely traumatized. In a study comparing 34 adult
psychiatric patients making ritual abuse allegations with 31 patients
making no such allegations, I found that the group making ritual abuse
allegations had significantly higher PTSD scores on the MMPI-2
(Noblitt, 1995). In their study of preschool ritualistic and non-
ritualistic sexual abuse, Waterman, Kelly, Olivieri, and McCord,
(1993) demonstrated that PTSD criteria were met for 80% of their
sample of ritualistically sexually abused children as compared with
35.7% of the non-ritualistically sexually abused children.
The hypothesis that ritual abuse allegations are essentially false and
the result of suggestibility and social influence has been propounded
by a number of individuals (Mulhern, 1991, 1994; Ofshe& Waters, 1994;
Spanos, 1996). However, this hypothes is appears to be based on
subjective opinion and speculation rather than any research findings.
It has never been shown that people who report ritual abuse are
particularly suggestible. It has also never been demonstrated that
therapists with such patients attempt to persuade their patients to
believe that they were ritually abused. Nevertheless, several studies
are worth reviewing in spite of their methodological problems. Jeffrey
Victor (1993) described what he calls Satanic rumor panics. Victor
argues that Satanism is a frightening and provocative subject to the
general public and has been the source of numerous rumors for which he
cites examples from the popular press. Even Philip Coons, a skeptic
regarding ritual abuse allegations, comments critically of Victor’s
research: “Unfortunately, it is impossible to tell from Victor’s
cursory review of the evidence what really did happen at these 61
locations” (1997, p. 108).
However, Philip Coons (1994) contributed a study of his own on this
question. He retrospectively reviewed the psychiatric records of 29
patients who had made allegations of Satanic ritual abuse. He
concluded that 76% of the patients had either DID or DDNOS but that he
was unable to find any external corroboration of the SRA allegations.
Three cases he labeled delusional and four were categorized as
factitious. He concluded that in all but 2 cases “questionable”
therapeutic methods were used. Weir and Wheatcroft (1995) reviewed
twenty cases where ritual sexual abuse had been alleged. Based on
their evaluative findings they concluded that false allegations of
ritual abuse occurred in 75% of the cases and true allegations in only
25%. The primary weakness of these three studies is that they rely
entirely on the subjective interpretations of the authors. Whereas the
validity of the last two studies would depend on the ability of their
authors to accurately diagnose ritual abuse and/or find corroborating
evidence; and the extent to which the data they needed to confirm any
true ritual abuse was available. With no measure of inter-rater
reliability, there is no way to know how reliably or accurately these
investigators interpret these data or of knowing whether sufficient
data were available to interpret.
Two other case studies merit attention although they suffer the same
methodological problems noted above. Coons and Grier (1990) described
a single case where an individual with ritual abuse allegations was
instead diagnosed with factitious disorder and Yeager and Lewis (1997)
briefly present a single case of a recanter. In the former example one
must ask whether the patient’s inaccurate reporting of particular
events means that they were not abused or ritually abused. In my
opinion the characteristic features of ritual abuse include abuse by
ruse and deception. In the latter example it should be obvious that
recantation is no more intrinsically credible than an original
allegation. It has been found that individuals with well documented
evidence of sexual abuse will sometimes later recant and that many
recanters, particularly with ritual abuse allegations, later
redisclose abuse (Waterman, Kelly, Olivieri, and McCord, 1993).
Some authors argue that there is no substantial legal evidence that
the ritual abuse of children actually occurs, and that most cases of
ritual abuse convictions are reversed on appeal. Michael Newton (cited
in Noblitt, 1998a) accumulated data on criminal convictions in the
U.S. where allegations of ritual abuse of children were made. He found
cases of 145 defendants who were sentenced. Seventeen (11.7%) were
reversed on appeal. Newton argues that these reversals do not
necessarily indicate that the defendants were innocent of the
accusations. In some instances the decisions were reversed based on
legal technicalities rather than factual matters as to whether the
abuse occurred or not.
Chronology of Ritual Abuse Convictions
Data Accumulated and Reported by Newton (1997)
Date Venue Convictions Guilty/Nolo Pleas
1983 Bakersfield, CA 4*
1983 Denver, CO 1
1984 Malden, MA 1
1984 Jordan, MN - 1
1984 Bakersfield, CA 5
1984 Richmond, VA - 1
1985 Pittsfield, MA 1
1985 El Paso, TX 1*
1985 Niles, MI 1* (1**)
1985 Bakersfield, CA 7
1985 Dade County, FL 1 1
1985 Richmond, VA 1
1985 Bakersfield, CA 1*
1986 El Paso, TX 1*
1986 Des Moines, IA 3 2
1987 Bakersfield, CA - 2
1987 Lehi, UT 1
1987 San Diego, CA 2
1987 Winston, OR 1
1987 Mt. Vernon, NY 2 (1*)
1987 Malden, MA 2*
1987 Memphis, TN 1
1988 Carson City, NV 2*
1988 Lincoln, NE - 1
1988 Maplewood, NJ 1*
1988 Santa Rosa, CA - 2
1988 Roseburg, OR 1*
1989 Nottingham, Engl. - 9
1989 Asheville, NC - 1
1989 Thurston County, WA - 1
1989 Stuart, FL 1 1
1989 Winston-Salem, NC - 1
1989 Edgewood, IA 1
1989 Roseburg, OR 1
1990 Prescott, Ont. 1 1
1990 Akron, CO - 1
1991 Prescott, Ont. 4
1992 Mansfield, OH 1 1
1992 Edenton, NC 1*
1992 Smithfield, NC 1
1992 Wenatchee, WA 1
1992 Austin, TX 2
1992-93 Prescott, Ont. 11 19
1993 Christchurch, NZ 1
1993 Wenatchee, WA 1
1993 Smithfield, NC - 1
1993 Edenton, NC 1*
1994 Martensville, Sask. 2
1994 Amsterdam, Neth. 2
1994 Edenton, NC - 2
1994 Canton, OH 1
1994 Hapeville, GA - 1
1994 Wenatchee, WA 3 13
1995 Meriden, CT 1
1995 Wenatchee, WA - 1
1996 Oxford, MS - 1
1996 Danbury, CT 1
1996 Virginia Beach, VA 1
Defendants convicted: 80 Guilty/Nolo Pleas: 64 (44% of total) Total
defendants sentenced: 144
*Reversed on appeal: 17 (11.8% of defendants sentenced);
**Guilty on new charge after reversal on appealShe also noted that
among the children’s allegations were their being molested by other
children (n=11) and being molested by strangers, daycare workers or a
parent (n=11). Hudson identified 16 forms of abuse: (1) locked in a
cage or “jail,” (2) told that their parents, pets or younger siblings
would be killed if they told anyone of the abuse, (3) buried in the
ground in coffins which they called “boxes,” (4) held underwater, (5)
threatened with guns and knives, (6) injected with needles, bled,
drugged, (7) photographed during the abuse, ( tied upside down over
a “star,” hung from a pole or hook, burnt with candles, (9)
perpetrators wearing blackrobes, masks, (10) participated in a mock
marriage, (11) defecated and urinated upon, (12) observed animals
killed, (13) observed torture or molestation of other children, (14)
saw children and babies killed, (15) had blood poured on their heads,
(16) taken to churches, other daycare settings, people’s homes,and
graveyards for the ritual abuse. Of these 13 children responded to at
least one of the items, excluding number 14. Four children reported
number 14, seeing children and babies killed.
Hudson performed a second study. In order to control for the possible
contagion effects that may have occurred in her Ft. Bragg case, she
conducted a telephone interview of 10 other families, in different
locations in the U.S. where ritual abuse had been reported. All but
two were daycare cases. She collected data from these interviews which
she combined with her Fort Bragg data. Thus, she had a total of 11
cases. The following abuses and corroboration were reported:
Confinement in cage (n=10)
Threats (n=11)
Live burial in caskets, coffins, boxes (n=6),
Water torture (n=7),
Threats with guns or knives (n=10)
Drug injections (n=10)
Filming and still photography (n=11)
Bondage, locked in closets, hung by feet or wrists, spread-eagled over
pentagrams, tied onto upside-down crosses (n=7)
Abusers wearing masks and robes, carrying candles (n=11),
Mock marriages (n=6),
Defecation, urination, forcible ingestion of human wastes (n=10)
Witnessing animals tortured and killed (n=10)
Fake operations (n=6),
Children’s descriptions of the torture and sexual assault of
themselves or others (n=10)
Evidential medical examinations: findings commensurate with sexual
assault (n=11)
Babies, small children killed, carved up, and parts eaten (n=9)
Transportation elsewhere for abuse; various methods of transport
(n=10)
Sexual assault and terrorizing in churches, graveyards, other daycare
centers (n=10)
(Adapted from Hudson, 1991, pp. 11—21)Kelley (1993) compared three
groups of children in daycare: 35 allegedly ritualistically abused
children, 32 children reportedly sexually, not ritualistically abuse,
and 67 children without any claims of sexual abuse. She collected data
from the abused children’s parents and compared the results of the
children with non-ritualistic sexual abuse with ritualistic sexual
abuse. She found that ritualistically abused children were more likely
to report more incidents, types and severity of abuse relative to the
non-ritual sexual abuse victims. She also found that ritualistic abuse
was more often associated with multiple victim, multiple perpetrator
situations. Using the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), parents
reported more behavior problems and tendency toward internalizing
symptoms among both groups of abused children in comparison with non-
abused children. But the children identified as ritualistically abused
scored worse.
Jill Waterman, Robert Kelley, Mary Kay Olivieri, and Jane McCord
(1993) did a six year longitudinal study of 82 children who had made
allegations of ritualistic sexual abuse (RSA) in the Manhattan Beach,
California area in comparison with 37 non-abused (NA) children and 15
non-ritualistically sexually abused (SA) children. A variety of
standardized and non-standardized questionnaires and interview
instruments were employed. They found that both the RSA and SA group
reported intrusive and highly intrusive sexual abuse. Additionally the
RSA group but not the SA group reported “terrorizing acts that
included killing of animals, death threats to the children or their
families, sadistic acts and physical abuse, and ritualistic acts that
included Satanic activities” (p. 64).
Recantations occurred in 25% of the RSA and 23% of the SA children.
This was the case even though the perpetrator in the SA group had
given a detailed confession. However, 88% of the RSA group that
recanted, later redisclosed abuse. The children alleging RSA had more
severe symptoms than SA children with significantly more PTSD,
depression, and aggressive behaviors. The RSA group showed less
improvement over time in comparison with the SA group.
A case involving 172 children who made disclosures in day care in
southwest Michigan was investigated (Bybee & Mobray, 1993; Faller,
1994). Kathleen Faller gathered data from her clinical interviews with
18 of the children and Bybee and Mobray reviewed the records of 106
children regarding interviews by state police, community mental health
professionals, and the department of social services. Bybee and Mobray
identified 62 (58%) children who disclosed that they had been
victimized and 53 (50%) children who reportedly observed others being
abused with 92% of the children who were observed being abused also
disclosing that they had been abused. They found that children
reported experiencing and observing acts of :fondling, penetration,
oral sex, sex with children, penetration of an adult, threats of harm,
being hit or hurt, being given medicine or bad food, bestiality, as
well as ritual acts. Among her sample of 18 children, Faller found
“sadistic acts (100%), threats of harm and death to children and their
family members (100%), use of drugs (56%), confinement (44.4%) and
animal killings or injury (22%)” (p. 22). Faller writes that when she
compared the 18 children she interviewed with children who were abused
by a single perpetrator in a day care center or day care home she
found that significantly “higher percentages of ritually abused
children were reported to have sexual acting out problems, sleep
problems, emotional problems, behavior problems and phobias” (p. 22).
Faller also cites an unpublished report by Valliere, Bybee, and Mobray
(1988) of scores on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) comparing the
abused children with a comparable sample of non-abused children from
the community with clinical and non-clinical norms. “The sexually
abused children’s scores were generally comparable to those of
clinical norms, and significantly higher than non-clinical norms.
Sexually abused girls demonstrated improvement on the CBCL between
times one and two, but the boys did not” (p. 22).
Not all child ritual abuse research examines day care cases. Within
the professional and scholarly literature on child abuse there are two
reports of what Faller calls “community-based ritual abuse” (p. 23).
She defines community-based cults as “those whose membership is
contemporary and often made up of persons of various ages—children,
adolescents, and adults in a particular community” (p.24).
Snow and Sorenson (1990) saw 39 children who described abuse in five
neighbor-based cults in Utah. In four of the five cults there were
alleged incidents of intrafamilial incest, perpetration by
adolescents, and features of an adult sex ring. No adolescent
perpetration was found in the fifth group. Also reported was forced
sexual behavior, threats of violence, and multiple perpetrators and
victims. At least two-thirds of the children described multiple
locations of abuse, pornography, ingestion or other use of excrement,
the espousal of Satanic beliefs, magical spells and use of occult
paraphernalia, animal mutilation or killing, and the use of drugs. The
abusers were generally viewed as respected members of the community
and many were religious leaders. Two of the accused adult perpetrators
were convicted and two adolescents pled guilty.
Jonker and Jonker-Bakker (1991, 1997) reported a case of the ritual
abuse of children in the Netherlands. The authors describe the
allegations and their observations regarding this case in Oude Pekela,
a small town of 8,000 inhabitants in northeastern Netherlands near the
German border. Jonker and Jonker-Bakker initially surveyed the
families of 90 involved children six to eight weeks after the initial
disclosures. They gathered additional data from the families of 87 of
these children at 2½ and 7 year intervals after the first outcries had
been made. They compared their later findings with clinical
information that antedated the abuse and with initial survey results.
They found that 20% of the children made spontaneous disclosures. The
list of reported abuses included the following elements: sexual abuse,
warnings to be silent, taking photographs, making videotapes, tying up
children, keeping children in extreme darkness, being scratched,
kicked, beaten, being drugged, animals being present, animals being
tortured, killed, babies being involved, babies being killed, adults
being killed, chanting, forced eating of excrement or semen, and
supernatural powers being claimed. “Almost one-third of the parents
reported in 1989—1990 profound changes, as if they were dealing with a
different child” (p. 550). The symptomatic behaviors of the children
included: a poor sleep pattern, nightmares, night awakenings,
bedwetting, genital shame, masturbation, inappropriate sexual
behavior, swearing, aggressiveness, destructiveness, self-isolation,
anxiety, tongue kissing, torturing of animals, fear of being locked
up, interest in fire, fear of spiders, interest in devils, ghosts, the
experience of words turning around, and interest in death. The three
most common symptoms among the boys were: “poor sleep pattern (79%),
waking during the night (79%), and aggressiveness toward the
surroundings (83%)” (p. 550). Among the girls, “the most exhibited
behaviors were poor sleep pattern (67%), anxiety, nervousness (77%),
and aggressiveness towards the surroundings (87%)” (p. 550). The
authors also noted that “If the Oude Pekela case had been a result of
adult community hysteria rather than real children’s experiences, then
the behavioral changes would be expected to escalate as a function of
disclosures to adults. Instead, there was a decrease in the number of
changes in behavior following disclosure…” (p. 551). In this case two
arrests were made but there were no convictions. However, Jonker and
Jonker-Bakker noted that the chief of the police investigation team
believed that 50% of the 64 children investigated by the police “were
certainly involved.” (p. 545). A statement by the district attorney on
January 21, 1988 is cited:
A total number of 98 children, 3 to 11 years old were interviewed. The
statements of 62 children were used in the further investigation.
Finally 48 statements of children remained, speaking of clear sexual
abuse, where they had either submitted to or been forced to perform on
themselves or others. Many of the children told about strong lights,
lamps on poles, and seeing each other on TV. The justice ministry
concluded that it was nearly sure that photographs were taken of the
children. Against 18 children violence was used. The child abuse took
place over a period of several months. The justice Ministry thinks
that four people, two men and two women, were involved in the sexual
abuse. (quoted by Myers, 1994, and cited by Jonker & Jonker-Bakker,
1997, p. 541)
Faller (1994) cites a study of intergenerational ritual abuse of
children by Susan Kelley. This paper, entitled Ritualistic Abuse:
Recognition, Impact, and Current Controversy was presented by Kelley
at the San Diego Conference on Responding to Child Maltreatment in
January, 1992. Kelley investigated reports of 26 children from 14
families. The accused abusers were parents, grandparents, great-
grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins and siblings. Similar to other
reports a significant number of abusers were female (45%). “Sixty-one
percent of children were abused by two generations of older relatives,
and 57% of cases involved extrafamilial as well as intrafamilial
offenders” (Faller,1994, p. 25). Reported abuses included “terrorizing
threats and acts (89%),including having spiders or other insects
placed on them; death threats (77%), making pornography (81%), threat
swith supernatural powers (89%), satanic reference (92%),animal
killings (54%), being made to ingest drugs (92%), songs and chants
(69%), and being made to ingest or touch excrement (85%)” (p. 25).
Scores on the CBCL were in the clinical range for 73% of the children
on total problems, 81% on internalizing, and 50% on externalizing
scales.
Three studies have surveyed adults who allege to be survivors of
ritual abuse (Drisoll & Wright, 1991; Smith, 1993; Young, Sachs,
Braun, & Watkins,1991). These three studies appear to have
investigated primarily cases of what some call transgenerational
ritual abuse. Lynda Driscoll and Cheryl Wright (1991) investigated the
experiences of 37 adult mental health patients who were allegedly
survivors of ritual abuse. Eighty-one percent had no memory of ritual
abuse before beginning therapy and of the remaining 13%, their
memories were incomplete. Dissociation was a commonly reported problem
in this sample with 63% being diagnosed with MPD, 34% diagnosed
dissociative and 17% with “strong ego states” (p. 6.) Eighty-three
percent reported involvement in rituals by a relative with their
fathers (63%), uncles (41%), mothers (38%), grandfathers (35%), and
grandmothers (22%.) Other abusers included “doctors (54%), neighbors
(41%), friends of relatives (49%), church members (35%), police (27%),
teachers (22%), and morticians (19%)” (p. 6). Eighty percent stated
that the ritual abuse began before age six. The mean age was 6. The
reported physical and psychological abuse sincluded being “forced to
drink blood (84%), tied up (84%), drugged (78%), deprived of food
(61%), forced to eat flesh (57%), forced to eat or drink body waste
(57%), deprived of sleep (54%), and given electric shock” (p. .
Ninety percent reported being exposed to confusing and degrading
experiences. “Seventy-five percent reported being isolated, 61%
ejaculated on, 54% urinated on, 38% defecated on, 50% put in coffins
(46%with corpses), 44% buried alive, and 39% put in graves”(p.8.)They
were allegedly coerced into silence “by threats of harm (84%), of
abandonment (76%), death or mutilation of themselves(73%),death of
parent or relative (57%). Most victims reported they were threatened
with supernatural powers (62%), and they were told they had been
magically altered (51%) in a way that would end their lives if they
‘talked’ or disobeyed” (p. . Seventy-four percent said they were
forced to perpetrate.
Ninety-three percent were allegedly sexually victimized with reported
abuses including oral sex (89%), vaginal (84%), object penetration
(81%), anal sex (78%). They reported sex with adults (89%), group sex
84%), with animals (62%), other children (54%), and corpses (38%).
Eighty-four percent reported human sacrifice, 14% claimed they were
breeders for sacrifices. The alleged affects of ritual abuse included
problems with trust (100%) and emotional intimacy (97%). “Eighty
percent mistrust family members, peers, males, and authority figures
in general….Over ninety percent reported chronic depression, anxiety
attacks, obsessions and suicidal behavior” (p. 9). Over 80% described
feelings of “worthlessness, inferiority, lack of assertiveness, and
dirtiness” (p. 10). Roughly 70% state they feel “helplessness,
difficulties making decisions, embarrassment about themselves,
humiliation and hopelessness” (p. 10). Reported physical symptoms
include headaches (90%),insomnia and chronic back and abdominal pain
(75%), acute unexplained weakness(76%),catatonic spells(33%) episodic
paralysis (37%),and blackouts (50%). Eating disorders included:
anorexia (30%), bulimia (30%), and consistently over 20 pounds
overweight (70%).
Another study conducted by Margaret Smith (1993) presents data on 52
adults who reported being survivors of childhood ritual abuse. Ninety-
seven percent reported that “at some point in their lives, they were
amnestic of their ritual abuse experience” (p. 20). Smith found that
perpetrators were reportedly fathers (67%), mothers (42%),
grandfathers (31%), grandmothers (23%),aunts(21%),uncles(27%),non-
family member physicians (33%),non-family member clergy (17%), and non-
family member teachers (17%).In her study of the occupations of the
family and non-family alleged perpetrators there were physicians
(35%), teachers (25%), clergy (22%) and police (15%). Sixty-five
percent reported that the abuse began before age 4. The following
experiences of abuse were allegedly perpetrated against the
respondents: molestation or intercourse (100%), forced participation
in group sex with adults (96%), being tortured (94%), witnessing or
forced participation in animal sacrifice (90%), witnessing or forced
participation in human sacrifice (88%), sodomy (88%), being drugged
during the abuse (88%), witnessing or forced participation in
cannibalism (82%), being forced totorture others (75%), child
prostitution (52%), child pornography (52%), being forced to breed
children who were later sacrificed (36%). Smith also lists “other
forms of abuse mentioned by ritual abuse survivors:”mental programming
(21%), bestiality (17%), torture by electric shock (13%), witnessing
or forced participation in dismemberment or mutilation of bodies
(12%), being hung upside down (10%), being forced to kidnap children
from playgrounds (8%), hypnotism (8%), having pets killed(4%), having
psychic surgery (4%), and being lent to other cults(4%).
Young, Sachs, Braun, and Watkins (1991) studied the allegations of a
sample of 37 patients, reporting transgenerational childhood ritual
abuse. They found that all reported sexual abuse, witnessing and
receiving physical abuse or torture, witnessing animal mutilation or
killings and experiencing death threats. Ninety-seven percent
indicated forced drug usage. Other abuses included witnessing and
forced participation in human adult and infant sacrifice (83%),forced
cannibalism (81%), marriage to Satan (78%), being buried alive in
coffins or graves (72%), and forced impregnation and sacrifice of own
child (60%). All of the patients had severe PTSD and experienced
dissociative states with Satanic characteristics. Other psychiatric
sequelae included survivor guilt (97%), indoctrinated beliefs (94%),
unusual fears (94%), sexualization of sadistic impulses (86%), bizarre
self-abuse (83%) and substance abuse (62%). The authors also reported
some corroborating evidence.
The most recent effort to quantify and qualify the experience of
ritual and other extreme abuse has been recently completed via the
Internet. This undertaking was a cooperative effort between social
scientists in the United States and Germany, Becker, Overkamp, Rutz,
and Karriker, who developed an extensive questionnaire available over
the Internet for a period of three months to survivors of extreme
abuse. A second survey was developed and made available for a like
period of time to therapists treating survivors of extreme abuse and a
third for caregivers of survivors of extreme abuse. Preliminary data
is impressive for the numbers of survivors who participated, their
range of ages (only those over 18 were eligible for participation),
the countries they represented, the universality of their experiences,
and their search for answers. Their preliminary findings were recently
described at the SMART conference in August, 2007 and will be further
discussed in a chapter of the forthcoming book, Ritual Abuse in the
Twenty-first Century: Psychological, Forensic, Social and Political
Considerations, edited by Noblitt and Noblitt.
A final area of research has been developed (Noblitt1998a, 1998b;
Noblitt & Perskin, 2000) with a method for research and clinical
application of “programming” phenomena. I have identified specific
cues and “triggering” stimuli which have been shown to access
dissociated mental states in certain patients consistent with the
reports of other patients who allege to be survivors of ritual abuse.
Research on allegations of ritual abuse is important and needed
because many questions are as yet unresolved among mental health,
legal, and law enforcement professionals. Until we can better clarify
this difficult and troubling subject, we can continue to expect this
area to be rife with problems and bitter contentiousness. We will
continue to hear that blameless individuals have been unfairly
convicted of charges stemming from ritual abuse allegations, or that
innocent children are being returned to abusive households because
their outcries are not taken seriously in courts of law.
References
Andrews, B., Morton, J., Bekerian, D.A., Brewin, C.R., Davies, G.M., &
Mollon, P. (1995, May). The recovery of memories in clinical practice:
Experiences and beliefs of British Psychological Society
practitioners. The Psychologist, pp. 209—214.
Coons, P.M. (1994).Reports of satanic ritual abuse: Further
implications about pseudomemories. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 78, 1376—
1378.
Coons, P.M. (1997).Satanic ritual abuse: First research and
therapeutic implications. In George A. Fraser, (Ed.), The dilemma of
ritual abuse: Cautions and guidelines for therapists (pp. 105—117).
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
Coons, P.M., & Grier, F. (1990).Factitious disorder (Munchausen type)
involving allegations of satanic ritual abuse: A case
report.Dissociation,3,177—178.
Driscoll, L.N., & Wright, C. (1991).Survivors of childhood ritual
abuse: Multigenerational Satanic cult involvement. Treating Abuse
Today, 1,5—13.
Faller, K.C.(1994,Spring). Ritual abuse: A review of research. APSAC
Advisor, pp. 1, 19—27.
Finkelhor, D., Williams, L., & Burns, N. (1988). Nursery crimes:
Sexual abuse in day care. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Goodman.G.S., Qin,J., Bottoms, B.L.,and Shaver, P.R.
(1994).Characteristics and sources of allegations of ritualistic child
abuse: Final report to the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.
[unpublished manuscript].
Hudson, P.(1991). Ritual child abuse: Discovery, diagnosis and
treatment. Sarasota, CA: R & E Publishers.
Jonker, F.,& Jonker-Bakker,I. (1991).Experiences with ritualistic
child sexual abuse:A case Study from the Netherlands. Journal of Child
Abuse & Neglect, 15,191—196.
Jonker, F.,& Jonker-Bakker,I. (1997). Effects of ritual abuse: The
results of three surveys in the Netherlands,Journal of Child Abuse &
Neglect,21,541—556.
Kelley, S.J. (1992, Jan.). Ritualistic abuse: Recognition, impact, and
current controversy. Paper presented at the San Diego Conference on
Responding to Child Maltreatment, San Diego, CA.
Kelley, S.J. (1993). Ritualistic abuse of children in day-care
centers. In M.D. Langone (Ed.) Recovery from cults: Help for victims
of psychological and spiritual abuse (pp. 343– 355). New York: W.W.
Norton.
Mulhern, S. (1991). Satanism and psychotherapy: A rumor in search of
an inquisition. In J.T. Richardson, J. Best, & D.G. Bromley (Eds.),
The Satanism scare (pp.145–172). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Mulhern, S. (1994). Satanism, ritual abuse, and multiple personality
disorder: A sociohistorical perspective. The International Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 42, 265—288.
Myers, J.E. (1994). The backlash: Child protection under fire. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications. Noblitt, J.R. (1995). Psychometric
measures of trauma among psychiatric patients reporting ritual abuse,
Psychological Reports, 77, 743—747.
Noblitt, J.R.(1998a).Accessing dissociated mental states. [monograph
self-published by J.R. Noblitt].
Noblitt, J.R. (1998b, March). Techniques for induction of trance
phenomena without suggestion. Paper presented at the 40th Annual
Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Hypnosis, Ft. Worth,
Texas.
Noblitt, J.R., & Perskin, P.(Rev. ed. 2000).Cult and ritual abuse: Its
history, anthropology and recent discovery in contemporary America.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Ofshe, R.,& Waters, E.(1994). Making monsters: False memories,
psychotherapy and sexual hysteria. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Perry, N.E.(1992).Therapists’ experiences of the effects of working
with dissociative patients. Paper presented at the 9th Annual Meeting
of the International Society for the Study of Multiple Personality and
Dissociation, Chicago, IL.
Smith, M. (1993).Ritual abuse: What it is, why it happens, and how to
help. Harper San Francisco.
Spanos, N.P. (1996).Multiple identities and false memories: A
sociocognitive perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Valliere, P., Bybee,D.,& Mobray, C.(1988, Apr.). Using the Child
Behavior Checklist in Child sexual abuse research: Longitudinal and
comparative analysis. Paper presented at the National Symposium on
Child Victimization, Anaheim, CA.
Victor, J.S. (1993). Satanic panic: The creation of a contemporary
legend. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
Waterman, J., Kelly, R.J., Olivieri, M.K., McCord, J.(1993).Beyond the
playground walls: Sexual abuse in preschools .New York: Guilford
Press.
Yeager, C.C.,& Lewis, D.O.(1997). False memories of cult abuse [letter
to the editor]. American JournalofPsychiatry,154, 435.
Young, W., Sachs, R.G., Braun, B.G., & Watkins, R.T. (1991). Patients
reporting ritual abuse in childhood: A clinical syndrome. Journal of
Child Abuse and Neglect, 15, 181–189.
[1]The reader may notice that the word “Satanic” is sometimes
capitalized and sometimes not in this paper. This apparent
inconsistency results from the word “Satanic” and “satanic” having
different meanings. If one is referring to a religion or system of
worship in which Satan is the focal spiritual entity, the term should
be capitalized as with any other religion (e.g., Buddhism,
Christianity, Judaism, etc.). When the word is not capitalized, it
refers to a point of view, not particularly a religion, which is
dedicated to evil. In this regard, I prefer the capitalized spelling
because most of the se patients are alleging this to be a religion.
However, other authors frequently do not capitalize the word thus,
when I am quoting or citing them, I will usually use their
capitalization rules, regardless of whether their usage conforms to
the above definitions.
[2] Renamed the International Society for the Study of Dissociation
and later, in 2007, renamed again, the International Society for the
Study of Trauma and Dissociation. |
|
