Template:EGLHarm: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The Admins (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
The Admins (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
File:Family confounds.png|CSA harm was known to be confounded even before Rind | File:Family confounds.png|CSA harm was known to be confounded even before Rind | ||
File:Syndrome.jpg|No "typical" CSA reaction or "syndrome" | File:Syndrome.jpg|No "typical" CSA reaction or "syndrome" | ||
File:Rindonesizevictimology.png|Rind on methodological issues/limitations of victimology | |||
</gallery> | </gallery> |
Revision as of 21:53, 31 December 2021
-
Basic Rind Paradox infographic
-
Summarized Rind findings
-
Rind and Tromovitch (2000) on Iatrogenic Harm
-
Research pointing to no intrinsic harm profiled in The Guardian
-
What victimologists say about youth perception + admissions of iatrogenic harm
-
Self-perception: Importance
-
Some reading on secondary harm and perception/situational variables
-
More secondary harms
-
Intrinsic vs secondary harm
-
Daly's 2021 repetition of Rind (1998), finds that self-perception is far more important that abuse status
-
Lahtinen Report: Most common reason for not reporting - event not serious enough
-
College outcomes: Benefits of college samples
-
LGBT outcome/perception data (links to papers in this release)
-
Simpler way of expressing Lesbian outcomes (ref to modern feminism)
-
Further distillation of Rind's Kinsey analysis
-
General reading on intrinsic harm
-
The Rind team comment on the self-fulfilling prophecy of iatrogenic harm
-
The Rind team comment further on iatrogenic harm
-
CSA harm was known to be confounded even before Rind
-
No "typical" CSA reaction or "syndrome"
-
Rind on methodological issues/limitations of victimology