Harman and Lorandos’ False Critique of Meier et al.’s Family Court Study

Jennifer Harman and Demosthenes Lorandos purport to have identified numerous methodological flaws in our 2019 study of family court outcomes in cases involving abuse and alienation allegations (“FCO study”; Meier et al., 2019). At least half of the supposed flaws they itemized relate to one claim - that they were unable to access our methods and data. They treat the claimed lack of public access as evidence that our study is unreliable, while speculating about other potential flaws. Yet we note - and they acknowledge - that most of the methodological information they sought was in fact available before publication of their article. This article responds to and refutes Harman and Lorandos’ exaggerated and unfounded condemnation of our study. In addition to pointing out that the claimed lack of information would not be a methodological flaw even if true, we explain that their other criticisms are speculative, incorrect, or insignificant. We appreciate this opportunity to clarify that the important findings of the FCO study are valid and should be taken seriously by the courts and those interested in the fairness and safety of custody decisions when there are allegations of abuse and alienation

The trouble with Harman and Lorandos’s attempted refutation of the Meier et al. Family court study

Harman and Lorandos assert that they have produced a study analyzing custody cases involving alienation allegations, which “disconfirms” the findings from our study of family court out- comes in cases involving abuse and alienation. In addition to pointing out the authors’ misrepresentation and mis-reporting of some of their findings, this Response details a series of profound flaws in their study’s design, dataset construction and variable coding, interpretations and analytic approach, as well as a series of statistical errors. The statistical analyses demonstrate that Harman and Lorandos’s five findings of a gender bias in favor of fathers are not supported by their data; the only statistically significant findings that persist after re-analysis of the correct data are consistent with the Meier et al. study. These pervasive design and methodological errors undermine both the appearance and assertion of rigor in their approach; these problems and the foundational differences in their dataset from our own disqualify their study from serving as any kind of credible test or disconfirmation of our study

Personality Characteristics that Increase Vulnerability to Sexual Harassment Among US Army Soldiers

The study examines personality characteristics that may increase vulnerability to sexual harassment among active duty Army personnel. A survey was administered to 1,060 male soldiers and 305 female soldiers at three Army posts located in the United States. Sexual harassment was measured by the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire, which assesses unwanted sexual behaviors in the workplace. Two gender-related personality characteristics derived from the Extended Personal Attributes Questionnaire were hypothesized to increase vulnerability to sexual harassment. Negative Femininity, which reflects extreme passivity, and Negative Masculinity, which includes antisocial characteristics, were both found to be positively correlated with unwanted sexual experiences among male and female soldiers

Fathers' rights groups : demographic correlates and impact on custody policy

This article combines information from fathers' rights Web sites with demographic, historical, and other information to provide an empirically based analysis of fathers' rights advocacy in the United States. Content analysis discerns three factors that are central to the groups' rhetoric: representing domestic violence allegations as false, promoting presumptive joint custody and decreasing child support, and portraying women as perpetrators of domestic abuse. Fathers' rights organizations and themes are examined in relation to state-level demographics and custody policy. The implications of fathers' rights activism for battered women and their children are explored

Psychological and Physical Health Effects of Sexual Assaults and Nonsexual Traumas Among Male and Female United States Army Soldiers

Lifetime trauma history was assessed in a health study of active duty United States Army soldiers. Five hundred &-jive male and 573 female soldiers in the sample were asked whether they had ever experienced 14 direrent potentially traumatic experiences, including sexual assaults, violent stressors to seK and terrifying events that occurred to others and were secondarily traumatic through exposure by gaining information or as a witness to the event. Most soldiers had experienced multiple traumas, and premilitary exposure to events was much more common than exposure to events afer entering the military. Global measures of current psychological distress and physical health symptoms were predicted b.v the lifetime number of sexual assaults and traumas to sel Social support from military unit leaders moderated the relationship between accumulated exposure to traumas and both health measures, whereas unit cohesion was directly associated with fewer mental health problems

Harman and Lorandos’ False Critique of Meier et al.’s Family Court Study

Jennifer Harman and Demosthenes Lorandos purport to have identified numerous methodological flaws in our 2019 study of family court outcomes in cases involving abuse and alienation allegations (“FCO study”; Meier et al., 2019). At least half of the supposed flaws they itemized relate to one claim - that they were unable to access our methods and data. They treat the claimed lack of public access as evidence that our study is unreliable, while speculating about other potential flaws. Yet we note - and they acknowledge - that most of the methodological information they sought was in fact available before publication of their article. This article responds to and refutes Harman and Lorandos’ exaggerated and unfounded condemnation of our study. In addition to pointing out that the claimed lack of information would not be a methodological flaw even if true, we explain that their other criticisms are speculative, incorrect, or insignificant. We appreciate this opportunity to clarify that the important findings of the FCO study are valid and should be taken seriously by the courts and those interested in the fairness and safety of custody decisions when there are allegations of abuse and alienation