What do you think?
Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited
Book by Gardner, Richard A.
150 pages, Hardcover
First published October 1, 1990
About the author
Richard A. Gardner
70 books6 followersRichard Alan Gardner was an American child psychiatrist best known for his controversial work on parental alienation and child custody disputes. A prolific writer, he authored 41 books and over 200 scholarly articles, and developed therapeutic materials for child psychotherapy through his company, Creative Therapeutics. Gardner introduced the concept of parental alienation syndrome (PAS), describing how one parent could manipulate a child into rejecting the other. While his work was influential in custody cases, PAS has never been recognized by the American Psychiatric Association or other professional bodies, and has been widely criticized as lacking scientific validity and being used to dismiss legitimate abuse claims.
Gardner earned his medical degree from SUNY Downstate and trained in psychiatry at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. He served in the U.S. Army as director of child psychiatry in Frankfurt, Germany, and was later a clinical professor at Columbia University for four decades. He held academic appointments in the U.S., Belgium, and Russia and was a member of several professional psychiatric and psychoanalytic associations.
Gardner’s 1990 book Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited became central to his claims about false accusations in abuse cases. He frequently served as an expert witness, including in the successful appeal of Margaret Kelly Michaels. However, his work drew fierce criticism for being unscientific, gender-biased, and sympathetic toward individuals accused of abuse. Critics argued that PAS was based on anecdotal evidence and personal beliefs, not empirical research. Attempts to include PAS in the DSM-5 were rejected.
Gardner strongly denied condoning pedophilia or abuse, insisting his theories were misunderstood. He also opposed mandatory reporting laws and advocated support for those falsely accused of abuse. Despite the controversy, his legacy continues to spark debate in psychiatry, law, and child protection. He died by suicide in 2003, reportedly after suffering from a debilitating neurological pain disorder.
Gardner earned his medical degree from SUNY Downstate and trained in psychiatry at the New York State Psychiatric Institute. He served in the U.S. Army as director of child psychiatry in Frankfurt, Germany, and was later a clinical professor at Columbia University for four decades. He held academic appointments in the U.S., Belgium, and Russia and was a member of several professional psychiatric and psychoanalytic associations.
Gardner’s 1990 book Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited became central to his claims about false accusations in abuse cases. He frequently served as an expert witness, including in the successful appeal of Margaret Kelly Michaels. However, his work drew fierce criticism for being unscientific, gender-biased, and sympathetic toward individuals accused of abuse. Critics argued that PAS was based on anecdotal evidence and personal beliefs, not empirical research. Attempts to include PAS in the DSM-5 were rejected.
Gardner strongly denied condoning pedophilia or abuse, insisting his theories were misunderstood. He also opposed mandatory reporting laws and advocated support for those falsely accused of abuse. Despite the controversy, his legacy continues to spark debate in psychiatry, law, and child protection. He died by suicide in 2003, reportedly after suffering from a debilitating neurological pain disorder.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 24, 2022
Oof. I rarely feel compelled to write a review but this one necessitated it.
If you're going to read this, I suggest doing so with a highly critical eye. Although upfront he admits that this book is largely his opinion and experience, with very little reference to outside data (according to him, there was not a lot of scientific proof available in 1991) it doesn't excuse many of the irresponsible statements he makes on things that aren't really in his lane (such as pedagogy, law).
Often he says that he's guessing as to how various proceedings of court work and why they happen, which for his argument, seems like it would be important to have done research on prior to writing this book so that he could speak to the problems with law and court proceedings for sure. He makes big assumptions and blanket statements as to why lawyers, counselors/therapists/etc. go into social work, often attributing it to a pathologic need for notoriety, if not to be close to cases of sex abuse so that they can satiate the pedophilic tendencies via exposure because "there is a bit of pedophilia in all of us."
"Judges too may have repressed pedophilic impulses over which there is suppression, repression, and guilt. Inquiry into the details of the case provides voyeuristic and vicarious gratifications... Incarcerating the alleged perpetrator may serve psychologically to obliterate the judge's own projected pedophilic impulses."
"There is no question that abuse cases are "turn ons" for the wide variety of individuals involved in them, the accuser(s), the prosecutors, the lawyers, the judges , the evaluators, the psychologists, the reporters, the readers of the newspapers, and everyone else involved - except for the falsely accused and the innocent victim... Everyone is getting their 'jollies."
He spends a strange amount of time railing on the education system, using the rise of low SAT scores as an indicator of declining quality of education (a contentious topic) and purporting that teachers do not give out homework anymore, without any statistical backing. He acknowledges that teachers/professors aren't paid well and then makes the judgment that college professors don't spend meaningful time on campus, just teach their class and leave- it's been common for decades for non-tenured professors to have to teach multiple classes at multiples colleges in order to make a living wage.
I think the part that was most difficult was his opinions of child sexual abuse itself. Some excerpts are as follows:
On fathers that commit child sexual abuse: "He has had bad luck with regard to the place and time he was born with regard to social attitudes toward pedophilia. However, these are not reasons to condemn himself." (pg. 119.)
"The removal of a pedophilic parent from the home should only be seriously considered after all attempts at treatment of the pedophilia and rapprochement with the family have proven futile."
(pg. 119.)
"The Draconian punishments meted out to pedophiles go far beyond what I consider to be the gravity of the crime." (p. 118)
I think where he had good points were in the method of how to interview children without influencing their answers as much as possible. This is his area of expertise and I think he should have stuck to it. Otherwise the book is largely anecdotal without peer reviewed data/articles where it would be necessary to bolster his claims- at the very least the simple claims like declining SAT scores. For example, he simply gave an estimation that deliberate false reporting of CSA among mothers was 90% when research shows that the actual rate is less than 2%.
It may be worth noting that Gardner's work has been denounced and rejected by most credible professionals. He has an affinity for Freud. So you know. Do with that what you will.
If you're going to read this, I suggest doing so with a highly critical eye. Although upfront he admits that this book is largely his opinion and experience, with very little reference to outside data (according to him, there was not a lot of scientific proof available in 1991) it doesn't excuse many of the irresponsible statements he makes on things that aren't really in his lane (such as pedagogy, law).
Often he says that he's guessing as to how various proceedings of court work and why they happen, which for his argument, seems like it would be important to have done research on prior to writing this book so that he could speak to the problems with law and court proceedings for sure. He makes big assumptions and blanket statements as to why lawyers, counselors/therapists/etc. go into social work, often attributing it to a pathologic need for notoriety, if not to be close to cases of sex abuse so that they can satiate the pedophilic tendencies via exposure because "there is a bit of pedophilia in all of us."
"Judges too may have repressed pedophilic impulses over which there is suppression, repression, and guilt. Inquiry into the details of the case provides voyeuristic and vicarious gratifications... Incarcerating the alleged perpetrator may serve psychologically to obliterate the judge's own projected pedophilic impulses."
"There is no question that abuse cases are "turn ons" for the wide variety of individuals involved in them, the accuser(s), the prosecutors, the lawyers, the judges , the evaluators, the psychologists, the reporters, the readers of the newspapers, and everyone else involved - except for the falsely accused and the innocent victim... Everyone is getting their 'jollies."
He spends a strange amount of time railing on the education system, using the rise of low SAT scores as an indicator of declining quality of education (a contentious topic) and purporting that teachers do not give out homework anymore, without any statistical backing. He acknowledges that teachers/professors aren't paid well and then makes the judgment that college professors don't spend meaningful time on campus, just teach their class and leave- it's been common for decades for non-tenured professors to have to teach multiple classes at multiples colleges in order to make a living wage.
I think the part that was most difficult was his opinions of child sexual abuse itself. Some excerpts are as follows:
On fathers that commit child sexual abuse: "He has had bad luck with regard to the place and time he was born with regard to social attitudes toward pedophilia. However, these are not reasons to condemn himself." (pg. 119.)
"The removal of a pedophilic parent from the home should only be seriously considered after all attempts at treatment of the pedophilia and rapprochement with the family have proven futile."
(pg. 119.)
"The Draconian punishments meted out to pedophiles go far beyond what I consider to be the gravity of the crime." (p. 118)
I think where he had good points were in the method of how to interview children without influencing their answers as much as possible. This is his area of expertise and I think he should have stuck to it. Otherwise the book is largely anecdotal without peer reviewed data/articles where it would be necessary to bolster his claims- at the very least the simple claims like declining SAT scores. For example, he simply gave an estimation that deliberate false reporting of CSA among mothers was 90% when research shows that the actual rate is less than 2%.
It may be worth noting that Gardner's work has been denounced and rejected by most credible professionals. He has an affinity for Freud. So you know. Do with that what you will.
February 17, 2026
Even this author who focuses on false accusations of child sexual abuse, acknowledges that the vast majority of claims by children of sexual abuse are likely to be justified even 95% or more. So, my point is that even he admits that most claims are valid, which they are.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews