Advertisement

Expert Witnesses, Dissociative Amnesia, and Extraordinary Remembering: Response to Brand et al.

  • Lawrence PatihisEmail author
  • Henry Otgaar
  • Harald Merckelbach
Article

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

Carl Sagan

In Merckelbach and Patihis (2018), we critically evaluated the attempts of Brand, Schielke, & Brams, 2017, Brand, Schielke, Brams, & DiComo, 2017) to provide advice to expert witnesses who assist triers of fact in understanding dissociative reactions. One point of departure was the broadly felt consensus in the forensic field that expert witnesses should be transparent about their limits (e.g., Edmond et al., 2017). Over the past years, the focus on limits and error rates of experts has gained momentum because empirical data suggest that overconfidence of expert witnesses may contribute to miscarriages of justice (e.g., Saks & Koehler, 2005; Imwinkelried, 2018). As a discipline, psychology is not exactly known for its error-free predictions. Quite the opposite is true: on the whole, clinical psychologists attain relatively modest levels of consistency and consensus, which are two important parameters of professional...

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergouignan, L., Nyberg, L., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2014). Out-of-body–induced hippocampal amnesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 4421–4426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernstein, E. M., & Putnam, F. W. (1986). Development, reliability, and validity of a dissociation scale. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 174, 727–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brand, B. L., Dalenberg, C. J., Frewen, P. A., Loewenstein, P. J., Schielke, H. J., Brams, J. S., & Spiegel, D. (2018). Trauma-related dissociation is no fantasy: addressing the errors of omissions and errors commission in Merckelbach and Patihis (2018). Psychological Injury & Law, 11, 377–393.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-018-9336-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brand, B. L., Schielke, H. J., & Brams, J. S. (2017). Assisting the courts in understanding and connecting with experiences of disconnection: addressing trauma-related dissociation as a forensic psychologist, part I. Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 283–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brand, B. L., Schielke, H. J., Brams, J. S., & DiComo, R. A. (2017). Assessing trauma-related dissociation in forensic contexts: addressing trauma-related dissociation as a forensic psychologist, part II. Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 298–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brenneis, C. B. (2000). Evaluating the evidence: can we find authenticated recovered memory? Psychoanalytic Psychology, 17, 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, D. W., Anda, R. F., Edwards, V. J., Felitti, V. J., Dube, S. R., & Giles, W. H. (2007). Adverse childhood experiences and childhood autobiographical memory disturbance. Child Abuse and Neglect, 31, 961–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Edmond, G., Towler, A., Growns, B., Ribeiro, G., Found, B., White, D., et al. (2017). Thinking forensics: Cognitive science for forensic practitioners. Science & Justice, 57, 144–154.Google Scholar
  10. Farrell, H. M. (2011). Dissociative identity disorder: medicolegal challenges. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 39, 402–406.Google Scholar
  11. Freedman, R., Lewis, D. A., Michels, R., Pine, D. S., Schultz, S. K., Tamminga, C. A., et al. (2013). The initial field trials of DSM-5: new blooms and old thorns. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Herman, S., & Freitas, T. R. (2010). Error rates in forensic child sexual abuse evaluations. Psychological Injury and Law, 3, 133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holmes, D. S. (1994). Is there evidence for repression? Doubtful. Harvard Mental Health Letter, 10(12), 4–6.Google Scholar
  14. Hume, D. (1748/1977). An inquiry concerning human understanding. Indianapolis, In: Hackett. (Original work published in 1748).Google Scholar
  15. Imwinkelried, E. J. (2018). The best insurance against miscarriages of justice caused by junk science: An admissibility test that is scientifically and legally sound. Albany Law Review, 81, 851–875.Google Scholar
  16. Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., & Hosch, H. M. (2001). On the'general acceptance'of eyewitness testimony research: a new survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 56, 405–416.Google Scholar
  17. Kleim, B., & Ehlers, A. (2008). Reduced autobiographical memory specificity predicts depression and posttraumatic stress disorder after recent trauma. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kritchevsky, M., Chang, J., & Squire, L. R. (2004). Functional amnesia: clinical description and neuropsychological profile of 10 cases. Learning & Memory, 11, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lalonde, J. K., Hudson, J. I., Gigante, R. A., & Pope, H. G. (2001). Canadian and American psychiatrists' attitudes toward dissociative disorders diagnoses. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46, 407–412.Google Scholar
  20. Laney, C., & Loftus, E. F. (2008). Emotional content of true and false memories. Memory, 16, 500–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Loftus, E. F. (2003). Memory in Canadian courts of law. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 44, 207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Merckelbach, H., & Patihis, L. (2018). Why “trauma-related dissociation” is a misnomer in courts: a critical analysis of Brand et al. (2017a, b). Psychological Injury and Law, 11, 370–376.Google Scholar
  23. Patihis, L., Ho, L. Y., Loftus, E. F., & Herrera, M. E. (in press). Memory experts’ beliefs about repressed memory. Memory, 1–6. Published online first October 2018.https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2018.1532521
  24. Patihis, L., Ho, L. Y., Tingen, I. W., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Loftus, E. F. (2014). Are the “memory wars” over? A scientist-practitioner gap in beliefs about repressed memory. Psychological Science, 25, 519–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Patihis, L., & Pendergrast, M. H. (2019). Reports of recovered memories of abuse in therapy in a large age-representative US national sample: therapy type and decade comparisons. Clinical Psychological Science7, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618773315
  26. Piper, A., Lillevik, L., & Kritzer, R. (2008). What’s wrong with believing in repression?: a review for legal professionals. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 14, 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pope, H. G., Oliva, P. S., Hudson, J. I., Bodkin, J. A., & Gruber, A. J. (1999). Attitudes toward DSM-IV dissociative disorders diagnoses among board-certified American psychiatrists. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 321–323.Google Scholar
  28. Porter, S., Campbell, M. A., Birt, A. R., & Woodworth, M. T. (2003). “He said, she said”: a psychological perspective on historical memory evidence in the courtroom. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 44, 190–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raymaekers, L., Smeets, T., Peters, M. J., & Merckelbach, H. (2010). Autobiographical memory specificity among people with recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 41, 338–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rettew, D. C., Lynch, A. D., Achenbach, T. M., Dumenci, L., & Ivanova, M. Y. (2009). Meta-analyses of agreement between diagnoses made from clinical evaluations and standardized diagnostic interviews. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 18, 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rofé, Y. (2008). Does repression exist? Memory, pathogenic, unconscious and clinical evidence. Review of General Psychology, 12, 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sagan, C. (1979). Broca’s brain, reflections on the romance of science. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  33. Saks, M. J., & Koehler, J. J. (2005). The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science, 309, 892–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stockdale, G. D., Gridley, B. E., Balogh, D. W., & Holtgraves, T. (2002). Confirmatory factor analysis of single and multiple-factor competing models of the dissociative experiences scale in a nonclinical sample. Assessment, 9, 94–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Takarangi, M. K., Polaschek, D. L., Garry, M. A., & Loftus, E. F. (2008). Psychological science, victim advocates, and the problem of recovered memories. International Review of Victimology, 15, 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Thomas, R. P., & Lawrence, A. (2018). Assessment of expert performance compared across professional domains. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7, 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Truzzi, M. (1978). On the extraordinary: an attempt at clarification. Zetetic Scholar, 1, 11–19.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of Southern MississippiHattiesburgUSA
  2. 2.Forensic Psychology, Department of Clinical Psychological Science, Faculty of Psychology and NeuroscienceMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Catholic University of Leuven, Faculty of LawLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations