Expert Witnesses, Dissociative Amnesia, and Extraordinary Remembering: Response to Brand et al.
- 169 Downloads
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
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...
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 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
- 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
- Holmes, D. S. (1994). Is there evidence for repression? Doubtful. Harvard Mental Health Letter, 10(12), 4–6.Google Scholar
- Hume, D. (1748/1977). An inquiry concerning human understanding. Indianapolis, In: Hackett. (Original work published in 1748).Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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 Science, 7, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618773315
- 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
- Sagan, C. (1979). Broca’s brain, reflections on the romance of science. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
- Truzzi, M. (1978). On the extraordinary: an attempt at clarification. Zetetic Scholar, 1, 11–19.Google Scholar