Why “trauma-related dissociation” is a misnomer in courts: a critical analysis of Brand et al. (2017a, b)

Harald Merckelbach*, Lawrence Patihis

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

197 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Forensic psychologists are sometimes faced with the task of educating triers of fact about the evidential weight of dissociative experiences reported by claimants in litigation procedures. In their two-part essay, Brand et al. (Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 283–297, 2017a; Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 298–312, 2017b) provide advice to experts who find themselves in such situation. We argue that the Brand et al. approach is problematic and might induce confirmation bias in experts. Their approach is not well connected to the extant literature on recovered memories, dissociative amnesia, memory distortions, and symptom validity testing. In some instances, Brand et al. (Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 283–297, 2017a; Psychological Injury and Law, 10, 298–312, 2017b) simplify the current body of knowledge about dissociation; in other instances, they ignore relevant empirical studies to an extent that is worrisome.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)370-376
Number of pages7
JournalPsychological Injury and Law
Volume11
Issue number4
Early online date8 Aug 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2018

Keywords

  • Biases
  • Dissociative symptoms
  • Expert witness testimony
  • Symptom validity

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Why “trauma-related dissociation” is a misnomer in courts: a critical analysis of Brand et al. (2017a, b)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this