Postscript: Evidence and Counterevidence

Autor/inn/en	Berntsen, Dorthe; Rubin, David C.; Bohni, Malene Klindt
Titel	Postscript: Evidence and Counterevidence
Quelle	In: Psychological Review, 115 (2008) 4, S.1106-1107 (2 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0033-295X
Schlagwörter	Stellungnahme; Causal Models; Posttraumatic Stress Disorder; Mental Disorders; Identification; Memory; Mnemonics; Epistemology; Teaching Methods; Theories; Literary Criticism; Psychological Studies + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Kausalanalyse; Mental illness; Geisteskrankheit; Identifikation; Identifizierung; Gedächtnis; Mnemotechnik; Erkenntnistheorie; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Theory; Theorie; Literaturkritik
Abstract	We welcome the chance to respond to the five main critiques in Monroe and Mineka's postscript to their comment. First, they claimed in their postscript that they never denied that the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (4th ed., text rev. [DSM-IV-TR]; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis implies a causal model. Thus, our careful demonstration that it does was "entirely irrelevant" (Monroe & Mineka, 2008, p. 1096). However, in their comment, Monroe and Mineka clearly rejected the DSM-IV-TR PTSD diagnosis as a causal model. Second, Monroe and Mineka (2008) faulted us for reviewing only what they considered to be an outdated cognitive theory of PTSD. However, we spent 12 paragraphs reviewing current cognitive theories in our reply. Third, Monroe and Mineka (2008) repeated their objections to two studies we cited as evidence that a pharmacologically reduced trauma memory can reduce PTSD. Fourth, their postscript was still concerned that arousal and avoidance symptoms are equal in traumatic brain injury (TBI) and non-TBI groups even though we gave concrete arguments that the TBI group should be higher if there were no memory effects. Fifth, Monroe and Mineka (2008, p. 1098) claimed we "deflected attention from questions about the mnemonic model" by not giving a "more respectful" treatment of the questions they raised about causality. We did not mean to show disrespect, but their distinction between cause and maintenance is not helpful in our view because we see no objective way to separate these phases in time. Thus, Monroe and Mineka's comment and postscript focused on how we presented our model: points about what model we used for comparison, whether the comparison was to a causal model, and how strong evidence had to be to be included. We do not deny that our model has limitations. No scientific theory is complete and correct; aspects of the mnemonic model are likely to be shown to be wrong. However, we believe that a clear, testable exposition is preferred to one with limitations and hedges impeding its falsification. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org/publications
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10