Related Experiment Videos
Scientific evidence versus outdated beliefs: A response to Brewin (2016)
David C Rubin1, Dorthe Berntsen2, Christin M Ogle1
1Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
|October 13, 2016
Summary
Critiques of trauma memory narratives and coherence measures lack scientific evidence. Brewin's (2014, 2016) theories on memory fragmentation are contradicted by available data and comprehensive reviews.
Area of Science:
- Psychology
- Cognitive Science
- Trauma Studies
Background:
- Brewin's (2016) commentary critiques measures of narrative, power, and coherence in trauma memory research.
- This commentary reiterates earlier views on trauma memory fragmentation (Brewin, 2014).
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the scientific merit of Brewin's critiques regarding trauma memory.
- To contextualize Brewin's commentary within the existing body of research on memory fragmentation.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of data presented in Rubin et al. (2016).
- Historical contextualization of Brewin's commentary.
- Evaluation of Brewin's earlier review (2014) and its cited studies.
- Comparison with comprehensive reviews and inclusion/exclusion criteria of cited studies.
Main Results:
- Brewin's critiques were found to be without merit.
- Brewin's suggestions for coherence measures are contradicted by readily available data.
- Brewin's views on memory fragmentation are unsupported by scientific evidence.
- Brewin's (2014) review omits studies contradicting his position, including those by the present authors.
Conclusions:
- Brewin's commentary does not withstand scientific scrutiny.
- Arguments attempting to support Brewin's position lack empirical data.
- The commentary neither advances scientific understanding nor clinical practice in trauma memory research.