| Web | https://www.psychologie.uni-wuerzburg.de/en/expklin/home/ |
| Google scholar | https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=9L2AQE4AAAAJ&hl=de |
| ORCID | https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9676-9038 |
Emotions are frequently considered as the driving force of behavior, and psychopathology is often characterized by aberrant emotional responding. Emotional states are reflected on a cognitive-verbal, physiological-humoral, and motor-behavioral level but to date,...
Aus aktuellem Anlass haben die Mitgliederorganisationen der Föderation Deutscher Psychologenvereinigungen (BDP / DGPs) einen Brief mit Stellungnahmen
Statement validity analyses are often applied in the German legal system when one person’s word is against another’s. On a case by case basis, these analyses enable investigation of whether a statement may have developed any way other than through first-hand experience. When the hypotheses that assume falsity are to be rejected, the only explanation that remains evident is that the statement originated from a first-hand experience. This methodological approach was also determined in a leading judgement of the German Federal Court (BGH); however, in politics and society, it is repeatedly discussed whether statement validity analysis must be complemented or even replaced by neurobiological findings on trauma. These considerations are critically discussed in the current article. Altogether, they do not appear to be justified: The findings of empirical trauma research do not oppose the methodological approach of statement validity analysis but, on the contrary, seamlessly fit into it. Moreover, from a scientific perspective, it appears erroneous that neurobiology and trauma research could be alternatives to the statement validity analysis. Nevertheless, well-founded criticism and suggestions for improvement of this methodology are proper and important.