Inviting Scientific Discourse on Traumatic Dissociation: Progress Made and Obstacles to Further Resolution

This paper emerged from a five-part exchange on trauma-related dissociation in forensic contexts between the authors and Merckelbach and colleagues (2017–2019). We find important areas of consensus, including that trauma exposure is associated with depersonalization and, occasionally, memory errors; reports of dissociative symptoms may be elevated due to non-trauma factors; error rates for diagnosing dissociative identity disorder are low; and multiple sources of information are required for assessing any symptom, including dissociation, in forensic contexts. Our goals in this paper are to accurately summarize our evidence-based position about dissociation as it relates to forensic contexts and to call for more scientific discourse and less motivated skepticism by all involved scholars. We enumerate and demonstrate our critics’ reliance on eight forms of rhetoric that are largely rejected by the scientific community. We illustrate these forms of argument using Merckelbach et al.’s published responses in this lengthy debate as exemplars. Recognition of our critics’ reliance on these forms of argumentation is crucial to making further substantial progress in this debate. We argue that recovered memories of trauma should be evaluated in court using the same criteria that would be used with any other memory, including seeking out and evaluating corroborating and disconfirming evidence. We conclude by emphasizing the importance of comprehensive, unbiased assessments of dissociation in reported trauma-related forensic cases and suggest areas where research is needed.