Statement validity analysis—a narrowed perspective?

Abstract

This article addresses the criticism that statement validity analysis has failed to take account of current neurobiological research showing that traumatization impairs memory, which in turn results in low statement content quality. As a result, it is claimed that the statements of repeatedly traumatized persons have been falsely negatively evaluated, thereby increasing the suffering of victims. Moreover, the performance of statement validity assessments outside of criminal proceedings is also criticized. The article points out that the results of studies on changes in brain structure due to traumatization are not as straightforward as claimed. Moreover, they cannot be used to make direct conclusions on memory performance for an event in question, because simple relationships between structure and function do not seem to adequately account for the complexity of neuronal representations of mental processes. Studies focusing on memory performance suggest that memory for traumatic experiences is generally particularly long-lasting; however, peripheral information may be retained less well for traumatic compared to other experiences. Independent from any possible traumatization, research shows that when recalling one event within a series of similar events, people will recall fewer details than they would for one distinct event. Correctly and professionally performed statement validity assessments take account of any potential memory impairments that could influence a statement relating to a real event. Vice versa, however, statement validity assessments also have to check whether conditions were present that could have favored a false memory. This is done by reconstructing how the statement came about and evolved. Older research has shown that victims can vary greatly in how they experience statement validity assessments and that this largely depends on the outcome of the assessment. In principle, statement validity assessment can take account of how levels of proof vary in different legal contexts; however, this does not affect the methodological principle of systematically testing alternative hypotheses.