| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this issue of Studies in Conflict & Terrorism Brym and Araj published a critique of the study of would-be suicide bombers that the present author carried out with colleagues. Brym and Araj's point of departure was their allegation that the article attributed the Palestinian suicide attacks mainly to depression and suicidality of the suicide bombers. Their critique was aimed at disputing this alleged attribution. For this end they criticized various aspects of the methodology used in the study and described their own study which, in their view, challenges the author's findings. In this response article the author shows that Brym and Araj's critique is based on false allegations, cannibalized quotes, and distorted interpretation of the published descriptions of the study. Their methodological criticism alleging biased psychological assessment is invalid because it ignores the use of a control group and a "blind" reliability check of the diagnoses. Brym and Araj's own study suffers from serious methodological problems: venturing a psychological assessment on the basis of a brief interview with family members, conducted and analyzed by persons unqualified for making clinical psychological diagnoses, without using a standard battery of psychological tests. Brym and Araj did not use a control group and a "blind" reliability check of their diagnoses.
|