Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Oberschleißheim, Germany.
Department for Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy, and Experimental Psychopathology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Environ Health. 2020 Nov 25;19(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s12940-020-00652-4.
We highly welcome and appreciate the paper of Dieudonné, 2020 ( https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-020-00602-0 ) on the important but frequently neglected topic of hypersensitivity towards electromagnetic fields (EHS). We agree with the author that the electromagnetic hypothesis (that EHS is caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields) appears scientifically largely unfounded and that other theoretical approaches focussing on psychological processes are more plausible and promising. In the view of the author, two such approaches exist, namely a "cognitive hypothesis" (derived from the comprehensive model by Van den Bergh et al., 2017) and an "attributive hypothesis" as suggested by the author. In this commentary, we want to argue (a) that the distinction between the cognitive and the attributive hypothesis is inaccurate at the conceptual level; (b) that the distinction is also misleading at the mechanistic level, due to an incorrect interpretation of the evidence related to the cognitive hypothesis; and (c) that, by using the term "cognitive hypothesis", the existing comprehensive model is inappropriately narrowed down without fully appreciating its explanatory power for the phenomena subsumed under both the cognitive and attributive hypothesis. Therefore, the original term "comprehensive model" should be used rather than the label "cognitive hypothesis".
我们非常欢迎并赞赏迪厄多内(Dieudonné)2020 年的论文(https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-020-00602-0),该论文涉及一个重要但经常被忽视的话题,即对电磁场的超敏反应(EHS)。我们同意作者的观点,即电磁场假说(EHS 是由暴露于电磁场引起的)在科学上基本上没有依据,而其他关注心理过程的理论方法更合理且更有希望。在作者看来,有两种这样的方法,即“认知假说”(源自范登伯格等人的综合模型,2017 年)和作者提出的“归因假说”。在本评论中,我们想论证:(a)认知假说和归因假说之间的区别在概念层面上并不准确;(b)由于对与认知假说相关的证据的错误解释,这种区别在机制层面上也是具有误导性的;(c)通过使用“认知假说”一词,该现有综合模型被不恰当地缩小了,而没有充分认识到其对包含在认知和归因假说下的现象的解释力。因此,应该使用原始术语“综合模型”,而不是“认知假说”的标签。