Paulley J W
Ipswich Hospitals, UK.
Psychother Psychosom. 1991;55(1):42-6. doi: 10.1159/000288406.
Typicality is probably a better representation of Alexander, Dunbar and others' conclusions than specificity, which was always too absolute a term. As such it became a valid cause of objection by opponents. No genuine attempts to repeat the original studies have been made and most of the original opposition to the concept is now acknowledged as invalid. Typicality (specificity) in psychosomatic disorders appears to be conferred by coping mechanisms acquired through interaction with mother and early surrogates in infancy and childhood as a means of reducing tensions and restoration of homeostatic emotional equilibrium. Psychosomatic medicine patients share one such mechanism, notably superstability/alexythymia, but contained within it are coping mechanisms typical for differing disorders. Examples are listed, and also mention of typicality of recurrently provocative life events/situations. Until typicality is appreciated, taught, learned and practised, success in management of psychosomatic disorders will be limited. The current bio-psycho-social approach is too imprecise.
与特异性相比，典型性可能更能代表亚历山大、邓巴等人的结论，因为特异性这个术语总是过于绝对。因此，它成为了反对者提出有效异议的一个原因。目前尚未有人真正尝试重复最初的研究，并且现在大多数对该概念的最初反对意见都被认为是无效的。心身疾病中的典型性（特异性）似乎是通过在婴儿期和童年期与母亲及早期替代者互动而获得的应对机制赋予的，这些机制是减轻紧张和恢复内稳态情绪平衡的一种方式。心身医学患者共享一种这样的机制，特别是超稳定性/述情障碍，但其中包含不同疾病所特有的应对机制。文中列出了一些例子，还提到了反复引发问题的生活事件/情况的典型性。在典型性得到理解、传授、学习和实践之前，心身疾病管理的成功将是有限的。当前的生物 - 心理 - 社会方法过于不精确。
