Lynn Steven Jay, Polizzi Craig, Merckelbach Harald, Chiu Chui-De, Maxwell Reed, van Heugten Dalena, Lilienfeld Scott O
Psychology Department, Binghamton University, Binghamton, New York, USA; email:
Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2022 May 9;18:259-289. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-102424. Epub 2022 Feb 28.
For more than 30 years, the posttraumatic model (PTM) and the sociocognitive model (SCM) of dissociation have vied for attention and empirical support. We contend that neither perspective provides a satisfactory account and that dissociation and dissociative disorders (e.g., depersonalization/derealization disorder, dissociative identity disorder) can be understood as failures of normally adaptive systems and functions. We argue for a more encompassing transdiagnostic and transtheoretical perspective that considers potentially interactive variables including sleep disturbances; impaired self-regulation and inhibition of negative cognitions and affects; hyperassociation and set shifts; and deficits in reality testing, source attributions, and metacognition. We present an overview of the field of dissociation, delineate uncontested and converging claims across perspectives, summarize key multivariable studies in support of our framework, and identifyempirical pathways for future research to advance our understanding of dissociation, including studies of highly adverse events and dissociation.
三十多年来，解离的创伤后模型（PTM）和社会认知模型（SCM）一直在争夺关注和实证支持。我们认为，这两种观点都不能提供令人满意的解释，解离和解离性障碍（如人格解体/现实解体障碍、分离性身份障碍）可被理解为正常适应系统和功能的失败。我们主张一种更具包容性的跨诊断和跨理论视角，该视角考虑潜在的交互变量，包括睡眠障碍；自我调节受损以及对负面认知和情绪的抑制；过度联想和定势转移；以及现实检验、来源归因和元认知方面的缺陷。我们概述了解离领域，阐述了各观点间无争议且趋同的主张，总结了支持我们框架的关键多变量研究，并确定了未来研究的实证途径，以推进我们对解离的理解，包括对高度不良事件和解离的研究。
