What is the Source of Hypnotic Responses?

The author proposes that hypnosis is a culture-bound concept that has misattributed - to suggestion and hypnosis - the functioning of a natural, freestanding, human ability to alter personal experience. The 18th-century attribution of these phenomena (to the suggestions of a magnetizer) continues today because science and Western culture still do not explicitly acknowledge that humans possess a natural capacity to intentionally alter their own experiences. Like every other human ability (e.g. athletic, artistic, musical, mathematical, etc.), utilization of the natural human ability to intentionally alter one's personal experience does not require suggestion, trance, or hypnotic induction. This ability has been studied for over 200 years under the conceptual aegis of suggestibility and hypnosis. As a consequence, the phenomena of this freestanding ability have been veiled and conflated with hypnosis, suggestion, suggestibility, and hypnotizability. One serious consequence of this conflation is an underdeveloped, nomological network of hypnosis-centric concepts that has impeded the integration of hypnosis with the rest of science.

Hypnotizability and the Natural Human Ability to Alter Experience.

There seems to be a natural, human ability to alter one's experience that already exists - prior to and apart from any hypnotic induction. Individual differences in this ability range from low to high and are largely commensurate with the person's assessed hypnotizability. More importantly, these preexisting, individual differences in the ability to alter experience seem to be the "substrate" that enables each individual's response to hypnotic suggestions. It is proposed that, with some notable exceptions, the hypnosis field's understanding of hypnotizability has been hindered by theorists' (and clinicians') tendency to consider the instruments that reveal hypnotic phenomena (i.e., hypnosis and suggestions) to be explanatory concepts.

Reconsidering the autohypnotic model of the dissociative disorders.

The dissociative disorders field and the hypnosis field currently reject the autohypnotic model of the dissociative disorders, largely because many correlational studies have shown hypnotizability and dissociation to be minimally related (r = .12). Curiously, it is also widely accepted that dissociative patients are highly hypnotizable. If dissociative patients are highly hypnotizable because only highly hypnotizable individuals can develop a dissociative disorder - as the author proposes - then the methodology of correlational studies of hypnotizability and dissociation in random clinical and community samples would necessarily be constitutively unable to detect, and statistically unable to reflect, that fact. That is, the autohypnotic, dissociative distancing of that small subset of highly hypnotizable individuals who repeatedly encountered intolerable circumstances is statistically lost among the data of (1) the highly hypnotizable subjects who do not dissociate and (2) subjects (of all levels of hypnotizability) who manifest other kinds of dissociation. The author proposes that, when highly hypnotizable individuals repeatedly engage in autohypnotic distancing from intolerable circumstances, they develop an overlearned, highly-motivated, automatized pattern of dissociative self-protection (i.e., a dissociative disorder). The author urges that theorists of hypnosis and the dissociative disorders explicitly include in their theories (a) the trait of high hypnotizability, (b) the phenomena of autohypnosis, and (c) the manifestations of systematized, autohypnotic pathology. Said differently, the author is suggesting that autohypnosis and autohypnotic pathology are unacknowledged nodes in the nomothetic networks of both hypnosis and dissociation.

What is the Essence of Hypnosis?

The author explores the nature of hypnosis, which he characterizes as a motivated mode of neural functioning that enables most humans to alter, to varying degrees, their experience of body, self, actions, and world. The essence of hypnosis is not to be found in hetero-hypnosis; instead, it lies in the spontaneous self-activation of that mode of neural functioning. The hypnosis field has substantially lost sight of spontaneous self-activation, because the word hypnosis is usually used to mean hetero-hypnosis. Self-activation of this mode of neural functioning is the necessary sine qua non of hypnotic psychopathology. Moreover, self-activation of trance is the characteristic hypnotic behavior of a distinct subset of highly hypnotizable individuals.

Is high hypnotizability a necessary diathesis for pathological dissociation?

During the 19th century, high hypnotizability was considered to be a form of psychopathology that was inseparable from hysteria. Today, hypnotizability is considered to be a normal trait that has no meaningful relationship with psychopathology. Psychiatric patients generally manifest medium to low hypnotizability. Nevertheless, several psychiatric diagnoses are marked by an unexpectedly large proportion of patients with high hypnotizability. This is especially true of the diagnostic categories that were subsumed by the 19th-century concept of hysteria: dissociative identity disorder, somatization disorder, and complex conversion disorders. These hysteria-related modern diagnoses are also highly dissociative. A review and analysis of the literature regarding the relationship between hypnotizability and dissociation indicates that high hypnotizability is almost certainly a necessary diathesis for the development of a severe dissociative disorder. Such a diathesis has significant implications for (a) the psychiatric nosologies of the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization, (b) the hypnosis field, and (c) the etiology and construct validity of dissociative identity disorder and other severe dissociative disorders. Specifically, the dissociative disorders (excepting depersonalization disorder, which is not classified as a dissociative disorder by the World Health Organization) are manifestations of hypnotic pathology.

Comparing the symptoms and mechanisms of "dissociation" in dissociative identity disorder and borderline personality disorder.

A total of 75 patients were diagnosed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders-Revised as having dissociative identity disorder (DID), and 100 patients were diagnosed with the Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality as having borderline personality disorder (BPD). Both groups were administered the Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (MID). DID patients had significantly higher MID scores than BPD patients, different distributions of MID scores, and different MID subscale profiles in 3 ranges of MID scores (0-15, 15-30, 30-45). The core MID symptoms-exhibited at all ranges of MID scores-for DID patients (the presence of alters, identity confusion, and memory problems) and BPD patients (flashbacks, identity confusion, and memory problems) were ostensibly similar but were considered to be mostly produced by different underlying processes. Multiple regression analyses showed that the core MID symptoms of DID patients had different predictors than did the core MID symptoms of BPD patients. Alter identities seemed to generate most-but not all-dissociative phenomena in DID patients, whereas only the 24% highest scoring BPD patients (MID ≥45) seemed to manifest alter-driven dissociative experiences. Most BPD dissociative experiences appeared to be due to 5 other mechanisms: (a) BPD-specific, stress-driven, rapid shifts of self-state; (b and c) nondefensive disruptions of the framework of perceptual organization with or without an accompanying BPD-specific, dissociation-like disintegration of affective/neurocognitive functioning; (d) a defensive distancing or detachment from distress (i.e., simple depersonalization); and (e) Allen, Console, and Lewis's (1999) severe absorptive detachment.

Three dimensions of dissociative amnesia.

Principal axis factor analysis with promax rotation extracted 3 factors from the 42 memory and amnesia items of the Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (MID) database (N = 2,569): Discovering Dissociated Actions, Lapses of Recent Memory and Skills, and Gaps in Remote Memory. The 3 factors' shared variance ranged from 36% to 64%. Construed as scales, the 3 factor scales had Cronbach's alpha coefficients of .96, .94, and .93, respectively. The scales correlated strongly with mean Dissociative Experiences Scale scores, mean MID scores, and total scores on the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders-Revised (SCID-D-R). What is interesting is that the 3 amnesia factors exhibited a range of correlations with SCID-D-R Amnesia scores (.52, .63, and .70, respectively), suggesting that the SCID-D-R Amnesia score emphasizes gaps in remote memory over amnesias related to dissociative identity disorder. The 3 amnesia factor scales exhibited a clinically meaningful pattern of significant differences among dissociative identity disorder, dissociative disorder not otherwise specified-1, dissociative amnesia, depersonalization disorder, and nonclinical participants. The 3 amnesia factors may have greater clinical utility for frontline clinicians than (a) amnesia as discussed in the context of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, nosology of the dissociative disorders or (b) P. Janet's (1893/1977 ) 4-fold classification of dissociative amnesia. The author recommends systematic study of the phenomenological differences within specific dissociative symptoms and their differential relationship to specific dissociative disorders.

Dissociation and psychosis in dissociative identity disorder and schizophrenia.

Dissociative symptoms, first-rank symptoms of schizophrenia, and delusions were assessed in 40 schizophrenia patients and 40 dissociative identity disorder (DID) patients with the Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (MID). Schizophrenia patients were diagnosed with the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-IV Axis I Disorders; DID patients were diagnosed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders-Revised. DID patients obtained significantly (a) higher dissociation scores; (b) higher passive-influence scores (first-rank symptoms); and (c) higher scores on scales that measure child voices, angry voices, persecutory voices, voices arguing, and voices commenting. Schizophrenia patients obtained significantly higher delusion scores than did DID patients. What is odd is that the dissociation scores of schizophrenia patients were unrelated to their reports of childhood maltreatment. Multiple regression analyses indicated that 81% of the variance in DID patients' dissociation scores was predicted by the MID's Ego-Alien Experiences Scale, whereas 92% of the variance in schizophrenia patients' dissociation scores was predicted by the MID's Voices Scale. We propose that schizophrenia patients' responses to the MID do not index the same pathology as do the responses of DID patients. We argue that neither phenomenological definitions of dissociation nor the current generation of dissociation instruments (which are uniformly phenomenological in nature) can distinguish between the dissociative phenomena of DID and what we suspect are just the dissociation-like phenomena of schizophrenia.

Dissociative disorders in DSM-5.

BACKGROUND: We present recommendations for revision of the diagnostic criteria for the Dissociative Disorders (DDs) for DSM-5. The periodic revision of the DSM provides an opportunity to revisit the assumptions underlying specific diagnoses and the empirical support, or lack of it, for the defining diagnostic criteria. METHODS: This paper reviews clinical, phenomenological, epidemiological, cultural, and neurobiological data related to the DDs in order to generate an up-to-date, evidence-based set of DD diagnoses and diagnostic criteria for DSM-5. First, we review the definitions of dissociation and the differences between the definitions of dissociation and conceptualization of DDs in the DSM-IV-TR and the ICD-10, respectively. Also, we review more general conceptual issues in defining dissociation and dissociative disorders. Based on this review, we propose a revised definition of dissociation for DSM-5 and discuss the implications of this definition for understanding dissociative symptoms and disorders. RESULTS: We make the following recommendations for DSM-5: 1. Depersonalization Disorder (DPD) should include derealization symptoms as well. 2. Dissociative Fugue should become a subtype of Dissociative Amnesia (DA). 3. The diagnostic criteria for DID should be changed to emphasize the disruptive nature of the dissociation and amnesia for everyday as well as traumatic events. The experience of possession should be included in the definition of identity disruption. 4. Dissociative Trance Disorder should be included in the Unspecified Dissociative Disorder (UDD) category. CONCLUSIONS: There is a growing body of evidence linking the dissociative disorders to a trauma history, and to specific neural mechanisms.

Dissociative disorders in DSM-5.

BACKGROUND: We present recommendations for revision of the diagnostic criteria for the Dissociative Disorders (DDs) for DSM-5. The periodic revision of the DSM provides an opportunity to revisit the assumptions underlying specific diagnoses and the empirical support, or lack of it, for the defining diagnostic criteria. METHODS: This paper reviews clinical, phenomenological, epidemiological, cultural, and neurobiological data related to the DDs in order to generate an up-to-date, evidence-based set of DD diagnoses and diagnostic criteria for DSM-5. First, we review the definitions of dissociation and the differences between the definitions of dissociation and conceptualization of DDs in the DSM-IV-TR and the ICD-10, respectively. Also, we review more general conceptual issues in defining dissociation and dissociative disorders. Based on this review, we propose a revised definition of dissociation for DSM-5 and discuss the implications of this definition for understanding dissociative symptoms and disorders. RESULTS: We make the following recommendations for DSM-5: 1. Depersonalization Disorder (DPD) should derealization symptoms as well. 2. Dissociative Fugue should become a subtype of Dissociative Amnesia (DA). 3. The diagnostic criteria for DID should be changed to emphasize the disruptive nature of the dissociation and amnesia for everyday as well as traumatic events. The experience of possession should be included in the definition of identity disruption. 4. Should Dissociative Trance Disorder should be included in the Unspecified Dissociative Disorder (UDD) category. CONCLUSIONS: There is a growing body of evidence linking the dissociative disorders to a trauma history, and to specific neural mechanisms.

Are major dissociative disorders characterized by a qualitatively different kind of dissociation?

A total of 66 patients with a major dissociative disorder, 54 patients with nondissociative disorders, and 30 nonclinical controls were administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders-Revised, the Dissociative Experiences Scale, the Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation, and the Symptom Checklist 90-Revised. Dissociative patients reported significantly more dissociative and nondissociative symptoms than did nondissociative patients and nonclinical controls. When general psychopathology was controlled, the dissociation scores of dissociative patients were still significantly higher than those of both other groups, whereas the dissociation scores of nondissociative patients and nonclinical controls no longer differed. These findings appear to be congruent with a typological model of dissociation that distinguishes between 2 qualitatively different kinds of dissociation. Specifically, the results of this study suggest that the dissociation that occurs in major dissociative disorders (i.e., dissociative identity disorder [DID] and dissociative disorder not otherwise specified, Type 1 [DDNOS-1]) is qualitatively different from the dissociation that occurs in persons who do not have a dissociative disorder. In contrast to previous research, the dissociation of persons who do not have a dissociative disorder is not limited to absorption; it covers a much wider range of phenomena. The authors hypothesize that different mechanisms produce the dissociation of persons with DID and DDNOS-1 as opposed to the dissociation of persons who do not have a dissociative disorder.

Involuntariness in hypnotic responding and dissociative symptoms.

Clark Hull's (1933) research on dissociation was based on a 'straw man' formulation of dissociation; he claimed that dissociation requires noninterference. Hull completely ignored the then-current paradigm of dissociation--dissociation as automatism--and claimed that he had refuted the validity of the phenomenon of dissociation. Hull's view of dissociation held sway in the hypnosis field for 60 years. This essay seeks to retrieve the Janetian paradigm of dissociation as automatism. Automatisms are unexpected, uninitiated, involuntary behaviors that just 'happen.' The author argues that human sensitivity to the experience of involuntariness (a) is quite important, (b) was selected by evolution, and (c) is central to both hypnotic responses and dissociative symptoms. This editorial urges the hypnosis field and the dissociation field to jointly undertake a renewed investigation of the experience of involuntariness and to follow recent neuroimaging studies which indicate that the parietal cortex underlies the experience of involuntariness.

Dissociation in borderline personality disorder: a detailed look.

The objective of the present study was to assess in detail the whole spectrum of normal and pathological dissociative experiences and dissociative disorder (DD) diagnoses in borderline personality disorder (BPD) as diagnosed with the Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines. Dissociation was measured comprehensively in 21 BPD outpatients using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Dissociative Disorders-Revised, the Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (MID), the Dissociative Experiences Scale pathological taxon analysis, and the Somatoform Dissociation Questionnaire. The frequencies of DDs in this BPD sample were as follows: 24% no DD, 29% mild DD (dissociative amnesia and depersonalization disorder), 24% DD Not Otherwise Specified (DDNOS), and 24% dissociative identity disorder. With regard to the dissociative experiences endorsed, almost all patients reported identity confusion, unexplained mood changes, and depersonalization. Even those BPD patients with mild DD reported derealization, depersonalization, and dissociative amnesia. BPD patients with DDNOS reported frequent depersonalization, frequent amnesia, and notable experiences of identity alteration. BPD patients with dissociative identity disorder endorsed severe dissociative symptoms in all categories. Analysis of the MID pathological dissociation items revealed that 32% of the items were endorsed at a clinically significant level of frequency by more than 50% of our BPD patients. In conclusion, the frequencies of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) DDs in these patients with BPD were surprisingly high. Likewise, the "average" BPD patient endorsed a wide variety of recurrent pathological dissociative symptoms.

Dissociation and borderline personality disorder: an update for clinicians.

Dissociation occurs in about two thirds of people with borderline personality disorder (BPD) but is still not well understood by clinicians. In the past decade, however, research has used new measures of dissociation that provide some of the detail that clinicians need to understand and treat the dissociative symptoms of patients with BPD. In particular, this review examines BPD's comorbidity with the dissociative disorders, the neurobiology of dissociation in BPD, the role of trauma and disorganized attachment in the etiology of dissociation in BPD, and the clinical assessment and treatment of dissociation in BPD.

Estimating the prevalence of borderline personality disorder in psychiatric outpatients using a two-phase procedure.

The prevalence of borderline personality disorder (BPD) in outpatient clinics varies greatly (7%-27%) depending on the setting and methodology. We examined the cross-sectional rate of BPD in a general adult outpatient university clinic using a 2-phase procedure: (1) we screened all registered patients with the self-report SCID-II-PQ and (2) we administered the Revised Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines (DIB-R). Sixty-six percent (239/360) of the clinic patients completed the screening: About 72.4% (173/239) (95% confidence interval [CI] = 66.7%, 78.1%) were positive for BPD on the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders-Patient Questionnaire (SCID-II-PQ), and 22.6% (54/239) (95% CI = 17.3%, 27.9%) were positive for BPD on the DIB-R. Our BPD rate was somewhat higher than recent semistructured interview studies (9%-18%). We believe this is due, in part, to our cross-sectional design and our decision not to exclude acute Axis I disorders. Mostly, however, we believe that our 22.6% incidence of BPD arises from the high morbidity of our sample. Demographic data from 130 of 131 DIB-R completers reveal the following: mean age was 40.2 years, 75.4% were female, most patients were unable to work, and they averaged 3.8 lifetime hospitalizations.

The multidimensional inventory of dissociation (MID): A comprehensive measure of pathological dissociation.

This article describes the development and validation of the Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (MID). The MID is a 218-item, self-administered, multiscale instrument that comprehensively assesses the phenomenological domain of pathological dissociation and diagnoses the dissociative disorders. The MID measures 14 major facets of pathological dissociation; it has 23 dissociation diagnostic scales that simultaneously operationalize (1) the subjective/ phenomenological domain of pathological dissociation and (2) the hypothesized dissociative symptoms of dissociative identity disorder (Dell, 2001a). The MID was designed for clinical research and for diagnostic assessment of patients who present with a mixture of dissociative, posttraumatic, and borderline symptoms. The MID demonstrated internal reliability, temporal stability, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and construct validity. The MID also exhibited incremental validity over the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES) by predicting an additional 18% of the variance in weighted abuse scores on the Traumatic Experiences Questionnaire (TEQ). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) did not support a one-factor model of the MID's clinical scales (i.e., the 14 facets and the 23 diagnostic symptoms). In contrast, however, CFA of the MID's factor scales (Dell & Lawson, 2005) has strongly supported a one-factor model. It was concluded that both the MID's 168 dissociation items and the construct of pathological dissociation have a second-order, unifactorial structure.

Development of the Hebrew-Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (H-MID): a valid and reliable measure of pathological dissociation.

The Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation (MID; Dell, 2004b) has 168 dissociation items and 50 validity items. The MID assesses 14 major facets of dissociation, 23 symptoms of dissociation, and has 5 validity scales. The MID operationalizes (a) the subjective/ phenomenological domain of dissociation, and (b) 23 hypothesized symptoms of dissociative identity disorder (DID). This article describes the development of a Hebrew version of the MID (H-MID). In a sample of clinical and nonclinical research participants, the H-MID had strong internal consistency, temporal stability, and strong structural, convergent, discriminant, and construct validity. In addition, mean H-MID scores demonstrated incremental validity over the Hebrew Dissociative Experiences Scale (H-DES) by predicting an additional 17% of the variance in weighted trauma scores on the Traumatic Experiences Questionnaire (TEQ). Factor analysis of the H-MID extracted a single factor: dissociation. Both the MID and the subjective/phenomenological concept of pathological dissociation appear to have applicability not only in North America, but also in a heterogeneous Middle Eastern culture.