Growing Not Dwindling: Worldwide Phenomenon of Dissociative Disorders, Disinformation About Dissociation Dr Joel Paris’s Notions About Dissociative Identity Disorder

[news reporter]

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease &
Volume 201, Number 4, April 2013 www.jonmd.com p. 353 - 358

Growing Not Dwindling: Worldwide Phenomenon of Dissociative Disorders

To the Editor:

In the December 2012 issue of the Journal, Joel Paris, MD, wrote an
article about the
current status of dissociative identity disorder (DID) and the
dissociative disorder field in
general. He suggests that DID is merely a ‘‘fad’’ and that there is no
credible evidence
to connect traumatic experiences with the development of DID. We
refute several of the claims made by Dr Paris.

Our biggest concern as non-North American researchers is that Dr Paris
does not reference a single international study related to
dissociative disorders and DID, despite the considerable and
increasing empirical literature from around the world. His speculation
that DID is not diagnosed outside clinics that specialize in treating
dissociation is not consistent with current data. DID and dissociative
disorders have been reliably found in general psychiatric hospitals;
psychiatric emergency departments; and private practices in countries
including England, the Netherlands, Turkey, Puerto Rico, Northern
Ireland, Germany, Finland, China, and Australia, among many others
(e.g., Dorahy et al., 2006; Leonard et al., 2005; Lewis-Ferna´ndez
et al., 2007; Lipsanen et al., 2004; Marti´nez-Taboas, 2005; Marti´nez-
Taboas et al., 1995, 2006; Middleton and Butler, 1998; Rodewald et
al., 2011; Sar, 2006; Sar et al., 2007b, 1996; Tutkun et al., 1998).

Much of the international research, using sophisticated
epidemiological and clinical research methods, has replicated dozens
of times the finding that dissociative processes and disorders
(including DID) can be reliably detected in a wide spectrum of
different societies. Epidemiological general population studies
indicate that 1.1% to 1.5% meet diagnostic criteria for DID; and 8.6%
to 18.3%, for any DSM-IV dissociative disorder (Johnson et al., 2006;
Sar et al., 2007a). The international literature on DID and
dissociative disorders has been widely published in mainstream
journals of psychiatry and psychopathology and is inconsistent with Dr
Paris’s conclusions....

Dr Paris also opines that there is only a ‘‘weak link’’ between child
abuse and psychopathology, quoting an article published 17 years ago.
Current research illustrates a very different picture. Persons with
early abusive experiences demonstrate increased illnesses (Green and
Kimerling, 2004), impaired work functioning (Lee and Tolman, 2006),
serious interpersonal difficulties (Van der Kolk and d’Andrea, 2010),
and a high risk for traumatic revictimization (Rich et al., 2004). The
Adverse Childhood Experiences Study, an American epidemiological
study, has provided retrospective and prospective data from more than
17,000 individuals on the effects of traumatic experiences during the
first 18 years of life.

This large study demonstrated the enduring, strongly proportionate,
and frequently profound relationship between adverse childhood
experiences and emotional states, health risks, disease burdens,
sexual behavior, disability, and health care costs, even decades later
(Felitti and Anda, 2010). Specifically, child sexual abuse (CSA)
has been related in various epidemiological studies to the subsequent
onset of a variety of psychiatric disorders....

In conclusion, Dr Paris’s assessment of the supposedly dwindling fad
of DID and dissociative disorders is not in keeping with current peer-
reviewed international research. The dissociative disorder field has
been producing solid and consistent evidence that provides guidance to
clinicians and researchers about the epidemiology, phenomenology,
diagnosis, and treatment of DID (and closely related conditions).


Alfonso Marti´nez-Taboas, PhD
Department of Psychology
Carlos Albizu University
San Juan, Puerto Rico

Martin Dorahy, PhD
Department of Psychology
University of Canterbury
Christchurch, New Zealand

Vedat Sar, MD
Department of Psychiatry
Istanbul University
Istanbul, Turkey
Warwick Middleton, MD
Department of Psychiatry
University of Queensland
St Lucia, Australia

Christa Kru¨ger, MD
Department of Psychiatry
University of Pretoria
Pretoria, South Africa


Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease:
April 2013 - Volume 201 - Issue 4 - p 353–354
doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e318288d27f
Letters to the Editor

http://journals.lww.com/jonmd/Citation/2013/04000/Growing_Not_Dwindling__International_Research_on.15.aspx


Disinformation About Dissociation Dr Joel Paris’s Notions About
Dissociative Identity Disorder

To the Editor:

We write to record our objections to both the form and the content of
Dr Joel Paris’s recent article entitled The Rise and Fall of
Dissociative Identity Disorder (Paris, 2012). His claim that
dissociative identity disorder (DID) is a ‘‘medical fad’’ is simply
wrong, and he provides no substantive evidence to support his claim.
From the mistaken identification of Pierre Janet as a psychiatrist in
the first line (Janet was the most famous psychologist of his day), it
is replete with errors, false claims, and lack of scholarship and just
plainly ignores the published literature. Dr Paris provided a highly
biased article that is based on opinion rather than on science. His
review of the literature is extremely selective. Of 48 references, Dr
Paris cites exactly 7 peer-reviewed articles published from 2000
onward (7/48 references equals 14%) and only
8 peer-reviewed, data-driven articles from before 2000 (8/48 equals
16%). Rather than relying on the recent peer-reviewed, scientific
literature, Paris relied almost entirely on the non-peer-reviewed
books, including a popular press book written by a journalist whose
methods and conclusions have been strongly challenged.

He claims that interest and research in DID have waned, yet he fails
to cite the multitude of studies that have been conducted about it. In
fact, Dalenberg et al. (2007) documented evidence of the exact
opposite pattern described by Paris: ‘‘A search of the PILOTS database
offered by the National Center for Posttraumatic
Stress Disorder for articles on dissociation reveals 64 studies in
1985Y1989, 236 published in 1990Y1994, 426 published in 1995Y1999 and
477 in the last 5-year block (2000Y2004)’’ (p. 401)....

In addition, he fails to cite a variety of neurobiological and
psychophysiological studies of DID documenting similar brain
morphology abnormalities in patients with DID to those of other
traumatized patients (Reinders et al., 2006; Vermetten et al., 2006).
Despite failing to review this and other relevant research, Dr Paris
made the claim that ‘‘Neither the theory behind the diagnosis nor the
methods of treatment are consistent
with the current preference for biological theories’’ (p. 1078).
Furthermore, he fails to cite any research that has been done by
researchers outside North America. For example, Vedat Sar, MD, in
Turkey has published more than 70 articles and chapters on
dissociative disorders and trauma (http://vedatsar.com/ index_2.htm),
but Dr Paris failed to mention a single one....

A recent review in Psychological Bulletin by 2012) found strong
support for the etiological relationship of trauma and dissociation.
These included several large meta-analyses, some of which focused on
patients with DID. Dalenberg et al. (2012) found an effect size of r =
0.52 and 0.54 for the relationship between childhood physical abuse
and sexual abuse, respectively, in studies that compared individuals
with dissociative disorders with those without dissociative disorders.
In addition, Dalenberg et al. (2012) tested eight different
predictions of the trauma versus the fantasy (sociocognitive/
iatrogenic) model of dissociation. On each, careful of reviews of the
literature, including meta-analyses, on memory, suggestibility, and
neurobiology, among others, Dalenberg et al. (2012) found minimal
scientific evidence to support the fantasy model. Further, reviews
have shown that there are no research studies in the literature in any
population studied to support the iatrogenic/sociocognitive etiology
of DID promulgated by Dr Paris (Brown et al., 1999; Loewenstein,
2007)....

In summary, disagreement is healthy for our field. However, Dr Paris’s
article does not provide scholarly criticism based upon peer reviewed
research, scientific data, or accurate discussion of the history of
psychiatry. His point of view is incorrect and outmoded. It is the so-
called false-memory, iatrogenesis model of the dissociative disorders
that is the fallen fad, buried under the weight of rigorous data that
contradict it. Dissociative disorders have not risen and fallen. These
existed before the fields of psychiatry and psychology did. These are,
alas, here to stay but are amenable to better understanding and
improved treatments.


Bethany Brand, PhD
Department of Psychology
Towson University, MD

Richard J. Loewenstein, MD
The Trauma Disorders Program
Sheppard Pratt Health System
Baltimore, MD
Department of Psychiatry
University of Maryland School of Medicine
Baltimore

David Spiegel, MD
Department of Psychiatry
and Behavioral Sciences
Stanford University School of Medicine
CA


Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease:
April 2013 - Volume 201 - Issue 4 - p 354–356
doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e318288d2ee
Letters to the Editor

http://journals.lww.com/jonmd/Citation/2013/04000/Disinformation_About_Dissociation__Dr_Joel_Paris_s.16.aspx