From the "Diagnosis and Treatment of Multiple Personality Disorder," Frank W. Putnam (1989) On pages 29 - 31, he discusses the ascent of MPD between 1880-1920 "...there was a great flourishing of interest in multiple personality...a relatively large number of cases were reported... It was also a time of great international medical conferences...many of which devoted extensive time to sessions on dissociation." He also discusses Janet's case studies.
On pages 31 - 34, he discusses "The Decline of Interest in Multiple Personality Disorder: 1920 - 1970." "...it appears as if a number of factors were responsible for creating a widespread climate of disbelief and skepticism. The decline of interest in dissociation as a clinical and laboratory phenomenon,... paralleled the increasing suspicion of MPD and undoubtedly contributed to the outright rejection of the disorder in some circles..." He also discusses how public criticism may have cut the amount of cases reported. "Some critics...continued to hammer on the theme that multiple personality was an artifact of hypnosis." Rosenbaum (1980) "notes that the diagnosis of schizophrenia...caught on in the ...late 1920's and early 1930's....Beginning about 1927...there is a sharp increase in the number of reported cases of schizophrenia, matched by an equally dramatic decline in the number of multiple personality reports....Bleuler included multiple personality in his category of schizophrenia...The finding that MPD patients are often misdiagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia has been replicated several times (several 1980's studies). "
Pages 34 -36 discuss the re-emergence of MPD as a separate disorder. The re-emergence of Multiple Personality as a Separate Disorder: 1970 - Present
"During the 1970's, a foundation was laid upon which the current resurgence of interest in and knowledge of MPD rests. The dedication and hard work of a small number of clinicians, initially in an isolated and independent fashion but later with increasing cooperation and mutual support, re-established MPD as a legitimate clinical disorder."
from Brown, D., Frischholz, E., Scheflin, A. (1999). Iatrogenic dissociative identity - an evaluation of the scientific evidence. The journal of psychiatry and law. 27, 549-637. Historically by 1910, a believable view of DID began to decline, partly due to the increase in psychoanalysis and then behaviorism, and partly due to skeptical views toward hypnosis and the connection between hypnosis and hysteria. During the period of decline, Taylor and Martin reviewed 76 cases in the literature from the 1800's to the mid 1940's. They found that even though some multiple personalities may have been caused by suggestion, they concluded that multiple personality is a genuine phenomenon. This is because of the wide spread of these cases, because most of them had no information about other cases and because they had been judged as authentic sufferers of multiplicity by different observers. Sutcliffe and Jones believed the number of cases reported in the late 1800's was increased by misdiagnosis. They added that many of the cases of DID could not be simply dismissed as simply being incorrectly diagnosed. They also stated that though shaping has played a part in the development of multiple personality cases, it doesn't explain the nonexistence of these cases. Some cases manifested multiple behavior prior to therapy. They concluded that one should reject the idea that shaping in hypnosis may explain DID, but multiple behaviors can be shaped in those that already have DID.
Estabrooks worked with the experimental creation of personality states in the 1920's. He was trying to create hypnotically programmed couriers for certain intelligence agencies. The extent of his success of creating artificial DID for the military is unclear, since publication was not encouraged. The CIA however, formally conducted such experiments with Estabrooks consultation for some in the 1950's. He claims to have created unconscious couriers that were amnesic for specific information. None of his work describes a single case in any detail, nor do any of his writings show that he succeeded in creating DID.
Harriman extended Estabrooks work by inducing a profound hypnotic trance in good hypnotic subjects and then he suggested a role to produce automatic writing in a subject. The subject's arm and hand had been dissociated from the body by hypnotic suggestion. He claims the subjects were like different persons when they did the writing. Problems with Harriman's work include his repeated work with a small number of subjects, that he did not control for extraneous variables and that the secondary personality states he created were, for the most part, temporary states produced partially by the subject, which were used to explain dissociated experiences. He experimentally failed to meet the criteria of the DSM-IV-TR, where an alter personality must take executive control. His personalities produced ineffectual, poorly acted and complaint personalities limited to the demonstrations he made.
No comments:
Post a Comment