Dissociation : the process of distress management in situational crisis

The following paper reviews the literature on the well established link between traumatic experience and dissociation (Doharty, Lewis, Miller, & Gee, 2003; Putnam, 1995) which has led to the development of theories suggesting dissociation serves a protective role against the enormity of the event. While this is a popular theory there is limited empirical evidence to support the premise. Some preliminary research has suggested that peritraumatic dissociation results in arousal reduction (Griffin, Resick & Mechanic, 1997, Williams, Haines & Sale, 2003) and corresponding reduction in distress (Williams et al., 2003). It is suggested that peritraumatic dissociation mediates distress management in situational crisis (Griffin et al., 1997; Williams et al., 2003, Diskin & Hodgins, 2001) rather than a more general propensity to dissociate as suggested by others (Butler, 1996). The current empirical study investigates this suggestion using a four stage guided imagery methodology. Psychological and psychophysiological responses to imagery of traumatic and stressful events were recorded for participants divided on the basis of (1) dissociative propensity and, (2) peritraumatic dissociation. No significant results were found when participants were divided on the basis of dissociative capacity suggesting that a tendency to experience dissociative capacity is not related to the use of a dissociative coping style in the face of stress or trauma. When differences between experiences of peritraumatic dissociation were considered, participants experiencing high levels of peritraumatic dissociation reported greater unreality levels throughout both traumatic and stressful events. There was no corresponding distress or arousal reduction. It is concluded that peritraumatic dissociation may be viewed as a more generalised stress response. More research is needed to investigate the dissociative stress response.