According to Liotti, a related possibility is that individuals suffering from DID have a disorganized attachment style because
they were exposed as young children to the frightening and chaotic behaviour of their caregiver.
Controversies in the diagnosis of DID:
Compared with the American sample, the Canadian respondents were significantly more susceptible about the scientific
validity and diagnostic legitimacy of DID. There were no significant differences between the views of English-speaking and
psychoanalytically oriented psychiatrists were significantly more accepting of the validity of DID than were biologically
re-emergence of the DID diagnosis in the past thirty years can be linked to:
In DSM-III, the diagnostic criteria for DID were spelled out clearly for the first time.
Could be that clinicians has always seen a similar number of cases but chose to report them only when interest in DID
Cases of DID may have mistakenly been diagnosed as cases of schizophrenia. However the symptoms of the two
disorders are actually not very similar.
ETIOLOGY OF DISSOCIATIVE DISORDERS:
There are two major theories of DID.
One assumes that DID begins in childhood as a result of severe physical or sexual abuse. The abuses causes dissociation and
the formation of alters as a way of escaping the trauma.
It is further proposed that a diathesis present among those who do develop DID. One idea is that eing high in hypnotisability
facilitates the development of alters through self-hypnosis. Another proposed diathesis is that people who develop DID are very
prone to engage in fantasy.
The other DID theory considers the disorder to be an enactment of learned social roles. The alters appear in adulthoo