Theories Of Dissociation

In recent years, there has been a growing interest amongst researchers and clinicians on developing working knowledge of dissociation (Bucci, 2011; Binks & Fergusson, 2013). Dissociation is a reaction to trauma and has been described as a typical defence mechanism to repeated stressful or traumatic situations (Brand, McClary, Myrick, Loewenstein, Classen, Lanius, McNary, Pain & Putnam, 2012a; Brand, Myrick, Loewenstein, Classen, Lanius, McNary, Pain & Putnam, 2012b). Severe isolated traumas or repeated traumas may result in a person developing a dissociative disorder. A dissociative disorder impairs the normal state of awareness and limits or alters one’s sense of identity, memory or consciousness. Recent research indicates that dissociative

These include emotional, physical or sexual abuse, natural disasters, political traumas, wars or bereavement (Brand et al, 2012a;2012b). There is contention about the aetiology of dissociative disorders. Whilst some researchers posit that it has its origin form unresolved long-term exposure to traumatic experiences (Bucci, 2011), some researchers take a social learning point of view, opining that the disorder is the result of clinicians who impose their views on patients ( ). (Bucci (2011), exploring the neuroscience of dissociation suggests that there are two forms of dissociation – primary and secondary dissociation. Primary dissociation occurs when the regulation of behavioural response to threat is disrupted so that the system remains in emergency mode with potentially damaging effect on bodily systems. He also suggests that in secondary dissociation, the direct physiological effects are less acute than in primary dissociation but the encoding of events is impaired because of their specific meanings (Bucci,

A narrative review of the literature therefore offers a means of exploring wider relevant literature in the field of dissociation. This allows for the broad findings from research to be explored.
4. Ethical Considerations
The authors have not needed ethical approval to carry out this study as only published data that were in public domain were used. However, certain ethical considerations have been adhered to. Wager and Wiffen (2011) identified some ethical considerations authors of literature reviews need to adhere to. Whilst their primary focus was on authors writing systematic review for Cochrane journals, the suggestions are applicable to all authors of any form of literature review. The six suggestions are as follows:
1. Guidance on authorship: The primary author of the current review is the first author. She has been guided and supported by her research supervisors. As they have contributed to the writing by offering suggestions and guidance on the study, their contribution has been acknowledged by identifying them as