ANPs, EPs, DID and tertiary dissociation

As I said SD is one of the 3 models accepted by the ISSTD. If you read the summary in BLUE at the bottom of this page, by the ISSTD, you will see the important things are the same in all 3 models accepted by the ISSTD.

Here is exactly what the ISSTD 2011 Review says, which is the link that I had previously provided:
Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 12:115–187, 2011
Copyright© International Society for the Study
of Trauma and Dissociation
ISSN: 1529-9732 print/1529-9740 online
DOI: 10.1080/15299732.2011.537247
http://www.isst-d.org/default.asp?contentID=49

MODEL I - DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL
"Briefly, many experts propose a developmental model and hypothesize that alternate identities result from the inability of many traumatized children to develop a unified sense of self that is maintained across various behavioral states, particularly if the traumatic exposure first occurs before the age of 5. These difficulties often occur in the context of relational or attachment disruption that may precede and set the stage for abuse and the development of dissociative coping (Barach, 1991; Liotti, 1992, 1999). Freyd’s theory of betrayal trauma posits that disturbed caregiver–child attachments and parenting further disrupt the child’s ability to integrate experiences (Freyd, 1996; Freyd, DePrince, & Zurbriggen, 2001).

Fragmentation and encapsulation of traumatic experiences may serve to protect relationships with important (though inadequate or abusive) caregivers and allow for more normal maturation in other developmental areas, such as intellectual, interpersonal, and artistic endeavors. In this way, early life dissociation may serve as a type of developmental resiliency factor despite the severe psychiatric disturbances that characterize DID patients (Brand, Armstrong, Loewenstein, & McNary, 2009).

Severe and prolonged traumatic experiences can lead to the development of discrete, personified behavioral states (i.e., rudimentary alternate identities) in the child, which has the effect of encapsulating intolerable traumatic memories, affects, sensations, beliefs, or behaviors and mitigating their effects on the child’s overall development.

Secondary structuring of these discrete behavioral states occurs over time through a variety of developmental and symbolic mechanisms, resulting in the characteristics of the specific alternate identities. The identities may develop in number, complexity, and sense of separateness as the child proceeds through latency, adolescence, and adulthood (R. P. Kluft, 1984; Putnam, 1997). DID develops during the course of childhood, and clinicians have rarely encountered cases of DID
that derive from adult-onset trauma (unless it is superimposed on preexisting childhood trauma and preexisting latent or dormant fragmentation).


MODEL II - 4 FACTOR MODEL
Another etiological model posits that the development of DID requires the presence of four factors: (a) the capacity for dissociation; (b) experiences that overwhelm the child’s nondissociative coping capacity; (c) secondary structuring of DID alternate identities with individualized characteristics
such as names, ages, genders; and (d) a lack of soothing and restorative experiences, which renders the child isolated or abandoned and needing to find his or her own ways of moderating distress (R. P. Kluft,

1984). The secondary structuring of the alternate identities may differ widely from patient to patient. Factors that may foster the development of highly elaborate systems of identities are multiple traumas, multiple perpetrators, significant narcissistic investment in the nature and attributes of the alternate identities, high levels of creativity and intelligence, and extreme
withdrawal into fantasy, among others. Accordingly, therapists who are experienced in the treatment of DID typically pay relatively limited attention to the overt style and presentation of the different alternate identities.

Instead, they focus on the cognitive, affective, and psychodynamic characteristics embodied by each identity while simultaneously attending to identities collectively as a system of representation, symbolization, and meaning.

MODEL III - STRUCTURAL DISSOCIATION
The theory of “structural dissociation of the personality,” another etiological model, is based on the ideas of Janet and attempts to create a unified theory of dissociation that includes DID (Van der Hart et al., 2006).

This theory suggests that dissociation results from a basic failure to integrate systems of ideas and functions of the personality. Following exposure to potentially traumatizing events, the personality as a whole system can become divided into an “apparently normal part of the personality” dedicated to daily functioning and an “emotional part of the personality” dedicated to defense.

Defense in this context is related to psychobiological functions of survival in response to life threat, such as fight/flight, not to the psychodynamic notion of defense. It is hypothesized that chronic traumatization and/or neglect can lead to secondary structural dissociation and the emergence of additional emotional parts of the personality.


SUMMARY OF ALL 3 MODELS:

In short, these developmental models posit that DID does not arise from a previously mature, unified mind or “core personality” that becomes shattered or fractured. Rather, DID results from a failure of normal developmental integration caused by overwhelming experiences and disturbed caregiver–child interactions (including neglect and the failure to respond) during critical early developmental periods. This, in turn, leads some traumatized children to develop relatively discrete, personified behavioral states that ultimately evolve into the DID alternate identities.

Some authors claim that DID is caused by clinicians who believe strongly in DID and who implicitly and/or explicitly influence patients to enact symptoms of DID. According to this “sociocognitive” model, DID is a socially constructed condition that results from the therapist’s cueing (e.g., suggestive questioning regarding the existence of possible alternate personalities), media influences (e.g., film and television portrayals of DID), and broader sociocultural expectations regarding the presumed clinical features of DID. For example, some proponents of the
sociocognitive model believe that the release of the book and film Sybil in the 1970s played a substantial role in shaping conceptions of DID in the minds of the general public and psychotherapists. (Lilienfeld & Lynn, 2003, p. 117)

Despite these arguments, there is no actual research that shows that the complex phenomenology of DID can be created, let alone sustained over time, by suggestion, contagion, or hypnosis (D. W. Brown, Frischholz, & Scheflin, 1999; Gleaves, 1996; Loewenstein, 2007). A number of lines of evidence support the trauma model for DID over the sociocognitive model.

These include studies that demonstrate DID in children, adolescents, and adults with substantiated maltreatment with evidence that DID symptoms predated any interaction with clinicians
(Hornstein & Putnam, 1992; Lewis, Yeager, Swica, Pincus, & Lewis, 1997), studies of psychophysiology and psychobiology as described above, and studies of the discriminant validity of the dissociative disorders using structured interview protocols, among many others. Furthermore, naturalistic studies have shown that DID patients report many symptoms that, based on
research data characterizing DID, were previously unknown to the patients, the general culture, and even most clinicians (Dell, 2006b)"


If the ISSTD has put something out since, conflicting with this, by all means I would love to read it, but I have not found anything.

Thank you for the replies, I am very new to trying to understand all this but I'm glad it wasn't such a stupid question after all

sev0n wrote:"In some patients, several dissociative parts may form a social "facade: that attempts to hide many deficits and overt evidence of DID..."

This sounds very much how it is for me.

It's a tough question! It's certainly not a dumb question. As Una said, no one knows for sure, but the smartest people out there who study DID have come up with those 3 models.

Teatime wrote:Core - ANP but does not Host unless System in crisis
Mara - EP with ANP tendencies or possible high functioning EP? PTSD (does not intentionally Host but gets stuck out Front, almost constantly co-con/vigilant, frequently unaware of Dez's presence when co-Hosting with her or believes herself to be Hosting when co-con with Dez)
Dez - ANP - no trauma first hand
Rae - ANP but only Hots for short stretches/specific tasks - some trauma during adulthood, don't think any during childhood
Mal - EP with ANP tendencies or high functioning EP? Capable co-Hosts with Dez, only Hosts alone in emergency situations/when triggered for short stretches - PTSD? Yeah, PTSD.
Pony - EP - does not come Out though sometimes co-con (plays with "real" kids under Rae's guidance). Scared.

ha.
Core=Rae: ANP (observes and sooths)
Rae-Rae: EP (littleish)
Mara: ANP
Po(ny): EP (little)
Mal: ANP
Idris: EP (childadult)
Dez is just Dez

Out of all the models this is still my uninformed favourite. I never could get through the haunted self.
structural dissociation.. It just seems.. elegant somehow
Then again, life gets pretty messy sometimes..