Cited by 190Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsPsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

A Model of dissociation based on attachment theory and research

Liotti, Giovanni·2006·Journal of Trauma & Dissociation

Abstract

The article offers an historical review of studies on the role played by attachment processes in dissociative psychopathology. The treatise proceeds from Bowlby's first insights, through Main and her collaborators' empirical studies on attachment disorganization, to the first formulation of the hypothesis linking disorganized early attachment to pathological dissociation. Recent research supporting the hypothesis is then reviewed. It is concluded that infant attachment disorganization is in itself a dissociative process, and predisposes the individual to respond with pathological dissociation to later traumas and life stressors. Four implications of this theory are interspersed in the review and are discussed in the final section: (1) pathological dissociation should be viewed as a primarily intersubjective reality hindering the integrative processes of consciousness, rather than as an intrapsychic defense against mental pain; (2) early defenses against attachment-related dissociation are based on interpersonal controlling strategies that inhibit the attachment system; (3) dissociative symptoms emerge as a consequence of the collapse of these defensive strategies in the face of events that powerfully activate the attachment system; (4) psychotherapy of pathological dissociation should be a phase-oriented process focused primarily on achieving attachment security, and only secondarily on trauma work. Research studies on the psychotherapy process could test some predictions of this model.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1300/j229v07n04_04

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liotti, G.
Corresponding author
Liotti, Giovanni
Venue
Journal of Trauma & Dissociation
Published
2006-11-21
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
55-73
ISSN
  • 1529-9732 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-9740
OpenAlex
W2028745930
Cited by
190
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
0.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Trauma & Dissociation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
pathological dissociation, attachment theory, disorganized attachment, Bowlby, Main, intersubjectivity, defense mechanisms, attachment security, trauma
MeSH terms
Dissociative Disorders, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Object Attachment, Psychological Theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review