What Causes Dissociative Identity Disorder? Evidence and Competing Models
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 9, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Dissociation & Dissociative Disorders · Written by Artificial Sapiens
Dissociative identity disorder (DID) is a recognized clinical condition characterized by disruption of identity, involving distinct states of self-experience and agency, together with recurrent gaps in the recall of everyday events, important personal information, and/or traumatic experiences. What causes DID is a more difficult question than what the diagnosis describes. Research links clinically significant dissociation with childhood maltreatment and other adversities, yet no single exposure, biological marker, developmental pathway, or psychological mechanism has been shown to cause DID in every case.
The leading explanations include posttraumatic developmental models, sociocognitive accounts emphasizing learning and suggestion, and newer integrative approaches examining emotion regulation, memory processes, sleep, self-representation, and social context together. These perspectives make different causal predictions. A responsible account weighs evidence for each prediction while distinguishing an association, an explanatory theory, and an established cause. The World Health Organization's ICD-11 clinical guidance and the American Psychiatric Association's clinical overview provide the diagnostic context.
The short answer: what does the evidence support?
The strongest recurring clinical observation is a connection between severe or repeated childhood adversity and later dissociative symptoms, including among many people diagnosed with DID. That connection deserves clinical attention. It does not establish that trauma is a necessary or sufficient cause of DID, or that a specific symptom proves a particular childhood event occurred. Traumatic experiences are common relative to DID, and most people exposed to childhood adversity do not develop this diagnosis.
A meta-analysis by Vonderlin and colleagues found an association between childhood abuse or neglect and higher dissociation across 65 studies. That evidence is important for the broader dissociation literature, but most of those participants were not studied as incident cases of DID. A DID-specific review by Raison and Soubelet identified a much smaller and methodologically heterogeneous body of studies relating trauma histories to the diagnosis, illustrating why extrapolation from dissociation scores to DID etiology requires care.
The present evidence supports a multifactorial research agenda: stressful developmental environments, individual susceptibility, learning, psychological functioning, cultural interpretation, and assessment context may interact. It has not established how much each factor contributes to the first development of DID, when those contributions become causal, or which mechanisms are unique to DID. Lynn and colleagues' integrative review explicitly argues for looking beyond an either-or contest between trauma and sociocognitive accounts.
What exactly needs to be explained?
DID is defined clinically by identity disruption involving marked discontinuities in a person's sense of self and agency, associated alterations in affect, behavior, consciousness, memory, perception, cognition, or sensory-motor functioning, and recurrent memory gaps. Symptoms must cause clinically significant distress or impairment and require evaluation of alternative causes. The experience should not simply reflect an accepted cultural or religious practice, ordinary imaginative play, or the direct physiological effects of substances or a medical condition.
The DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 organize dissociative disorders differently. ICD-11 includes both DID and partial DID as separately named diagnoses; DSM-5-TR instead includes DID and other specified dissociative disorder (OSDD), among other categories. These systems provide clinical descriptions, not experimentally verified origin stories. See the WHO's ICD-11 clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements.
A causal model needs to explain more than vivid identity labels. It should account for persistent identity-state discontinuities, clinically significant amnesia or its variable expression, associated impairment, developmental course, differences between individuals, and why some people with similar trauma or life circumstances do not develop DID. It should also explain why reported symptoms may change with treatment, repeated questioning, cultural expectations, or social exposure.
Ordinary absorption, feeling detached during stress, temporary depersonalization, or patchy memory under anxiety can occur without DID. A dissociative experience is a phenomenon; a dissociative symptom may occur in multiple conditions; a dissociative disorder is a clinical diagnosis established through contextual assessment.
How strong is the link between childhood trauma and DID?
Childhood adversity is an important association
Case histories and clinical comparisons frequently describe physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, frightening or unpredictable caregiving, and other overwhelming experiences beginning in childhood. Such histories may coexist with attachment disruption, chronic threat, impaired emotion regulation, and difficulties integrating autobiographical experience. The American Psychiatric Association acknowledges the association between dissociative disorders and traumatic experiences.
The Vonderlin et al. meta-analysis also found that earlier and more chronic maltreatment was associated with stronger dissociation, particularly where parents were perpetrators. This supports a developmental association across dissociative outcomes. Its results should not be described as a direct estimate of the probability that trauma causes DID, because outcome definitions and study populations vary.
An early-exposure hypothesis remains scientifically plausible: chronic childhood adversity may shape attention, defensive responses, autobiographical organization, emotion regulation, and expectations about safety. However, long-term trajectories are difficult to reconstruct, and the precise mechanism of DID formation has not been prospectively demonstrated.
Why association does not settle causation
Several methodological problems recur. First, retrospective reports may be affected by incomplete documentation, differences in memory access, later interpretations, and the assessment environment. Second, clinical samples are usually selected after symptoms and help-seeking have developed, sometimes after extensive therapy. Third, trauma, chronic distress, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, and other clinical factors are correlated. Fourth, many studies measure dissociation on a continuum rather than carefully diagnosed DID.
A causal claim would be stronger if a well-defined population were followed prospectively from early life; exposures were independently documented where feasible; diagnostic assessment were blinded, standardized, and repeated; confounding factors were measured; and an adequate comparison group were included. Ethical and practical limits make this difficult, especially for rare or complex clinical presentations.
There is no basis for inferring a specific abuse history merely because a person has DID, or for rejecting someone's reported experiences merely because independent records are unavailable. Clinical care should address symptoms, safety, and functioning while maintaining appropriate evidentiary boundaries.
Does DID always begin in childhood?
Developmental models usually place relevant vulnerabilities early in life, when identity, self-regulation, and autobiographical memory are developing. Yet a childhood-origin hypothesis is not equivalent to a documented childhood onset of the full clinical syndrome. An adult may recognize symptoms for the first time long after their possible developmental origins; later stressors can exacerbate or make experiences more noticeable. Conversely, current adult experiences cannot independently establish when a dissociative condition began.
Pediatric DID research is particularly limited by small samples, varied diagnostic approaches, retrospective records, and the difficulty of distinguishing complex trauma symptoms from normative imaginative behavior or other developmental conditions. Case reports offer clinical descriptions but cannot determine population incidence or a universal developmental sequence.
The posttraumatic developmental model
The posttraumatic model proposes that repeated, overwhelming experiences during development can disrupt the integration of memory, emotion, attention, and self-representation. In some accounts, dissociative responses initially help a child distance themselves from intolerable experiences, while state-dependent patterns of feeling, remembering, and acting become increasingly separated over time. A lack of reliable support and opportunities to process experiences may contribute to persistence.
This model helps organize observations of adversity histories, stress-linked fluctuations, emotion dysregulation, and identity discontinuity. It is used by some specialist clinical frameworks and informs treatment formulations. The ISSTD adult treatment guidelines describe a trauma-oriented clinical approach, although guideline consensus is not itself proof of the model's causal accuracy.
There are important open questions. Does dissociation function as an effective protective response in all relevant circumstances, or sometimes increase distress and disorganization? Which early-life vulnerabilities distinguish people who develop DID from people who develop PTSD, depersonalization-derealization disorder, depression, or no diagnosable disorder? Are identity-state differences a consequence of prolonged compartmentalization, a later interpretive framework, or both? Contemporary empirical data do not resolve these questions.
A proposed mechanism such as distinct state-dependent self-representations should be read as a model of psychological organization. It does not establish anatomically separate personalities, physically partitioned memories, or a unique neural structure for every reported identity state.
The sociocognitive model: learning, expectations, and suggestion
Sociocognitive accounts examine how symptoms may be interpreted, organized, amplified, or shaped through social interaction and cognitive processes. Proposed influences include clinical language, repeated inquiry about identity states, expectations about how DID should look, reinforcement of certain narratives, media portrayals, suggestibility, fantasy-proneness, source-monitoring errors, and culturally available explanations for unusual experiences.
These hypotheses ask important empirical questions. Can different interviewing styles affect reported symptom complexity? Does prior exposure to descriptions of DID affect the way people name identity states? Can experimental participants simulate some observable features of DID, and what does or does not transfer from simulation to clinical presentation? How do clinicians distinguish voluntary enactment, suggestibility-related behavior, sincere interpretation, and involuntary symptoms?
The Dalenberg et al. evidence review critically evaluated predictions of trauma and fantasy models and argued against treating fantasy-related variables as a general alternative explanation for trauma-associated dissociation. The Lynn et al. commentary challenged aspects of that interpretation, particularly causal inference from retrospective and correlational research. The disagreement is substantive: the same class of studies can establish association without always adjudicating the proposed mechanism.
A social influence on presentation does not by itself show that symptoms have been fabricated or created by treatment. Equally, an internally experienced symptom cannot by itself establish that its favored explanatory narrative is historically accurate. The presence, intensity, and meaning of dissociative experiences require separate assessment from the historical claims sometimes attached to them.
Can therapists cause DID?
The most sweeping iatrogenic claim—that DID as a diagnostic category is generally produced by suggestion during therapy—has not been established by rigorous causal evidence. Concerns about suggestive interviewing, expectation effects, unnecessary encouragement of elaborated identities, and memory contamination are nevertheless legitimate clinical safety issues. These concerns apply especially when a clinician treats an unverified cause as a fact or uses leading techniques to elicit detailed memories.
A careful therapist can take experiences seriously without telling someone which identities must exist, implying that symptoms prove undisclosed abuse, or encouraging the recovery of supposedly hidden memories as a treatment objective. The clinically relevant standard is neutral inquiry, informed consent, symptom-focused formulation, functional goals, and ongoing review of effects.
Does social media cause DID?
There is insufficient evidence that viewing DID-related videos, joining an online community, or encountering identity-related terminology causes the recognized clinical disorder. Social contexts can affect awareness, language, identification with symptom descriptions, and help-seeking, as happens across many mental-health topics. Such effects are research questions that should be distinguished from claims about the onset of DID itself.
Self-labeling after online exposure is neither a valid diagnostic test nor proof of intentional deception. A comprehensive assessment considers the history, consistency, course, distress, impairment, and competing explanations for the experiences.
Integrative and transtheoretical explanations
Recent integrative approaches consider multiple interacting vulnerabilities instead of assigning one factor a universal causal role. The 2022 Annual Review of Clinical Psychology synthesis discusses sleep disruption, difficulties regulating emotional responses, impaired inhibitory control, atypical associative shifts, and problems in source attribution or metacognition as potentially relevant processes.
This framework makes room for adversity without assuming that adversity explains everything. A person may experience chronic stress and sleep disturbance, become more vulnerable to unusual states of consciousness or memory errors, and interpret those experiences through personal and cultural concepts. Other factors may shape whether symptoms persist, attract clinical attention, or become organized into particular identity narratives. None of these chains has been demonstrated as a complete causal account of DID.
The value of an integrative model lies in its testable hypotheses. Researchers can study whether disruptions in sleep precede increases in dissociative symptoms, whether cognitive and emotion-regulation processes mediate risk, whether measured vulnerabilities predict outcomes beyond trauma exposure, and which mechanisms are specific to DID rather than common across psychiatric disorders.
Attachment, self-development, and state-dependent learning
Developmental theorists propose that self-organization depends partly on repeated interactions with caregivers, predictable safety, and opportunities to regulate distress. When caregiving is both needed and frightening or unstable, children may experience conflicting expectations that complicate later emotional regulation and interpersonal functioning. These concepts offer possible pathways linking adversity with dissociation; direct longitudinal evidence specifically confirming a DID pathway remains insufficient.
State-dependent learning and retrieval offer another proposed mechanism: information encoded in one emotional or physiological state may be harder to access under another. Such effects occur in human memory generally. They do not establish complete information barriers between identities or prove that an identity is a distinct neurobiological person.
Memory mechanisms: what research on identity states shows
People diagnosed with DID may report amnesia across identity states, partial recall, intrusive memories, or inconsistencies in everyday autobiographical memory. Experimental results do not support treating these reports as a literal model of completely separate storage systems. The Beker and colleagues systematic review and meta-analysis examined inter-identity memory transfer and found evidence of transfer under some testing conditions alongside heterogeneous results across tasks and studies.
Research into autobiographical memory, explicit versus implicit recall, emotional salience, source monitoring, and dissociative symptoms remains relevant to causal models. But a laboratory observation of partial transfer does not invalidate distressing everyday memory gaps, and the subjective report of a gap does not prove that no information was encoded or is potentially retrievable.
Recovered memories and historical accuracy
The appearance of a memory during psychotherapy is an experience that can be clinically important without functioning as independent verification of the remembered event. Memory can be incomplete, reconstructed, influenced by suggestion, and altered during repeated retrieval; traumatic experiences may also be remembered persistently, intermittently, or with varying detail. The research does not justify a blanket rule that all later-recalled events are true or false.
A systematic review of studies of reported trauma-memory recovery documents major differences across study designs and definitions. Clinical and forensic contexts therefore require attention to corroborating evidence where available, interview methods, and the distinction between a person's conviction and the factual status of an event. Trauma-memory science as a general topic is also covered in the Hub's Trauma and Memory article.
Clinical care should never make recovery of a particular memory a prerequisite for improvement. Treatment can work with current distress, functional impairment, and interpersonal safety without asserting a historical narrative that has not been substantiated.
What do brain imaging and biological studies tell us?
Neuroimaging provides possible correlates of dissociative experiences, not a definitive origin test. In one experimental psychobiological study by Reinders and colleagues, patients with DID and trained simulators showed differing patterns of brain and physiological response under identity-state procedures. The findings challenge some simple simulation accounts, but the study included small, highly selected groups and does not identify a unique cause or validate every causal assumption of a trauma model.
A meta-analysis of hippocampal and amygdala volumes reported differences in patients diagnosed with DID relative to some comparison groups. The evidence came from few studies, and brain structure is influenced by many factors, including adversity, other psychiatric conditions, medication exposure, and demographic variables. Such differences cannot establish whether they preceded symptoms, resulted from prolonged stress, reflected comorbidity, or arise from another process.
There is currently no brain scan, genetic test, hormone level, or physiological signature that establishes DID or distinguishes its causal pathway for an individual. Genetics, temperament, stress reactivity, sleep vulnerability, and other individual differences remain plausible contributors warranting careful study, rather than confirmed independent causes of DID.
Why do people with similar trauma histories have different outcomes?
An exposure may change risk without determining an individual's future. The severity, timing, recurrence, and relational context of adversity matter, as may perceived escape options, access to supportive adults, developmental stage, co-occurring disorders, and subsequent life experiences. Some protective factors could buffer adverse effects, but the specific determinants of a DID outcome remain difficult to isolate.
There is also heterogeneity within diagnosed samples. People may differ in how they describe identity states, the extent of memory gaps, their level of distress, comorbid PTSD symptoms, physical health, substance use, and previous therapeutic experiences. Researchers should account for this variation before interpreting average effects as universal mechanisms.
Cross-sectional studies cannot reliably separate causes from consequences. Sleep loss, for example, may make dissociative symptoms worse; symptoms may also disrupt sleep. In many cases both may be associated with an additional factor. The same problem applies to emotion dysregulation, avoidance, and autobiographical memory disturbances.
What the competing models predict
Posttraumatic-developmental predictions
This approach predicts meaningful developmental associations between adverse experiences and later clinically assessed identity disruption, potentially mediated by emotion regulation, attachment processes, and state-dependent memory. Strong tests require independently assessed exposure histories and prospective measurement. Support for broad trauma–dissociation associations is stronger than confirmation of a unique sequence leading to DID.
Sociocognitive predictions
These models predict that expectations, suggestion, therapist behavior, exposure to identity narratives, and cognitive vulnerabilities help shape at least some DID-related reports or behaviors. Experiments can test specific influence mechanisms, while stronger causal claims about the full disorder require longitudinal evidence. Demonstrating that a symptom can be imitated, or that reporting changes after suggestion, cannot alone explain all involuntary experiences and clinical impairment.
Integrative predictions
These approaches predict interactions: developmental adversity and individual vulnerabilities may increase susceptibility, while sleep, emotional regulation, learning, personal meanings, and social feedback affect symptom expression and maintenance. Prospective and within-person studies can compare such pathways and examine whether they predict DID better than simpler accounts. Their current status is an explanatory research program, rather than a validated causal formula.
A high-quality future study would distinguish diagnosis from symptom scores, use blinded structured clinical interviews, preregister hypotheses, include meaningful comparison groups, assess the quality of exposure evidence, and report uncertainty. Replication and independent research teams are essential when conclusions have substantial clinical or social consequences.
How does diagnosis fit into the question of causes?
A clinician diagnoses DID by evaluating symptoms and their course, not by deciding that a particular model of causation must be true. An assessment explores identity discontinuity, recurrent memory gaps, distress or impairment, medical history, current safety, developmental history, sleep, medication and substance exposure, and cultural or religious context. Standardized interviews may support the evaluation, but interpretation depends on clinical expertise and the total evidence.
The diagnostic process also considers conditions that can overlap in superficial appearance. Depersonalization and derealization concern experiences of detachment; they do not by themselves establish DID. PTSD may involve dissociative symptoms, but its diagnostic criteria and clinical focus differ. Psychotic conditions can include voice-hearing and unusual beliefs; a person reporting internal voices requires a thoughtful assessment rather than an automatic conclusion of DID or psychosis. Panic attacks can include derealization and fear of losing control. Sleep-related conditions, seizure disorders, medication effects, and substance-related states can alter consciousness and memory. ADHD-related inattention and everyday forgetting require their own evaluation. Borderline personality disorder may involve stress-related dissociation and identity disturbance yet remains a separate diagnostic condition.
Functional neurological symptoms and dissociative seizures require a neurological and functional assessment and belong to a separate clinical pathway. The WHO's ICD-11 uses a dissociative neurological symptom category; that taxonomic fact does not make functional neurological conditions forms of DID.
No screening questionnaire, symptom checklist, online test, or written self-description can prove DID, determine its cause, or identify a hidden trauma history. When memory lapses are new, accompanied by injuries, neurological symptoms, substance exposure, altered awareness, or other concerning signs, prompt medical assessment may be needed.
Does knowing the cause change treatment?
Etiological hypotheses can guide clinical questions, but sound treatment planning begins with an accurate assessment of the person's current symptoms, risks, relationships, and goals. A formulation may address chronic stress, sleep problems, avoidant coping, traumatic stress, emotion dysregulation, and comorbid conditions. It should stay open to revision as evidence develops.
Specialist approaches have often used phased psychological treatment emphasizing safety, stabilization, and carefully paced work with difficult experiences. More recently, researchers have begun adapting structured treatments supported in adjacent conditions. The 2025 review by Bachrach and Huntjens describes promising early studies alongside major limitations, including the need for adequately powered and controlled comparative trials. This evidence does not establish that any single approach, treatment sequence, or theory of DID causation is superior for every patient.
Therapy should aim to reduce distress, dangerous behavior, dissociative disruptions, and functional impairment while strengthening coping and collaboration. Medication may be used for co-occurring conditions when clinically appropriate, but there is no established medication that directly corrects a proven biological cause of DID. An individualized care plan may include sleep care, coordinated psychiatric treatment, attention to safety, and support from trusted people.
Practical implications for patients, families, and clinicians
People experiencing identity discontinuities or repeated unexplained memory gaps deserve an attentive assessment. Useful preparation includes a nonleading account of what happens, when it started, how often it occurs, any safety concerns, medical or substance factors, and its impact on daily life. A chronological record can help communication with a clinician, but should not be used to manufacture certainty about the cause.
Family members and friends can respond calmly, respect privacy, and support evaluation when functioning or safety is affected. It is more useful to ask what support the person needs now than to demand a particular narrative about trauma or identity states. Repeatedly questioning someone about unverified memories can complicate assessment and increase distress.
Clinicians should use open-ended questions, distinguish observation from inference, document uncertainty, and be alert to suggestive practices. Any suspected abuse involving a current child or vulnerable person should be handled through the relevant safeguarding and legal procedures rather than inferred solely from symptom patterns.
Where a person has acute confusion, fainting or seizures, neurological warning signs, severe intoxication, injuries, or imminent danger of self-harm, emergency medical and crisis care takes priority. In the United States, the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline is available at 988lifeline.org, and local emergency services should be contacted for immediate medical danger. Outside the United States, use the applicable local emergency or crisis service.
Frequently asked questions
Is childhood abuse the only cause of DID?
No single cause has been established. Childhood adversity is frequently reported in clinical DID populations and is associated with dissociative symptoms more generally. The evidence does not show that every person diagnosed with DID experienced a particular kind of abuse, nor that abuse inevitably produces DID.
Can someone develop DID without trauma?
A person may report DID-like symptoms without knowing or reporting a trauma history. That account requires neutral clinical assessment, including the possibility of other explanations. The absence of a disclosed history does not establish that trauma was present or absent, and the diagnosis itself cannot prove undisclosed trauma.
What age does DID start?
Many developmental accounts emphasize early experiences, while clinical recognition often occurs later. Evidence does not allow clinicians to assign a definitive age of origin from adult symptoms alone. Onset, recognition, and diagnosis are different events.
Can stress trigger DID in adulthood?
Stress may intensify dissociative symptoms or make an existing pattern more visible. An episode following stress does not establish that stress created DID at that moment. A clinician assesses the broader developmental and medical history.
Is DID genetic or inherited?
No specific gene or inheritance pattern has been established as a cause of DID. General temperament and biological vulnerabilities may interact with experience, but this remains an area for research rather than an explanation that can be offered as fact to an individual.
Is DID caused by the brain separating into different people?
There is no evidence that the brain physically divides into distinct persons. Psychological theories address discontinuities in identity, memory, agency, and self-experience; neuroimaging studies examine associated brain activity and structure. Neither demonstrates separate brains or anatomically partitioned identities.
Does evidence of memory transfer mean DID is invented?
No. Laboratory evidence of partial transfer between reported identity states challenges a strict model of impermeable memory barriers, while leaving open the clinical reality of experienced memory gaps, involuntary state changes, and functional impairment. See the 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis.
Can a therapist or internet community create identity states?
Expectations and interpersonal influences can shape how experiences are described and understood. The magnitude of their role in the development of clinically diagnosed DID remains unresolved. Suggestive techniques carry genuine risks, and exposure to online terminology cannot establish a disorder.
Do brain scans prove DID was caused by trauma?
No. Group-level differences in small imaging studies do not identify individual causes or establish the direction of effects. No validated imaging marker can establish DID etiology.
Are recovered memories reliable evidence of the cause?
The emergence or intensification of a recollection is not automatic corroboration of a historical event. Memories deserve respectful handling and appropriate contextual evaluation, especially when important allegations or legal consequences are involved.
Are DID and schizophrenia the same condition?
They are separate clinical diagnoses. Certain experiences may superficially overlap, including voice-like phenomena or disruptions of self-experience. Assessment considers memory discontinuities, psychotic symptoms, reality testing, substance exposure, medical conditions, and the broader clinical picture.
Which explanation has the strongest evidence?
The association between childhood maltreatment and dissociative symptoms is supported by substantial research, and adversity is commonly described in DID clinical samples. The specific causal pathway from any exposure to DID is less certain. Sociocognitive mechanisms and broader cognitive or sleep-related processes merit research, while integrative models currently offer testable hypotheses rather than settled causal conclusions.
What remains unknown, and where research should go next
The field still needs prospective developmental research, better characterization of symptom onset, standardized clinical interviews in representative samples, better control for comorbidity and treatment exposure, independent replication of memory and neuroimaging findings, and careful research on suggestion and cultural variation. Investigations should report whether their conclusions concern dissociation generally, DID specifically, or a narrower subset of participants.
For clinicians and readers, the scientifically defensible conclusion is practical: DID is a recognized diagnostic construct involving substantial symptoms for affected individuals, childhood adversity is an important association, and the origin of any one person's difficulties calls for individual assessment rather than a predetermined story. Reliable care can proceed while science continues to clarify the mechanisms.
Related Articles
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787
American Psychiatric Association. What are dissociative disorders? https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/dissociative-disorders/what-are-dissociative-disorders
Bachrach, N., & Huntjens, R. J. C. (2025). Recent evidence-based developments in the treatment of DID. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 16, 1650164. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1650164
Beker, J. C., Dorahy, M. J., Moir, J., & Cording, J. (2024). Inter-identity amnesia and memory transfer in dissociative identity disorder: A systematic review with a meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102514
Blihar, D., Crisafio, A., Delgado, E., Buryak, M., Gonzalez, M., & Waechter, R. (2021). A meta-analysis of hippocampal and amygdala volumes in patients diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33433297/
Carey, O. G., Dempsey, M., Minihane, K., & Murphy, G. (2026). When, where, and how often do individuals recover memories of traumatic experiences? A systematic review. Memory, 34(2), 238–259. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41424398/
Dalenberg, C. J., and colleagues. (2012). Evaluation of the evidence for the trauma and fantasy models of dissociation. Psychological Bulletin, 138(3), 550–588. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027447
International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation. (2011). Guidelines for treating dissociative identity disorder in adults, third revision. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 12(2), 115–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2011.537247
Lynn, S. J., and colleagues. (2014). The trauma model of dissociation: Inconvenient truths and stubborn fictions. Psychological Bulletin. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24773505/
Lynn, S. J., and colleagues. (2022). Dissociation and dissociative disorders reconsidered: Beyond sociocognitive and trauma models toward a transtheoretical framework. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 18. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-081219-102424
Raison, A., & Soubelet, A. (2023). Childhood trauma in patients with dissociative identity disorder: A systematic review of data from 1990 to 2022. European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejtd.2022.100310
Reinders, A. A. T. S., and colleagues. (2012). Fact or factitious? A psychobiological study of authentic and simulated dissociative identity states. PLOS ONE, 7(6), e39279. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039279
Vonderlin, R., Kleindienst, N., Alpers, G. W., Bohus, M., Lyssenko, L., & Schmahl, C. (2018). Dissociation in victims of childhood abuse or neglect: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Medicine, 48(15), 2467–2476. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291718000740
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263