Research Articles Base: Health Seeking Behavior

BULLYING IN JUNIOR AND MIDDLE HIGH SCHOOL

BULLYING IN JUNIOR AND MIDDLE HIGH SCHOOL         Bullying can happen everywhere especially in high school where problem students take the opportunity to bully their weak classmates through aggressive behavior and forcible misconduct of taking the belongings of others or threatening acts it may also involve physical and verbal treatment that is harsh and intimidating. According to psychologist this bullying behavior of a student can start at home if they have not felt the power and inner worth and value they tend to follow through and exercise this needs when they have the opportunity, they may be insecure or they may have low self esteem that they pretend to be stronger over others especially those they thought they can easily control. Later some teachers may found out when they call upon the parents that they themselves are bully and it manifest in their child’s trait that is inherent.         In fact most bullies are pretending to have a strong superior trait, they may pretend to be attractive nor intimidating and powerful in their acts but the truth is they have this social needs of belongingness and needs for respect that they cannot deny but they may never understand such needs that results in struggle to act on to bullying as a partial fulfillment they use power as a cover up. The teen-agers from junior high school may not be conscious about their positions and it may even grow if they are faced with another bully that results in battle and fighting in school. There are also non bullies who tried to fight back in they had enough. In most schools there are laws about bullying and other misbehavior up to the extent of kicking out the child in school.       There are also some instances that the imbalance of power such as height, intelligence, social status against other gives the junior high school the opportunity to bully their classmates, peer pressure from group or fraternity and sorority rights can also force the students to do such acts. The effects of students who are bullied can be damaging and stressful that if it kept inside and locked it in their heart it may result it abnormalities and fear to go to school especially among the neglected students at home. The worst case that could happen to the victim is probably committing suicide that happens many times in a life of desperate students.  But if a student has been properly taught at home and in school to act socially and morally they will deal with them fairly through whatever circumstances, bullying mannerism may require so much guidance and collective attention to change its manner.       Junior and Middle High School carries an advantage of puberty and adolescence stage to behave properly but it is also in their teenage years to be wild and outrage that resort in bullying. Psychology Professor Tara Kuther of Western Connecticut University they have also found out that bullying can be more dominant in high school if they are not properly given the write intervention among their peers. Students can be involved in a group or gangsters to exercise more force to gain power in school so they can bully even more. In their statistic shows that as much as 70% of middle and junior high school students may have experienced bullying. These activities can happen for male and female students in fact bullying is not limited to age, religion, sex and belief it is an international activity and it can happen to every students if they allow them.           In order to eliminate bullying of students and protect their victims Psychologist and Schools in general have stressed the following course of actions to be effective; ·         Enforce anti bullying law on various campuses ·         Parents should help their children and know their activities in school ·         The offering of extra-curricular activities and special involvement in progressive range of interest that are assured to prevent students from isolation. ·         If possible secure in the areas in school through adult supervision, security cameras and other devices that can control and monitor their activities. ·         Allow openness and reports of students especially the victims to exercise their rights and to ensure their protection that bullying is not tolerated in school. ·         Totally implement the rules and regulations set-upon for violators and aggressive behaviors of children through exercising punishment, not to scare them but to give them the firm foundation of what is right that must be exercise.  ·         Most importantly caring, respect and cooperation should be encouraged in school as early as possible.                   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

BULLYING IN JUNIOR AND MIDDLE HIGH SCHOOL

BULLYING IN JUNIOR AND MIDDLE HIGH SCHOOL Bullying can happen everywhere especially in high school where problem students take t...

Co-morbidity

This essay discusses the concept of co-morbidity with respect to the field of psychiatry and clinical psychology, and its relation to alcohol abuse and substance misuse. Moreover, the difficulties met by doctors in treating people with co-morbidity, proposed steps so to alleviate these, and the possible outcomes of having poor engagement from a co-morbid client group, are also discussed herewith. Definition In the term co-morbidity, co means jointly or together, while morbidity refers to ailment. Simply put, co-morbidity is defined as the simultaneous occurrence of two or more diseases, may it be psychiatric or physical in nature. ( 2006). The co-occurrence of schizophrenia, alcohol dependence, and depression is an example of co-morbidity. These correlations may reveal a causal connection between one disorder and another, or an underlying susceptibility to the other disorders. (1996). Co-morbidity has become a vital issue with regard to psychiatry and clinical psychology. According to clinical and epidemiological results, co-morbidity that occurs among psychiatric disorders is greatly widespread. In addition, various types of co-morbidity are associated with more serious illnesses and worse clinical consequences (1996). Co-morbidity and Substance Abuse Co-morbidity between substance use disorders (SUDs) and other mental ailments have been widely acknowledged, more specifically in clinical and treatment samples of adolescents. According to studies, depression and alcohol abuse increase significantly during teenage years. When these problems jointly occur, they present challenges to doctors in the fields of evaluation, prioritization of treatment, and the handling of self-harmful actions. Regrettably, such a form of co-morbidity is relatively common (1996).             Numerous experts have conducted studies regarding the simultaneous occurrence of mental disorders and substance misuse. Stowell and Estroff (1992) performed researches in treatment facilities for adolescents who misuse alcohol and other substances. As a result, they discovered that up to 50% of these youngsters have emotional illnesses, the majority of which are major depression and dysthymia. As for the investigation by  (1992) which focused on 156 adolescents on a dual diagnosis unit intended to cure substance abuse and other psychiatric ailments, 31% of the subjects experienced major depression. Lastly, a study conducted by  (1991) noted that out of 547 tens who are in multiple mental health and special educational facilities, 48% had severe depression as well as. It has therefore been proven that alcohol use among depressed adolescents and depression among substance-abusing teens, do exist. Alcohol abuse and depression tend to be recurring conditions that could result to impaired adaptive performance and when these conditions co-morbid, adaptive functioning is further damaged. In addition, Drake and Wallach (1989) revealed that people with co-morbidity go through different unpleasant experiences such as increased mental symptoms, homelessness, higher possibility for relapse, institutionalization, and problems with handling their lives.  (1995) found out that such patients also experience increasing hospitalization fees, lower satisfaction with familial relations and greater probability for mortality. Also, such co-morbid circumstances have been related to increased occurrence and severity of suicidal actions and completed suicide. Evidently, depression and SUD, when taken together, aggravates each other, and could often lead to severely self-harmful actions (1996). Difficulty in Treatment Although it is clearly important to recognize and treat alcohol and other drug abuse of depressed teenagers, recognizing such abuse is not easy because some of the clinical symptoms of alcohol abuse are similar to those of depression. For example, loss of interest in formerly enjoyed activities can be apparent both in a depressed teenager and an adolescent who is alcohol dependent (2006). Another difficulty in the treatment of patients with co-morbidity is the inadequate fit between such individuals and the traditional system of medication. One traditional method is the separate and parallel treatment. This occurs when two groups work with clinicians simultaneously, each healing one kind of sickness in a parallel approach. Unfortunately, many clinicians have difficulty in coordinating treatment and understanding co-morbidity. (2006). Consequently, the treatment of co-morbid patients is hindered. Moreover, although there is enhanced information regarding the treatment of co-morbidity, obstacles still exist for the successful distribution of assistance.  (1991) assessed the mental health service delivery in drug treatment programs in Los Angeles County and discovered that most of the addiction agenda restricted the admission of co-morbid patients and nearly half did not cater to co-morbid clients. Another hindrance to the treatment of co-morbid individual occurs when doctors miss the second ailment of the patient. In fact, some patients who are mentally ill are not diagnosed by their psychiatrists to have SUDs, while individuals who have SUDs and attend to addiction treatment programs often do not get treated for their psychiatric ailments ( 2006). Lehman and colleagues (1995) reported that dually diagnosed people who have mental disorders were more likely to be referred for mental health treatment, and less likely to receive substance abuse treatment and follow-up. Although proven that the treatment of co-morbid patients is a difficult task, adequate assessment and treatment can be provided to lessen this problem—assessment deals with the detailed history of psychiatric and substance abuse symptoms of the patient, while treatment goals are based on the severity of the symptoms and the leading needs of the client. In a nutshell, the level of combination of treatment is determined by the needs of the client, best determined through the assessment of the patient’s history, mental status, stage of substance abuse, and his psychosocial and cultural concerns. In effect, treatment that takes into account all the needs of co-morbid individuals has the possibility of improved results. (2006). Poor engagement from co-morbid client group To have a clear perspective of the effects of poor engagement from a client group with co-morbidity issues, it is best to examine how it occurs specifically in patients with co-morbid alcoholism and mental disorders. Preliminary therapy for alcohol dependence mainly consists of detoxification and psychosocial approaches aimed at sustaining abstinence. Unfortunately, the presence of a co-morbid psychiatric illness can complicate this strategy. To illustrate, depressive indications can hinder a patient’s attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) assemblies or group therapy gatherings, two commonly used psychosocial interventions for alcoholism. As a result, they may miss learning ways for coping with circumstances that represent a great risk for alcoholic relapse. On the other hand, people with antisocial personality disorder may show hostile and manipulative deeds, which can result to interpersonal problems for themselves and for other co-morbid people in treatment. Thus, poor engagement with a client group with co-morbidity issues could lead to an inefficient therapy results for the patient himself and other clients as well. ( 1999) Conclusion Co-morbidity is the appearance of two or more psychiatric physical disorders, such as depression and alcohol dependence. Co-morbidity between mental disorders and substance misuse could lead to adverse and unproductive behaviours, such as suicide and impaired adaptive performance. Upon realizing the negative effects of co-morbidity on a person, treatment of multiple ailments should be performed. Unfortunately, difficulties in co-morbidity therapy exists, due to factors such as insufficient understanding of the multiple disorders of the patient, incompatibility of co-morbidity and the traditional method of medication, and a poor engagement from a client group with co-morbidity issues. Still, certain measures may be done so as to minimize these difficulties and deliver successful treatments to patients with co-morbidity.                                           Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Co-morbidity

This essay discusses the concept of co-morbidity with respect to the field of psychiatry and clinical psychology, and its relation to alco...

Concept of Co-morbidity

This essay discusses the concept of co-morbidity with respect to the field of psychiatry and clinical psychology, and its relation to alcohol abuse and substance misuse. Moreover, the difficulties met by doctors in treating people with co-morbidity, proposed steps so to alleviate these, and the possible outcomes of having poor engagement from a co-morbid client group, are also discussed herewith. Definition In the term co-morbidity, co means jointly or together, while morbidity refers to ailment. Simply put, co-morbidity is defined as the simultaneous occurrence of two or more diseases, may it be psychiatric or physical in nature. ( 2006). The co-occurrence of schizophrenia, alcohol dependence, and depression is an example of co-morbidity. These correlations may reveal a causal connection between one disorder and another, or an underlying susceptibility to the other disorders. (1996). Co-morbidity has become a vital issue with regard to psychiatry and clinical psychology. According to clinical and epidemiological results, co-morbidity that occurs among psychiatric disorders is greatly widespread. In addition, various types of co-morbidity are associated with more serious illnesses and worse clinical consequences (1996). Co-morbidity and Substance Abuse Co-morbidity between substance use disorders (SUDs) and other mental ailments have been widely acknowledged, more specifically in clinical and treatment samples of adolescents. According to studies, depression and alcohol abuse increase significantly during teenage years. When these problems jointly occur, they present challenges to doctors in the fields of evaluation, prioritization of treatment, and the handling of self-harmful actions. Regrettably, such a form of co-morbidity is relatively common (1996).             Numerous experts have conducted studies regarding the simultaneous occurrence of mental disorders and substance misuse. (1992) performed researches in treatment facilities for adolescents who misuse alcohol and other substances. As a result, they discovered that up to 50% of these youngsters have emotional illnesses, the majority of which are major depression and dysthymia. As for the investigation by Burkstein, et al., (1992) which focused on 156 adolescents on a dual diagnosis unit intended to cure substance abuse and other psychiatric ailments, 31% of the subjects experienced major depression. Lastly, a study conducted by Greenbaum, et al., (1991) noted that out of 547 tens who are in multiple mental health and special educational facilities, 48% had severe depression as well as. It has therefore been proven that alcohol use among depressed adolescents and depression among substance-abusing teens, do exist. Alcohol abuse and depression tend to be recurring conditions that could result to impaired adaptive performance and when these conditions co-morbid, adaptive functioning is further damaged. In addition, h (1989) revealed that people with co-morbidity go through different unpleasant experiences such as increased mental symptoms, homelessness, higher possibility for relapse, institutionalization, and problems with handling their lives.  (1995) found out that such patients also experience increasing hospitalization fees, lower satisfaction with familial relations and greater probability for mortality. Also, such co-morbid circumstances have been related to increased occurrence and severity of suicidal actions and completed suicide. Evidently, depression and SUD, when taken together, aggravates each other, and could often lead to severely self-harmful actions (1996). Difficulty in Treatment Although it is clearly important to recognize and treat alcohol and other drug abuse of depressed teenagers, recognizing such abuse is not easy because some of the clinical symptoms of alcohol abuse are similar to those of depression. For example, loss of interest in formerly enjoyed activities can be apparent both in a depressed teenager and an adolescent who is alcohol dependent (2006). Another difficulty in the treatment of patients with co-morbidity is the inadequate fit between such individuals and the traditional system of medication. One traditional method is the separate and parallel treatment. This occurs when two groups work with clinicians simultaneously, each healing one kind of sickness in a parallel approach. Unfortunately, many clinicians have difficulty in coordinating treatment and understanding co-morbidity. (2006). Consequently, the treatment of co-morbid patients is hindered. Moreover, although there is enhanced information regarding the treatment of co-morbidity, obstacles still exist for the successful distribution of assistance.  (1991) assessed the mental health service delivery in drug treatment programs in Los Angeles County and discovered that most of the addiction agenda restricted the admission of co-morbid patients and nearly half did not cater to co-morbid clients. Another hindrance to the treatment of co-morbid individual occurs when doctors miss the second ailment of the patient. In fact, some patients who are mentally ill are not diagnosed by their psychiatrists to have SUDs, while individuals who have SUDs and attend to addiction treatment programs often do not get treated for their psychiatric ailments ( 2006). Lehman and colleagues (1995) reported that dually diagnosed people who have mental disorders were more likely to be referred for mental health treatment, and less likely to receive substance abuse treatment and follow-up. Although proven that the treatment of co-morbid patients is a difficult task, adequate assessment and treatment can be provided to lessen this problem—assessment deals with the detailed history of psychiatric and substance abuse symptoms of the patient, while treatment goals are based on the severity of the symptoms and the leading needs of the client. In a nutshell, the level of combination of treatment is determined by the needs of the client, best determined through the assessment of the patient’s history, mental status, stage of substance abuse, and his psychosocial and cultural concerns. In effect, treatment that takes into account all the needs of co-morbid individuals has the possibility of improved results. (2006). Poor engagement from co-morbid client group To have a clear perspective of the effects of poor engagement from a client group with co-morbidity issues, it is best to examine how it occurs specifically in patients with co-morbid alcoholism and mental disorders. Preliminary therapy for alcohol dependence mainly consists of detoxification and psychosocial approaches aimed at sustaining abstinence. Unfortunately, the presence of a co-morbid psychiatric illness can complicate this strategy. To illustrate, depressive indications can hinder a patient’s attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) assemblies or group therapy gatherings, two commonly used psychosocial interventions for alcoholism. As a result, they may miss learning ways for coping with circumstances that represent a great risk for alcoholic relapse. On the other hand, people with antisocial personality disorder may show hostile and manipulative deeds, which can result to interpersonal problems for themselves and for other co-morbid people in treatment. Thus, poor engagement with a client group with co-morbidity issues could lead to an inefficient therapy results for the patient himself and other clients as well. ( 1999) Conclusion Co-morbidity is the appearance of two or more psychiatric physical disorders, such as depression and alcohol dependence. Co-morbidity between mental disorders and substance misuse could lead to adverse and unproductive behaviours, such as suicide and impaired adaptive performance. Upon realizing the negative effects of co-morbidity on a person, treatment of multiple ailments should be performed. Unfortunately, difficulties in co-morbidity therapy exists, due to factors such as insufficient understanding of the multiple disorders of the patient, incompatibility of co-morbidity and the traditional method of medication, and a poor engagement from a client group with co-morbidity issues. Still, certain measures may be done so as to minimize these difficulties and deliver successful treatments to patients with co-morbidity.                                       Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Concept of Co-morbidity

This essay discusses the concept of co-morbidity with respect to the field of psychiatry and clinical psychology, and its relation to alco...

Why homophobia is wrong

Homophobia: A Closer look on its causes and effects   Homophobia has become a very pervasive phenomenon in the society. It is present in all cultures and remains widely practiced. According to the  (2007), ‘Homophobia is the fear of, version to, or discrimination against homosexuality pr homosexuals. The term homophobic means ‘prejudiced against homosexual people’, and a person who is homophobic is homophobe.’ This condition is characterized by disapproval of homosexual including their behaviors in various sectors of the society. The levels of disapproval against homosexuality vary from culture to culture. The society responds differently on this issue based on their values, belies and orientations in life. Furthermore, their education and social status also attributes to one’s perception and personal views. Homophobia and Homophobic Acts Homophobia can be categorized in four interrelated types; personal, interpersonal, institutional and cultural. Personal homophobia is the feeling of fear or discomfort, disgust against same-sex sexuality (1990). This feeling towards homosexuality is a result of the norms that has been dictated by the society or culture over the years. Anything that may upset the normal or standard way of living is perceived to be immoral and is condemned by others. This deadening reality is what causes personal homophobia among those who are experiencing sexual identity crisis. Homosexuals suffer extreme repression of their emotional desires to conform to social and religious beliefs ( 2007). The likelihood of discrimination and the thought that they are different from their peers may lead to depression and other self destructive activities. Aside from the threat of battling with their own emotions, homosexuals are also victims of Interpersonal homophobia. This type of homophobia is exhibited by people with extreme disgust or hatred toward homosexuality (1990).In this case, they suffer discrimination and other forms of harassments such as verbal and physical abuses. Another is institutional homophobia in which various institutions such as the government, religious institutions and other organization discriminates homosexuals on the grounds of their sexual orientation (1990). Policies against homosexual relationships are implemented in some organizations. In effect, homosexuals are deprived of the right to participate in events with their intimate partners. And lastly, cultural homophobia which is based on social standards and norms which dictate that being heterosexual is better or moral than being lesbian, gay or bisexual (1990). The idea that relationships involve a female and a male is imposed to everyone and thus entail conformity from all. More so, heterosexual relationships are depicted to be ideal while homosexual relationships are often portrayed as having disastrous relationships.     Homophobia in the Society As the pillar of learning, the school is responsible for the improvement of the individuality of the students. It plays a pivotal role in shaping sexuality in gender and serve as a venue in which young people recognize their sexuality ( 2007). The common assumption about young people is that they are innocent about the norms of sexual orientations. However, the inclusion of sex education in the curriculum remains vehemently opposed. Consequently, students are not given the proper education about the sexual orientations. The heterosexual dominance in schools curtails the issue of addressing homosexuality. Gay and Lesbian students experience injustices and marginalization from their fellow students. They become the target of homophobic bullying and harassments which affects their education. Similarly, homosexual teachers experience these conditions.  They are stigmatized and considered as hazardous to children. Thus homophobia in schools is a serious issue. It could be detrimental in the learning process and affect the institution as a whole. Equal rights and protection of homosexuals is also opposed by conservatives within the major religions. Homosexual acts and desires are condemned and considered to be sinful. The religious believes that the very nature of homosexuality is considered a choice and that it can be treated through prayers. Thus the teaching is to love homosexuals and hate the act of homosexuality (2005).  Religion greatly influences people because their basis of morality is anchored with the teachings of their church.  The faithful imbibe the indignation which their faith upholds with regards to certain. In the case of homosexuality, it is deemed as sinful and immoral by the religion and so does the believers. The government is duty bound to guard its people against violation of their civil rights in any form.  Homosexuals are entitled of the right to be protected against any form of harassment in the way that heterosexuals are. However, political opposition for the rights of homosexuals still exists in the society.  Homophobic oppositions to civil liberties such as same –sex marriage, repeal of sodomy laws, adoption by same sex couples and the inclusion of sexual orientation in school curriculum are attributed to homophobia (2007). Effects on Homosexuals and Heterosexuals The emotional anxieties and depression brought about by homophobia greatly affects homosexuals. As they are faced with discrimination they become vulnerable to self destructive activities such as alcoholism. While some may have been caused by self loathing and hatred, it can also be a result of the way they are treated in the society. The propensity to commit suicide becomes imminent especially to those who are physically and emotionally incapable of withstanding harassments and condemnations. In America alone, a substantial number of suicides among gay and lesbians are committed every year. The youth in particular constitute the large percentage of suicides incidences. The onset of adulthood becomes difficult especially when a person realizes that he is different. The suicide rate of the gay youth is seven times than that of a straight youth (2000). Homophobia affects heterosexuals as much as it affects homosexuals. The imposition of normal sex relationships among individuals hinders the enjoyment of any sensual or emotional interaction among same sex. For this reason, intimacies among friends are less likely to develop because of the fear of being judged as homosexual ( 1990). In the same way as homophobia can prevent the development of peer relationships, it can also be destructive to the family. Parents raised their children with normal sexual orientations. And as such they expect them to conform to these standards. Thus, the discovery of a different sexual preference of their children may upset them and ruin the family’s relationship as a whole. Heterosexual men can experience sexual dysfunction caused by the fear of being a gay. In the long run the marriage can be devastated because of this fear (2000). The acceptability of homosexuals is also low in the professional field and other institution. Heterosexuals oftentimes refuse to recognize achievements of homosexuals. They deny themselves of the opportunity to learn from the experiences of homosexuals and to enrich their being by being in contact with them (1990). The government and other institutions that discriminate homosexuals do not uphold the equal enjoyment of civil rights. The act of discriminating these people is a clear indication that oppression may be practiced to anybody on the basis of sex, class, ethnicity or religious beliefs (1990).  As institutions, they have the responsibility to protect the rights of an individual against abuses and value the differences that each of them possesses.   Conclusion: Homophobia is a perennial problem that needs to be addressed seriously. Its apparent existence in the various sectors of the society poses a threat on widespread injustices and discrimination. The family as a basic foundation of the society plays a great role in combating homophobia by supporting and accepting family remembers who are homosexuals. Likewise,   institutions such as the church, government and the religious organizations should take part in this effort. While it is impossible to eradicate homophobic acts, effective measures can be taken in order to minimize incidences of homophobia. Laws that protect harassments should be reinforced to discourage these forms of acts.  Homosexuals as human beings deserve the right to be regarded with respect.  To judge them on the grounds of their sexual preference or orientation is in itself immoral. People should start rethinking their distorted views on homosexuality with a great sense of maturity. The uniqueness of each individual must be recognized and respected regardless of their sexual identities. As for homosexuals, self worth is not determined by conforming to societal norms. Being true to oneself is not a crime at all. One has to free himself of pretensions and emotional repressions as the evasion of one’s sexual realities will prove to be a futile effort. The best way to deal with this fear is confronting it.  While people may be discriminative, the important thing is that you strive to live a life based on truthfulness and honesty. What other people would say about you doesn’t change you, unless you let it.   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Why homophobia is wrong

Homophobia: A Closer look on its causes and effects Homophobia has become a very pervasive phenomenon in the society. It is present in...

Why homophobia is wrong

Why homophobia is wrong

Homophobia: A Closer look on its causes and effects Homophobia has become a very pervasive phenomenon in the society. It is present in...

Why homophobia is wrong

Why homophobia is wrong

Homophobia: A Closer look on its causes and effects Homophobia has become a very pervasive phenomenon in the society. It is present in...

Dissociation and Traumatic Effects of a Disturbing Child Environment

Dissociation and Traumatic Effects of a Disturbing Child Environment     Introduction When a person who is experiencing a traumatic event is in danger of being overwhelmed by too many intense feelings that cannot be processed at the time. The ego defends itself from complete disorganization by instituting the defense of dissociation, which distracts from the reality of the experience by allowing detachment. According to Spiegel and Cardena (1991), dissociation is a psychological state in which thoughts, emotions, identity, and/or memory are not integrated within the self. The continuation of this defense mechanism after the trauma, in order to ward off re-experiencing the feelings associated with the traumatic event, may result in a reduced capacity for feeling, thinking, remembering, or being (Varvin, 1998). The symptoms of flashbacks, nightmares, and intrusive thoughts are the result of the ego’s attempt to facilitate integration of the feelings with the physical experience. This phenomenon of affective and cognitive avoidance has been commonly observed following a trauma and is hypothesized to be motivated by self-preservation. Cardena and Spiegel (1993) classified three types of responses to trauma. These includes a detachment from others and the physical environment; alterations in perceptions; and impairments in cognitive functioning. The concept of the dissociative phenomenon is congruent with Horowitz’s (1986) posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) model of normal and pathological phases of posttraumatic stress. According to the model, normal responses to trauma are expressed in two predominant phases: the intrusive state, characterized by unbidden ideas and feelings and even compulsive action, and the denial state, characterized by emotional numbing and constriction of ideation. In the pathological response, these states continue to be used as a response to all stress, because the original feelings of loss and grief have been repressed. Within this model, the terms dissociation, denial, and emotional numbing all can refer to the same phenomenon (Horowitz, 1993). Dissociation is a symptom of trauma that cuts across diagnostic boundaries as classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM-IV) (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994). Dissociative symptoms may be present in a number of diagnostic categories as well as PTSD, including panic, borderline personality disorder, somatization, and eating disorders. Dissociative identity disorder is the most extreme example of dissociative psychopathology (Braun, 1993). Furthermore, Sanders (1986) defined dissociation as a multidimensional construct that is characterized by blocking of connections between affects, cognitions, and voluntary control of behaviors. Dissociative phenomena are thought to occur along a continuum from normal, such as fantasy, absorption, and daydreaming, to pathological in which the dissociative episodes are involuntary and often involve negative consequences for the individual (Braun, 1985; Kluft, 1985). Most contemporary etiological models of dissociative disorders postulate that dissociation is a normal defense mechanism available to individuals in varying degrees during overwhelmingly frightening, stressful, or painful situations. It also suggests that individual differences in dissociative ability are, in part, biologically/genetically based. Moreover, the capacity to dissociate is greatest during childhood and particular family relationship patterns can foster an enhanced ability to dissociate or an over reliance on dissociation. Consistent with these suppositions, Braun and Sachs (1985) proposed that a child’s biological and psychodynamic substrates of dissociation interact with family dynamics to form a predisposition to later dissociative episodes or disorders. In particular, an inconsistent family environment, in which the child is given affection and punishment at different times for the same behavior, creates intense stress and confusion which influences dissociative tendencies. Similarly, Beahrs (1982) and Spiegel (1986) emphasized the necessity of both an innate dissociative ability and parental inconsistency or double-binds in the formation of multiple personality disorder (MPD). In Kluft’s (1984) four-factor theory, multiple personality disorder is conceptualized as the final common pathway from many distinct etiological agents. Family factors such as family chaos, contradictory parent demands or reinforcement systems, identification with a dissociative parent, and inadequate nurturance or soothing are all thought to contribute to the development of MPD. In support of his model, Kluft (1987) reported that most mothers with MPD are extremely inadequate or abusive parents. Drawing on recent research in infant emotional regulation, Putnam (1991) proposed that the discrete behavioral states observed in infants and toddlers (Wolff, 1987) serve as foundations for later dissociative states. Attentive, nurturant parenting helps the child to gain control over behavioral states whereas detached, nonresponsive, rejecting, or inconsistent parenting impairs the child’s ability to modulate behavioral states. Poor control over behavioral states may result in decreased stabilization of the child’s baseline state of consciousness (Tart, 1975), thus facilitating switching or dissociative processes. Putnam also speculated that parental dissociation might contribute to child dissociation through genetic transmission or through abusive parenting that may be common among highly dissociative parents. Moreover, dissociative experiences (e.g., amnesia, loss of time) may interfere with a parent’s ability to act consistently and attentively. Finally, Barach (1991) proposed that MPD and other dissociative disorders can be meaningfully conceptualized as disorders of attachment. In Bowlby’s theory of attachment (Bowlby, 1988), children attempt to elicit care-taking behaviors from their primary attachment figure when frightened or upset. Parental emotional unavailability or neglect creates a great deal of distress for children who will initially engage in behaviors to reestablish attachment with the parent. If the neglect persists, however, the child is thought to defend against feelings of abandonment and fear by becoming detached and disinterested in the attachment figure. Barach (1991) proposed that this detached state is, in fact, a type of dissociation. Consequently, it is parental emotional neglect and nonresponsiveness that leads to defensive detachment and dissociation in the child. Based on the discussions, one could surmise that family factors may influence child dissociation in a number of ways. First, high levels of dissociation in a parent may increase a child’s dissociative tendencies through genetics, behavioral modeling, or introjection. Second, highly inconsistent parenting practices create high levels of stress and may lead to habitual dissociation in a child with nascent dissociative tendencies. Third, unresponsive or rejecting parenting may interfere with children’s ability to stabilize a baseline state of consciousness that is adaptable in most contexts (e.g., school, peers) and may lead to defensive detachment and dissociation. High dissociative ability, then, presumably operates as a risk factor for dissociative psychopathology. Based on the discussions above, traumatic events on a child’s environment will more or less provide adverse effects on the future actions of the child. This study intends to determine the primary causes of dissociation and trauma particularly during childhood.   Reference: American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Barach, P.M.M. (1991). Multiple personality disorder as an attachment disorder. Dissociation, 4, 117-123. Beahrs, J. O. (1982). Unity and multiplicity: Multilevel consciousness of self in hypnosis. Psychiatric disorder and mental health. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent–child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books. Braun, B. (1993). Multiple personality disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder: Similarities and differences. In J. Wilson (Ed.), International handbook of traumatic stress syndromes (pp. 35-47). New York: Plenum Press. Braun, B. G., & Sachs, R. G. (1985). The development of multiple personality disorder: Predisposing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors. In R. P. Kluft (Ed.), Childhood antecedents of multiple personality disorder (pp. 37-64). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Cardena, E., & Speigel, D. (1993). Dissociative reactions to the Bay Area earthquake. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 474478. Horowitz, M. (1986). Stress response syndromes. Northvail, NJ: Jason Aronson. Horowitz, M. (1993). Stress response syndromes: A review of posttraumatic stress and adjustment disorders. In J. Wilson & B. Raphael (Eds.), International handbook of traumatic stress syndromes (pp. 48-60). New York: Plenum Press. Kluft R. P. (1987). The parental fitness of mothers with multiple personality disorder: A preliminary study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 11, 273-280. Kluft, R. P. (1985). The natural history of multiple personality disorder. In R. P. Kluft (Ed.), Childhood antecedents of multiple personality disorder (pp. 197-238). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Putnam, F. W. (1991). Dissociative disorders in children and adolescents: A developmental perspective. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 14, 519-531. Sanders, S. (1986). The Perceptual Alteration Scale: A scale measuring dissociation. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 29, 95-102. Spiegel, D. (1986). Dissociation, double binds, and posttraumatic stress in multiple personality disorder. In B. G. Braun (Ed.), Treatment of multiple personality disorder (pp. 63-77). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Spiegel, D., & Cardena, E. (1991). Disintegrated experience: The dissociative disorders revisited. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 366-378. Tart, C. T. (1975). States of consciousness. El Cerrito, CA: Psychological Processes. Varvin, S. (1998). Psychoanalytic psychotherapy with traumatized refugees: Integration, symbolization, and mourning. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 52(1), 64-71. Wolff, P. H. (1987). The development of behavioral states and the expression of emotions in early infancy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.   Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com

Dissociation and Traumatic Effects of a Disturbing Child Environment

Dissociation and Traumatic Effects of a Disturbing Child Environment Introduction When a person who is experiencing a traumatic event ...