A Cross-Cultural Test of the Trauma Model of Dissociation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to test the trauma model of dissociation, the authors compared two samples with similar rates of reported childhood physical and sexual abuse: 502 members of the general population in Winnipeg, Canada, and 304 psychiatric outpatients at Shanghai Mental Health Center in Shanghai, China. There is virtually no popular or professional knowledge of dissociative identity disorder in China, and therefore professional and popular contamination cannot be operating. According to the trauma model, samples from different cultures with similar levels of trauma should report similar levels of dissociation. According to the sociocognitive model, in contrast, pathological dissociation is not related to trauma and should be absent in samples free of cultural and professional contamination. Of the 304 Chinese respondents, 14.5% reported childhood physical and/or sexual abuse compared to 12.5% of the Canadian sample. Both samples reported similar levels of dissociation on the Dissociative Experiences Scale and the Dissociative Disorders Interview Schedule. The findings support a specific prediction of the trauma model of dissociation not tested in previous research, and are not consistent with the sociocognitive, contamination or iatrogenic models of dissociative identity disorder.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".