Depersonalization, adversity, emotionality, and coping with stressful situations

23Citations
Citations of this article
104Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Depersonalization is defined as persistent or recurrent episodes of feeling detached or estranged from a sense of self and the world. This study addressed the primary question: Do nonclinical individuals who endorse high symptomatic depersonalization have inherently more intense emotional responses, along with more childhood adversity and past trauma? In this IRB approved study, participants who met clinical levels of depersonalization (n = 43, 16.3%) were compared to a group without clinical levels of depersonalization (n = 221, 83.7%). Adverse childhood experiences, adult traumatic events, emotional overexcitability, coping strategies under stress, and anxiety were examined in both groups. The variables to assess depersonalization severity included the Dissociative Experience Scale-II, Cambridge Depersonalization Scale, and Multiscale Dissociation Inventory. The results indicated that clinical levels of depersonalization were identified in 16.3% of the sample. The high depersonalization group had significantly more adverse childhood experiences, in particular, emotional abuse and neglect. They also experienced more adult traumatic events, higher levels of anxiety, more emotional overexcitability, and they employed a less adaptive emotion-oriented coping strategy under stress. It is recommended that treating depersonalization symptoms should include examining childhood adversity, especially emotional abuse and neglect. Based on study findings, emotion regulation skills should be promoted to help individuals with elevated depersonalization manage their emotion-oriented coping strategies, anxiety, and emotional overexcitability.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Thomson, P., & Jaque, S. V. (2018). Depersonalization, adversity, emotionality, and coping with stressful situations. Journal of Trauma and Dissociation, 19(2), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2017.1329770

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free