comparative analysis

Last Name 10

First Name Last Name

Professor Barlow

English 1302-33003

20 March 2017

Is Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) Real or Fake?

Existing now at the moment of societal life, many argue that Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) – formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD) – is a fake disorder. Others argue that it is unethical to claim that a disorder is false when it has evidence to prove it. Since DID is caused by severe trauma at a young age, many have debated whether these negative memories are false and if DID patients have recalled memories that did not really happen. In the articles, “Can People Have Multiple Personalities?” by Scott O. Lilienfeld and Hal Arkowitz and “DID: Drawing the Line Between Fact and Fiction” by Robert T. Muller, the authors address the issue at hand. The claims of both articles are effective because the authors were able to support their position on the argument with facts/statistics.

In “Can People Have Multiple Personalities?,” Lilienfeld and Arkowitz organized their article in a way that is simple for readers to understand. The article starts out by giving examples of TV shows and films that are based on DID. The major differences between the two sides of the argument are then explained in the next couple of paragraphs. Towards the end of the article, Lilienfeld and Arkowitz come to a conclusion based on their research. Furthermore, this article appeals to logos. The reason why is that the authors of this article are persuading the reader about whether or not DID is real with logic and reason. In “DID: Drawing the Line Between Fact and Fiction,” Muller organizes his article in a similar, but different way than Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s article. The article also begins with an example of a film that is based on DID. Following the example is an explanation that “DID is a diagnosis that is not without controversy” (Muller). In the rest of the article, an interview with Dr. Brand, a psychologist, is stated in the format of an interview, with questions and answers. Furthermore, unlike Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s article, Muller’s article appeals to ethics. Muller convinces/persuades the reader with information from a credible source – a psychologist. Moreover, in both articles, the introduction and conclusion of the articles were weak. The introduction of each article did not provide a preview of the article to the readers. The conclusion did not summarize the article or restate the claim. The conclusion in Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s article only stated the author’s suggestion on how to get patients to understand their disorder better. The conclusion in Muller’s article wasn’t exactly a conclusion – it was just Dr. Brand’s answer to the last interview question. Thus, the lack of summary in the introduction and conclusion makes both the introduction and conclusion weak in both articles.

To make the reader want to read an article, there must be a strong and clear title. The main purpose of a title is not only to catch the reader’s attention, but also to provide a brief preview of what the article is going to be about. The title of Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s article, “Can People Have Multiple Personalities?,” is strong, well-written, and catches the reader’s attention. This is a strong and well-written title because it gives the reader an insight of the article as evidenced by the words “Multiple Personalities.” Additionally, since the title is in a question format, it causes the reader to critically think about the answer and then encourages the reader to read the article. Similar to the previous article’s title, the title of Muller’s article, “DID: Drawing the Line Between Fact and Fiction,” is also strong, well-written, and catches the reader’s attention. The title clearly states what the article is going to be about, making it strong and well-written. The words “Line Between Fact and Fiction” indicate to the reader that this article is going to explain which statements about DID/MPD are real/true and which are fake/false. This title would also catch the attention of those who are interested in DID/MPD because, if they read this article, the truth about what is real and false would be explained. Since both articles have a strong, well-written, and attention grabbing title, both at least begin effectively.

A claim is the position or side that the author(s) are on. Having a claim lets the reader know whether the author(s) are for or against the argument at hand. In addition, having a claim makes the entire article blend together, instead of going back and forth from one side to another. In other words, any information stated after the claim will be able to relate back to the claim, making the claim one of the most important parts of an article. The authors of “Can People Have Multiple Personalities?” claim, "Plenty of evidence supports the idea that DID is not merely a matter of faking and that most people with the condition are convinced that they possess one or more alters" (Lilienfeld and Arkowitz). Their claim is that Dissociative Identity Disorder, more commonly known as Multiple Identity Disorder, is a real mental disorder. This is a strong claim because it is clear and has evidence that supports it. The authors support their claim with statistics from a survey that was conducted by a psychiatrist, a hospital, the psychiatrist’s colleagues, and from studies done by other psychiatrists. In the second article, Muller’s claim is, “scientists and clinicians who support the trauma model…believe that trauma comes first and is an antecedent that has a causal role in DID. It is so painful for the child to deal with the trauma that they begin to dissociate while the experience is happening” (Muller). Muller, in other words, argues that DID/MPD is a real disorder. Compared with the claim of the first article, this is also a strong claim because it also has multiple pieces of evidence to back it up. Muller supports his claim with data, clinical interviews, and research done by others. Overall, the claims in both articles are effective and strong with not much difference between one another.

An opposition is the side that goes against the side that the article is arguing for. Although the opposition’s belief is different, it does not mean that their beliefs are wrong; hence, it is still important to mention the opposition’s side of the argument. In the former article, the authors mention the opposition by stating, “Despite such practices, persuasive evidence for discrete coexisting personalities in individuals is lacking” (Lilienfeld and Arkowitz). The opposition that is stated is quoted fairly. Although there are many pieces of evidence that prove that DID is a real disorder, there hasn’t been much evidence proving the coexistence of personalities in a person diagnosed with DID. Lilienfeld and Arkowitz go into further detail of their opposition by stating,

The reported distinctions among alters are mostly anecdotal, unconfirmed and difficult to interpret. For instance, the handwriting and voices of people without DID may also vary over brief periods, especially after a mood change…Individuals with DID almost surely experience dramatic psychological changes across situations, so it would be surprising if their physiology did not change as well. (Lilienfeld and Arkowitz)

The opposition is supported with an example that demonstrates how we can distinguish one alter from another. The explanation that follows the example, however, proves that the recorded evidence for coexistence of personalities is invalid.

In Muller’s article, instead of just stating his side, he also provides the reader with the opposition’s side. Muller includes the opposition by stating, “they…consider DID to…be over-diagnosed” (Muller). Like the first article’s opposition, this opposition is also quoted fairly. Although the opposing side believes that DID is a real disorder, they also believe that it may have been diagnosed too many times, such that it seems unrealistic. Muller further explains the opposition by stating,

They believe overzealous therapists reinforce patients when they display certain behaviours and encourage patients who do not have DID to begin to believe they have the disorder. Supposedly then these patients, who they think are fantasy-prone and are highly suggestible by nature, begin to enact having DID. (Muller)

Muller included this to further explain the opposition because it explains why the opposing side believes that DID/MPD is over-diagnosed. Perhaps, psychiatrists are hoping that their patients have the disorder, such that they can study it; however, the very fact that they encourage the disorder means that it isn’t a real one. It also, strangely, speaks to patients’ desires to satisfy their therapists – to give them what they think they want. The opposition of both articles was quoted fairly, as mentioned earlier, making this another key factor that contributes to making the articles effective.

Although a topic becomes controversial because of the beliefs of two or more sides, there is always a common ground. It is important to mention a common ground in the article because it shows that, although the sides disagree, at some point, they will agree before they part ways once again. The authors of “Can People Have Multiple Personalities?,” however, did not mention a common ground. Regarding the topic on Dissociative Identity Disorder or Multiple Identity Disorder, the common ground that Lilienfeld and Arkowitz should have mentioned is that both sides of this argument agree on the fact that DID, if it is real, is a result of a trauma. If an individual experiences a trauma – such as abuse – as a child, there is a high chance that he/she could develop DID over time in order to avoid bad memories. The lack of addressing even this one piece of common ground shows a limited reach made by Lilienfeld and Arkowitz, perhaps because they simply don’t want to take the time to develop common ground. They are more interested in stating their own views and research, rather than looking at the topic as a whole. As opposed to Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s article, Muller’s article does mention a common ground. With the topic of DID at hand, Muller mentions the common ground by stating, “the fantasy model…is also sometimes called the iatrogenic model. Those who follow this model consider DID to exist to some extent” (Muller). Muller is implying that both sides of the argument believe that DID is a real disorder. Since the author of “DID: Drawing the Line Between Fact and Fiction” mentioned a common ground, this makes the article a bit stronger than the previous one.

For an article to be valid or trustworthy, there has to be evidence stated in the article that supports the claim the authors are arguing. Unfortunately, Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s article does this in a mediocre way, such that they make it appear as though they have valid evidence, when actually they do not. For instance, in one part of the article, they state, “In a survey conducted in 1989 by psychiatrist Colin Ross, then at Charter Hospital of Dallas, and his colleagues, the average number of alters was 16” (Lilienfeld and Arkowitz). This statement may be considered strong when it is first read, but when it is read again, there are noticeable things that make it weak. The statement includes the date of when the survey was conducted, who conducted the survey, and the result of the survey; however, the name of the survey, the number of people that were surveyed, the number of males and females that were surveyed, which races were surveyed, and where the survey was conducted are not mentioned in the statement. The lack of these items makes the evidence weak because, without this information, the reader will not know whether or not this was a valid survey. Further along in the article, there is stronger evidence that is stated: “Indeed, a review in 1999 by one of us (Lilienfeld) and his colleagues found that between 35 and 71 percent of patients with DID also have borderline personality disorder” (Lilienfeld and Arkowitz). This evidence is stronger than the previous evidence. From this statistic, the reader knows that only those with DID were reviewed, the review was in 1999, and this review was not based off of one person, but many.

In contrast to Lilienfeld and Arkowitz, Muller did not have any directly stated evidence in the article. The majority of the article was an interview between The Trauma & Mental Health Report and Dr. Brand; thus, the only evidence that this article had was what Dr. Brand had mentioned. Some evidence that should have been stated is when and where the interview with Dr. Brand occurred, the dates and details of the cases that Dr. Brand mentioned, and other cases, experts, and/or interviews that are related to the topic. Having varied strengths of evidence makes the article more effective than an article that only has strong or weak evidence; therefore, Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s article is more effective than Muller’s in this area.

Articles that mention experts and their studies, if any, are more credible and reliable. Lilienfeld and Arkowitz mentioned multiple experts in their article. For example, they state, “Psychiatrist Frank Putnam of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital has argued for the use of DID ‘bulletin boards’ on which alters can post messages for one another in notebooks or other convenient venues” (Lilienfeld and Arkowitz). This convinces me that Frank Putnam is an expert because of his title and the name of the hospital he is currently employed at. Since DID deals with psychology and Frank Putnam is a psychiatrist, this makes him very credible. Conversely, their other supposed “expert” is an actress and not credible in the least. Lilienfeld and Arkowitz state, “actress Toni Collette plays Tara Gregreson, a Kansas mother who has dissociative identity disorder (DID)…As with others with DID, Tara vacillates unpredictably between various personalities, often referred to as alters, over which she does not have control.” This does not convince me that Toni Collette is an expert just because she is an actress, as evident in her title. The article states that Collette plays a woman with DID, and this means that she, herself, doesn’t have DID. If the authors would have mentioned that she knew someone with DID or had a psychology or psychiatry degree, then this would have convinced me that she is an expert.

Even despite their use of an actress, Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s article, when compared to “DID: Drawing the Line Between Fact and Fiction” by Muller, is nevertheless more credible than Muller’s. The reason is Muller’s article had only one expert, when Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s article had multiple. The only expert that was directly stated in Muller’s article is “Psychologist Bethany Brand, a professor at Towson University, and an expert on Dissociative Identity Disorder” (Muller). Dr. Brand is a credible expert, as is evident in her title and place of employment. Since DID is related to psychology and Dr. Brand is a psychologist, this makes her credible. Because this article only had one expert, some experts that could have been stated are other psychologists or psychiatrists, people that had been diagnosed with DID, etc. Having experts is another important factor in order to make an article effective; thus, Lilienfeld and Arkowitz’s article is more effective than Muller’s in this area, as well.

The argument on whether or not Dissociative Identity Disorder is a real disorder doesn’t seem to be coming to an end any time soon. The authors – Lilienfeld and Arkowitz and Muller – presented their argument on this topic in strong and weak ways. Some of the evidence that was provided in “Can People Have Multiple Personalities?” was not strong enough and confused me about whether their point was to prove that DID is real or to prove that it is fake. I would also prefer for these authors to have more statistics in their article. Although they did have many experts and surveys mentioned, the amount of statistics provided wasn’t enough to convince me. On the other hand, “DID: Drawing the Line Between Fact and Fiction” by Muller was an interesting and informative article; however, due to the lack of experts and evidence, this made the article as a whole less effective. If the author would have provided more experts and more directly stated evidence, the article would have been better. Overall, I would recommend “Can People Have Multiple Personalities?” and “DID: Drawing the Line Between Fact and Fiction” only to those who are interested in DID/MPD, though not as an informative one because of the lack of statistics and evidences that was provided.

Works Cited

Lilienfeld, Scott O., and Hal Arkowitz. "Can People Have Multiple Personalities?" Scientific American. N.p., 22 Aug. 2011. Web. 06 Feb. 2017.

Muller, Robert T. "DID: Drawing the Line Between Fact and Fiction." Psychology Today. N.p., 02 May 2014. Web. 01 Mar. 2017.