Study
A reading room for systems, partners, and curious clinicians. Curated DID and plurality research, plain-language summaries, and links to the originals. Not exhaustive; not a replacement for therapy; honest about what the evidence does and doesn’t say.
Phase 5 will add a DB-backed feed (arXiv / PubMed / PsyArXiv ingest, weekly digest, moderator review). For now, this is a small hand-curated list of what we’ve found most useful so far.
Reading list
-
An Empirical Examination of Dissociative Identity Disorder → Brand BL, Loewenstein RJ, Spiegel D · Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 2014
Direct response to the "is DID even real" literature. Synthesizes the empirical case, including neuroimaging and treatment-outcome evidence.
-
Authenticity of Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Reply to Boysen and VanBergen → Reinders AATS, Willemsen ATM, Vos HPJ, den Boer JA, Nijenhuis ERS · NeuroImage, 2012
Evidence from fMRI that distinct identity states in DID are neurobiologically real, not the product of role-play or suggestion.
-
Guidelines for Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder in Adults, Third Revision → International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation (ISSTD) · Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 2011
The standard reference for clinicians. Worth knowing what your therapist (or your partner's) is working from. Long, dense, written for professionals.
-
Epidemiology of Dissociative Disorders: An Overview → Εar V · Epidemiology Research International, 2011
Prevalence data across community samples and clinical populations. DID is more common than most people assume; this is the citation for that.
-
Self-injury in plural systems: A community survey → Various β Plural Positivity World Conference proceedings · Plural community research
Survivor-led research from inside the plural community. Less peer-reviewed than the journals above, more relevant for understanding lived experience.
What you won’t find here
- RAMCOA debate threads. The literature on ritual abuse is divisive and frequently weaponized; we’re not curating in that area until we can do it carefully.
- Clickbait. If a paper’s headline is bigger than its evidence, we don’t link it.
- Research that requires you to be a clinician to read. The picks above all have at least one section a non-clinician can follow.
Suggest something
Found something we should add? Email scottbeach137@gmail.com with a link, the journal name, and a sentence on why it earned space in your head. We’ll review and add the good ones.