Psychosomatic Medicine Faster Service from Outside North America
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MENDELSON, M.
Right arrow Articles by WEBBER, C. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by MENDELSON, M.
Right arrow Articles by WEBBER, C. S.

Psychosomatic Medicine 18:363-373 (1956)
© 1956 American Psychosomatic Society

A Critical Examination of Some Recent Theoretical Models in Psychosomatic Medicine

(Special Article)

MYER MENDELSON M.D.1, SOLOMON HIRSCH M.D.1, and CARL S. WEBBER M.A.1

1 Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, N. S., Canada

The unscientific attitudes of many psychosomatic publications are discussed.

Dunbar's "personality profiles," Alexander's "emotional specificity," and Wolff's "protective adaptive reaction" are presented as an introduction to the concept of "physiological regression" as discussed by Michaels, Margolin, Szasz, Hendrick, and Grinker. Various errors in the above theories are discussed and an attempt is made to show how they arose, why they are misleading and how they may be avoided. In doing this, the following are dealt with:

A tendency to biased selection of clinical and physiological data to prove a given point

The confusion between phenomenological description and etiology.

The belief that there must be one, and only one, theory to "explain" the etiology of psychosomatic illnesses.

The questionable assumption that parasympathetic hyperactivity is synonymous with, or a necessary concomitant of, psychosomatic illness.

The analogical reasoning on which "regression terminology" has been founded.

The conceptual errors which result when psychosomatic illness and physiological malfunctioning are not properly differentiated.

The unproved assumption that psychoses and psychosomatic illness have a definite relationship.

We conclude that many of the above theoretical models have served to produce new terms only, and that they impart no useful or verifiable information, and that the main problems posed by psychosomatic illnesses will remain with us until painstaking empirical observations and factual report complement theorizing.

Submitted on November 28, 1955




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Psychosom. Med.Home page
D. R. Lipsitt
Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry and Psychosomatic Medicine: The Company They Keep
Psychosom Med, November 1, 2001; 63(6): 896 - 909.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 International Journal of Social PsychiatryHome page
O. Von Mering
Disease, Healing and Problem Solving: a Behavioural Science Approach
International Journal of Social Psychiatry, April 1, 1962; 8(2): 137 - 148.



HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1956 by the American Psychosomatic Society