Welcome to Chrome - an independent, community-run forum for everything to do with the Chrome browser!
The largest independent, community-run forum for discussions related to Chromebooks and everything else ChromeOS.
I've been doing voice acting for just over four years now and wanted to share a perspective that I've developed recently that I would have found immensely helpful to have back when I started.
Obviously, this is based entirely on my own worldview and personal experience (and will probably be controversial to some), so take it or leave it as you wish. This is just where I'm at currently and I'm sure my views will develop further as time goes on.
The mentality that I had when I started voice acting was that I needed to book the job. That's the whole point. You get the coaching so you can get the demo, so you can get the audition, and then book the job.
Several months ago I had an epiphany (in no small part due to the out-of-this-world perspectives of Elley Ray Hennessy). I now feel that I've been going about things completely wrong this entire time, and it had driven me into the ground.
Let me elaborate.
If you've been in this industry for any length of time, you know that one of the things that is taught regularly is that you have to get coaching before doing anything else. How people go about getting the coaching is up to them, but the majority aren't going to get it all from one source. However, there is one thing that almost all of these coaching methods have in common: they teach that there is a "right" and a "wrong" way to go about doing things.
Some examples may be that it's wrong to brush over the brand name, it's wrong to inflect down at the start of a list, or it's wrong to skip over periods, etc.
The issue here is that, as I've come to see things, "wrong" is a matter of perspective in this work. Yes, there are certain things that are wrong without question (ignoring file labeling instructions comes to mind) but when it comes to the artistic side of this work, wrong is a matter of perspective.
I have a couple of agents I'm working with right now. Shortly after getting the first one, I had a call with them just to introduce myself and to learn more about their work process.
One of the things they commented on was my slates. For every one of the sample scripts they sent my way, I had done some variation on slating my name. On one I'd chosen a very melodramatic tone and said "(off mic) ugh this is so lame! (on mic) It's *name*. (off mic again) that's it? I can go now? Great." Each slate showed my ability to do something that wasn't in the script. The agent said that they thought my slates were clever, showed my range, and they made them pay more attention to my reads. "They woke me up".
For my third agent, I got a call from them, and immediately after saying hi and confirming that I was the voice talent that they wanted to speak to, they said "So, your slates are really weird. Don't to them like that." They then explained why my slates were jarring and would cost me work, and even went so far as to say that unless the script said to slate, I should never slate.
This really threw me off because I thought I had something good going on with my slates. They were unique to me. My calling card, if you will. The agent, however, said in no uncertain terms that they were bad and that I should can them.
This was especially discombobulating because my other agent liked them! It's not like the first agent was smaller than the second agent or something; both are quite well known. What gives?
This experience percolated for a while until I did some coaching with Elley Ray, which shone some light on it and gave me a new way of looking at things.
You've probably heard of "tips and tricks" that will give you a higher chance of booking a job. Things like improvising a bit, doing multiple takes, humanisms, leaving your mistakes in, etc. I've gotten plenty of them from a whole bunch of different sources and I've tried them all.
What I didn't clue into is that they are almost entirely redundant for one simple reason:
you don't know what the person listening to your audition is thinking. There are a million factors going on that I have zero control over that play into whether or not I'm going to get the job, and there is
nothing I can do about it.
It doesn't matter how many takes I do if the listener is in a rush.
It doesn't matter how funny my improv is if they just want to hear the lines of the script.
It doesn't matter how convincing my humanisms are if they don't want them.
It doesn't matter if I get my audition in early if they listen to auditions a week after submitting the request.
It doesn't matter if I slate creatively if they don't want creative slates.
It doesn't matter if I don't slate at all because they may have wanted a slate.
It doesn't matter if I do the perfect read, because they may want someone who sounds more like Aaron Paul than I do.
We all know how ruthless the auditioning process is. My read MIGHT get listened to for five seconds. If I haven't captured them in that time, I'm out, and there's nothing I can do about it.
The thing is, all I can do is GUESS what is going to hook them, and considering how many possibilities there are, the chances of me doing the "right" thing are inconceivably low.
I doesn't matter how well I audition if, for whatever reason, they don't think I have the right read.
To delve deeper into this, I present to you two links to two different ads. Both are from the same series of ads for google chrome. One is for the American market, and one is for the Australian market.
American:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd7zxDThkvk Australian:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdH_KocQbpA Same product, same type of script, VASTLY different reads. Question is, why doesn't the American spot sound more like the Australian spot or vice versa?
There are a couple of reasons that come to me off the top of my head.
1: There are different styles of voice-over depending on where you are in the world. You learn things from British coaches that are discouraged by American coaches, for example.
2: Different casting directors could also play a role. Each one will have an ear for their respective market and what is going to do well.
3: Talent worldview. Everyone grew up differently, and it influences how we see the world, communicate, and most importantly, take direction.
The thing is, the talent doing these reads have no control over any of those things. How many amazing reads do you think were sorted through before they settled on these two?
Another example: The guy who's currently the official voice of Mickey Mouse, Bret Iwan? Micky Mouse is legitimately his first gig. He just had a good sense of who Micky was and had a friend at Pixar that sent him the audition. No training, no microphones, no booth, nothing. Just talent and good fortune. Keep in mind, he booked the gig AFTER Disney had already gone through who knows how many other professional voice actors. If you want to hear more of his INSANE story, you can check it out here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NSCT_ukW-8
All of these examples point to there being almost nothing we can do as talent to increase our chances of getting booked. This is a frightening prospect! Any sense of control that I thought I had over my booking rates? Out the window. It also means that basing my success on the amount I book is redundant because there are people out there with far less experience who book more/better jobs (I mean, Mickey Mouse? Seriously?)
The question then is where does that leave me? If it's just LUCK as to whether or not I make a good enough impression to get the job, then what am I supposed to do?
Well, here's the logical conclusion:
Q. If there isn't anything I can do to make myself stand out and have a better chance of booking the job, what CAN I do?
A.
Be yourself. After all, why not? Because of all the factors that we know go into deciding on a talent, why bother trying to read the tea leaves and predict what they're going to want?
The funny thing is that I actually have a
better chance of booking the audition by being myself because at least then I'm guaranteed to be unique in some way, which is the whole point, right? At the very least, I've got a better chance of being unique than the other 50 talent auditioning who are all focusing on the same "secret tips and tricks" and reading the script "correctly" to the point where they all sound the same.
In addition, being authentically me naturally lends itself to coming off as more natural, real, and genuine: all things that are highly sought after nowadays on virtually every project.
Now, this isn't to detract from storytelling ability. That's just as important, and that's where your training comes in. You still have to be able to forget the microphone is there and deliver a captivating performance. You still have to have good diction. However, those things aren't what adds the "special sauce". Anyone with a bit of training can read a script well, or "properly". It's learning how to bring your authentic self to the script that makes the magic happen.
Question is, what does it mean to find your authentic self? How does one do it?
I think the process is different for everyone and is ongoing. In my case, I had to realize that my life is based on perspective and that I can choose to look at things however I want and have them be true enough for me that I'm able to stay happy. Nowadays, I "get" every single script I audition for. That doesn't mean that I book the job, but it does mean that I make sure that I'm never doing a canned performance. If I feel like I'm faking it, I haven't gotten it yet.
I can't say how you can find your authentic self. That's something you have to figure out. What I can say is that part of the process is learning that you have to let go of other people's expectations of you if you want to have a chance at seeing it.
Going back to the "wrong" vs "right" way to read a script; hopefully, I've demonstrated by now that wrong and right in acting are completely down to perception and personal preference. What this means is that on every single script, you have to choose to do what feels right
for you. Not what you
think is right for the director, or the writer, or the engineer, or anyone else.
For you. After all, you are the only person you know well enough to know if you're getting it or not.
By being true to yourself, you'll start shaking off the shackles of conformity and will start doing things that surprise your listener. Heck, you might even surprise yourself! Whether it books you the job or not is another matter, but at least you'll be getting their attention more.
You'll also be having more fun. I'm pretty sure that nobody enjoys the "ah, I messed up that take" process where you do the read fifty times because you think you're inflecting in the wrong way. Nowadays, I almost never record more than three takes.
Forget about the technical side of things. If you've been doing this long enough, that stuff should be second nature. Give into your creative side. "Use the force, Luke".
"But I still want to book work!" I hear you say. Understandable, which is why I have one last thing I'd like to touch on.
There is nothing you can do, outside of being yourself and being an excellent storyteller that is going to get you the winning audition. However, you can still tip the odds in your favor another way.
Strong relationships that are built on trust.
If you demonstrate your integrity, reliability, and trustworthiness on every single job you do, you're going to book work more consistently. The funny thing is that it has nothing to do with ability and everything to who you are as a person.
Oh, and good fortune. You have to be given the opportunity to demonstrate those things in the first place, and that just comes down to the all-powerful casting director saying "let's try the new guy", and as I've hopefully shown, that has almost nothing to do with you.
I know I'm not the only one who's posted on here, discouraged about how things are going. "Why aren't I booking? Am I any good? Am I wasting my time?"
All of these thoughts are based on the worldview that I'M the reason that I'm not booking as much as I want, that there's something wrong with ME, and that I should keep trying to fix ME in order to make people like MY reads more. Had I had the perspective that I have now back when I started, I would have been a more relaxed, creative talent from the get-go, and probably would be farther along than I am now. I wouldn't have wasted time trying to please people. I would have taken more risks, perked up more ears, and probably booked more work. I also would have avoided a LOT of pain and mental strain.
After all, I don't know how well I'm doing. Not really. If someone isn't booking, that doesn't mean they aren't making it to the top five shortlists on every third audition they do. That doesn't mean that they haven't been getting unlucky with who's listening to their reads.
If you've been told by multiple people who know what they're talking about that you're good, then you probably are, particularly if you've been taken on by a reputable agency. You not booking doesn't mean you aren't skilled, or talented. It just means that the stars haven't aligned for you yet, or that you aren't marketing/auditioning enough.
TLDR; Be yourself because it's the only unique thing you can actually do that will make you stand out in some way, and don't base your success on your booking rates because there are people who are less skilled talent than you who are booking more than you. Find your authentic self and define success in the way that is most beneficial for you so that you
don't give up and
ARE AROUND when you do get your big break. Network, build strong relationships, and always be ready to lend a hand.
Booking consistently is just as much about connections and making a good impression in the industry as auditioning. You'll do auditions that you think are pure gold, and get booked for the job where you half-assed your audition because you were tired. It's completely down to the listener, and you can't know what they're thinking, so why bother trying to figure it out? Be friendly, talk to people, be authentic, and be consistent. I don't think there's an audition technique out there that can beat those things.
AGAIN, THESE ARE MY THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS SO PLEASE DON'T VIVISECT ME.
Merci Beaucoup.
I was cogitating about my own experiences of
dissociation all the way back to my earliest memories of "splitting off" into "more comfortable head spaces" in light of Erik Erikson's widely publicized notion of
eight developmental stages and the application of those notions to psychotherapeutic
Re-Development as I wove through twilight sleep this morning on the way to "waking up."
(I could go way off into
that topic for sure, but suffice it to say that twilight sleep presents us all with opportunities to see, hear, feel and sense what
IS beyond the barriers of our
conditioning, in-doctrine-ation, in
struction,
socialization, habituation and
normalization) if we develop sufficient self-awareness to do so.)
I saw that even though they rarely carry my "sense" (actually not, but we'll get to that later) of "
self" off into
Learned Helplessness, Dread & the Victim Identity, my own disparate personas (or "alters") continue to drive me to distraction in well-developed fantasies of one thing and another that have been rehearsed, rewound, replayed, rewarded and reinforced for decades. The most "evolved" and self-aware of all these
Internal Family Systems Model characters
can see, hear, feel and sense all the others
as "characters." Moreover as personas constructed decades ago to be IFSM "protectors" via the same sort of childlike "magical thinking" that
is the
action of
Piagetian-inspired, "fantasy operational processing" (which, IME observing
hundreds of "adult children" occurs between his "pre-operational" and "concrete operational" stages of cognitive development). Rehearsed, habituated and normalized over time, these "entities" come to be taken for granted and UNconsciously accepted as -- while not quite "actual" -- elements of the collective self... or Eriksonian Identity.
So, I thought, "Can all this be boiled down to a manageable encapsulation I can use in the future as a working title for conceptual 'lens' through which to observe this phenomenon?" Here's what I came up with (for the time being):
Childhood Trauma may drive Fantasy Operational Compensations into Separate Paths to Separate Identities leading to Dissociative Identity Disorder.
And I turned on the computer here and went looking for corroborative scholarship. I found a lot of useful stuff via NCBI, but only one paper thus far (from an author in Istanbul, Turkey, which has been a hotbed of research on both DID and BPD for many years; and
NOT, IMO, at all surprisingly in a town where European sophistication interfaces daily with normalized, old-world abuse of -- especially female -- children). Here's the citation and abstract:
V. Sar (at the Koc University School of Medicine): Parallel-Distinct Structures of Internal World and External Reality: Disavowing and Re-Claiming the Self-Identity in the Aftermath of Trauma-Generated Dissociation, in
Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 8, February 2017. (doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00216 at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28261144)
The nature of consciousness and the autonomy of the individual's mind have been a focus of interest throughout the past century and inspired many theories and models. Revival of studies on psychological trauma and dissociation, which remained outside mainstream psychiatry, psychology, and psychoanalysis for the most part of the past century, has provided a new opportunity to revisit this intellectual and scientific endeavor. This paper attempts to integrate a series of empirical and theoretical studies on psychological consequences of developmental traumatization, which may yield further insight into
factors which threaten the
integrity of
human consciousness. The paper proposes that an individual's experience of distorted reality and betrayal precipitates a cyclical dynamic between the individual and the external world by disrupting the developmental function of mutuality which is essential for maintenance of the
integrity of the internal world while this inner world is in turn regulated vis-à-vis external reality. Dissociation -- the common factor in all types of post-traumatic syndromes -- is facilitated by violation of boundaries by relational omission and intrusion as represented by distinct effects and consequences of childhood neglect and abuse. Recent research conducted on clinical and non-clinical populations shows both bimodal (undermodulation and overmodulation) and bipolar (intrusion and avoidance) neurobiological and phenomenological characteristics of post-traumatic response. These seem to reflect "parallel-distinct structures" that control separate networks covering sensori-motor and cognitive-emotional systems. This understanding provides a conceptual framework to assist explanation of diverse post-traumatic mental trajectories which culminate in a common final pathway comprised of partly overlapping clinical syndromes such as complex PTSD, dissociative depression, dissociative identity disorder (DID), or "borderline" phenomena. Of crucial theoretical and clinical importance is that these maladaptive post-traumatic psychological formations are regarded as processes in their own right rather than as a personality disorder innate to the individual. Such mental division may perform in that internal detachment can serve to preserve the genuine aspects of the subject until such time as they can be reclaimed via psychotherapy. The paper attempts to integrate these ideas with reference to the previously proposed theory of the "Functional Dissociation of Self" (Şar and Öztürk, 2007).
These are the phrases in that abstract that caught my eye right off:
1) "...
factors which threaten the
integrity of
human consciousness."
2) "...bimodal (
undermodulation and overmodulation) and bipolar (intrusion and avoidance) neurobiological and phenomenological characteristics of
post-traumatic response."
3) "...'
parallel-distinct structures' that control
separate networks covering sensori-motor and cognitive-emotional systems."
4) "This understanding provides a conceptual framework to assist explanation of
diverse post-traumatic
mental trajectories which culminate in a common final pathway comprised of partly overlapping clinical syndromes such as complex PTSD, dissociative depression, dissociative identity disorder (DID), or "borderline" phenomena."
And here's why: Having dived deeply into Bessel van der Kolk's big swimming pool of neurobiological stress (via such as his
Traumatic Stress: The Effects of Overwhelming Experience on Mind, Body and Society (1996) and
The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma) I ran into people like Bruce McEwen, Sonya Lupien, Robert Sapolsky and old faves like Hans Selye, Joseph Wolpe and Herbert Benson on the way down to the "bottom" and Stephen Porges and Pat Ogden. Sar's paper wastes no time in going straight into all that material on the
Fight / Flight / Freeze / Faint / Feign (or Fawn) Responses that can lead to sustained Fry and Freak in the
General Adaptation Syndrome. Stay there for even a short time and the mind will start scrambling to find The Way Out... including...
Dissociation.
And when that happens, "...
factors which threaten the
integrity of
human consciousness" start to FRAGMENT consciousness into discrete compartments -- or "vaults" -- where intolerable
affective) states can be "locked away" behind
compensatory masques of alternate identities. The child can fantasize being capacious, capable and competent in various ways to offset the "fact" of an crushed
ego crushed (or "
DEcompensated into
Learned Helplessness & the Victim Identity from having been repeatedly neglected, ignored, abandoned, discounted, disclaimed, and rejected, as well as invalidated, confused, betrayed, insulted, criticized, judged, blamed, shamed, ridiculed, embarrassed, humiliated, denigrated, derogated, set up to screw up, victimized, demonized, persecuted, picked on, vilified, dumped on, bullied, gaslighted, scapegoated, emotionally blackmailed and/or otherwise abused by others upon whom they depended for survival in early life. (This abuse
can occur later in life, e.g.: in
lengthy cult emmersion or in a career path where "success" is impossible.)
That "...bimodal (
undermodulation and overmodulation) and bipolar (intrusion and avoidance) neurobiological and phenomenological characteristics of
post-traumatic response" and "...'
parallel-distinct structures' that control
separate networks covering sensori-motor and cognitive-emotional systems" occur in DID seems about as plain as the nose on my face. (To
me, anyway.) Which, IMO, "provides a conceptual framework to assist explanation of
diverse post-traumatic
mental trajectories" that are patently obvious in "dissociative identity disorder (DID), or 'borderline' phenomena."
"No one is born crazy. They are
taught to be," wrote social psychologist Jules Henry more than 50 years ago. IME, the form of "crazy" we call "dissociation" is just the result of one more -- admittedly complex -- form of
conditioning, in-doctrine-ation, in
struction,
socialization, habituation and
normalization) that compels children to come up with
some scheme of
compensatory narcissistic self-protection to prevent
complete destabilization and decompensation into something like the floridly psychotic, schizophreniform disorders.
Identity-switching dissociation may confuse the hell out of the patient
and most of the people with whom he or she comes in regular contact, but it's a far "better" alternative than wholesale delusion with NO evident ability to deal with life on life's terms whatsoever.
References & Resources Abramowitz, J.: the stress less workbook: Simple Strategies to Relieve Pressure, Manage Commitments and Minimize Conflicts; New York: The Guilford Press, 2012.
Agarwal, N.: fMRI Shows Trauma Affects Neural Circuitry, in Clinical Psychiatry News, Vol. 37, No. 3, March 2009.
Alanen, Y.: The Family in the Pathogenesis of Schizophrenic and Neurotic Disorders, in Scandinavian Archives of Psychiatry, No. 42, 1966.
Andersen, S.; Teicher, M.: Desperately Driven and No Brakes: Developmental Stress Exposure and Subsequent Risk for Substance Abuse, in Neuroscience of Behavior Review, Vol. 33, No. 4, April 2009.
Andrianarisoa, M.; Boyer. L.; Godin, O.; et al: Childhood trauma, depression and negative symptoms are independently associated with impaired quality of life in schizophrenia. Results from the national FACE-SZ cohort, in Schizophrenia Research, Vol. 170, No. 1, January 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2016.12.02
Bateson, G.; Jackson, D.; Haley, J.; Weakland, J.: Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia, in Journal of Behavioral Science, Vol. 1, 1956.
Benson, H.: The Relaxation Response, New York: Morrow, 1975.
Berger, M. D., ed.: Beyond the Double Bind: Communication and Family Systems, Theories, and Techniques with Schizophrenics, New York: BruneMazel, 1978.
Bowen, M.: A Family Concept of Schizophrenia, in Jackson, D., ed.: The Etiology of Schizophrenia, London: Basic Books, 1960.
Burgo, J.: Why Do I Do That?: Psychological Defense Mechanisms and the Hidden Ways they Shape our Lives, Chapel Hill, NC: New Rise Press, 2012.
Burrow, T.: The Social Basis of Consciousness, New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1927.
Carlson, N.: Physiology of Behavior, 7th Ed., Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2001.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: The Effects of Childhood Stress Across the Lifespan, Atlanta, GA: CDC, 2008.
Clarkin, J.; Lenzenweger, M.: Major Theories of Personality Disorder, New York: The Guilford Press, 1996.
Copeland, W.; Keeler, G.; et al: Traumatic events and posttraumatic stress in childhood, in Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 64, 2007.
Courtois, C.: It's Not You: It's What Happened to You: Complex Trauma and Treatment, Dublin, OH: Telemachus Press, 2014.
Cullen, A.; Zunszain, P.; et al: Cortisol awakening response and diurnal cortisol among children at elevated risk for schizophrenia: Relationship to psychosocial stress and cognition, in Psychoneuroendocrinology, Vol. 46, Aug 2014.
Dacey, J.; Travers, J.: Human Development, 4th Ed., Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999.
Damasio, A.: The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness, New York: Harcourt, 1999.
Damasio, A.: Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain, New York: Pantheon, 2010.
DeBellis, M.: Developmental Traumatology: Neurobiological Development in Maltreated Children with PTSD, in Psychiatric Times, Vol. 16, No. 11, 1999.
Dworsky, O., Pargament, K.; et al: Suppressing spiritual struggles: The role of experiential avoidance in mental health, in Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2016.
From here on, I'm just going to list the cited references in the text. The purpose of the references listed above is simply to indicate the volume of material that -- IMO -- supports the assertions in the text above. If a reader wants further references and resources to develop a grad school level paper on this topic, they are welcome to contact me for that. Kluft, R.; et al: Childhood Antecedents of Multiple Personality Disorder, Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1985.
Lupien, S., Gaudreau, S., Tchiteya, B., Maheu, F., Sharma, S., Nair, N., et al: Stress-Induced Declarative Memory Impairment in Healthy Elderly Subjects: Relationship to Cortisol Reactivity, in Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Vol. 82, No. 7, 1997.
Lupien, S.; Evans, A.; et al: Hippocampal Volume is as Variable in Young as in Older Adults: Implications for the Notion of Hippocampal Atrophy in Humans, in Neuroimage, Vol. 34, No. 2, 2007.
Lupien, S.; Maheu, F.; et al: The Effects of Stress and Stress Hormones on Human Cognition: Implications for the Field of Brain and Cognition, in Brain & Cognition, Vol. 65, No. 3, 2007.
Lupien, S.: Brains Under Stress, in Canadian Journal of Psychiatry / Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2009.
Lupien, S.; McEwen, B.; Gunnar, M.; Heim, C.: Effects of stress throughout the lifespan on the brain, behaviour and cognition, in Nature Reviews - Neurosciences, April 29, 2009.
McEwen, B.; Seeman, T.: Protective and damaging effects of mediators of stress: Elaborating and testing the concepts of allostasis and allostatic load, in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 896, 1999.
McEwen, B: Mood Disorders and Allostatic Load, in Journal of Biological Psychiatry, Vol. 54, 2003.
McEwen, B.; Lasley, E. N.: The End of Stress as We Know It, Washington, DC: The Dana Press, 2003.
Ogden, P.; Minton, K.: Sensorimotor Psychotherapy: One Method for Processing Traumatic Memory, in Traumatology, Vol. 6, Issue 3, October 2000.
Ogden, P.; Minton, K.: Trauma and the Body: A Sensorimotor Approach to Psychotherapy, New York: W. W. Norton, 2006.
Ogden, P.; Fisher, J.: Sensorimotor Psychotherapy: Interventions for Trauma and Attachment, New York: W. W. Norton, 2015.
Porges, S.: The polyvagal theory: New insights into adaptive reactions of the autonomic nervous system, in Cleveland Clinical Medical Journal, No. 76, April 2009.
Porges, S.: The Pocket Guide to the Polyvagal Theory: The Transformative Power of Feeling Safe (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology), New York: W. W. Norton, 2015.
Putnam, F.: Diagnosis and Treatment of Multiple Personality Disorder, New York: The Guilford Press, 1989.
Putnam, F.: Dissociation in Children and Adolescents: A Developmental Perspective, New York: The Guilford Press, 1997.
Sapolsky, R.: Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers: The Acclaimed Guide to Stress, Stress-Related Diseases and Coping, 3rd Ed., New York: Holt, 2004.
Selye, H.: Stress Without Distress, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippencott, 1974.
Van der Hart, O.; Horst, R.: The Dissociation Theory of Pierre Janet, in Journal of Traumatic Stress, Vol. 2, No. 4, 1989.
Van der Hart, O.; Nijenhuis, E.; Steele, K.: The Haunted Self: Structural Dissociation and the Treatment of Chronic Traumatization, New York: W.W. Norton, 2006.
Van der Kolk, B: Traumatic Stress: The Effects of Overwhelming Experience on Mind, Body and Society, New York: Guilford Press, 1996 / 2007.
Van der Kolk, B: The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma, New York: Viking Press, 2014.
Van der Kolk, B.: Commentary: The devastating effects of ignoring child maltreatment in psychiatry – a commentary on Teicher and Samson 2016, in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 57, No. 3, March 2016.
Wolpe, J.: Psychotherapy by Reciprocal Inhibition, Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1958.
Wolpe, J.; Wolpe, D.: Life Without Fear: Anxiety and Its Cure, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1981, and Oakland, CA: New Harbinger, 1987.