Content uploaded by Dirk Corstens
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Dirk Corstens
Content may be subject to copyright.
Article Proofs Cover Sheet
Manuscript Information
Journal acronym RPSY Author name Corstens
Volume/Issue Manuscript number 571705
AUTHOR: Please find attached a copy of the proofs of your article. These have been copy-
edited and now require your attention. When reviewing your proofs you should:
• Answer all queries raised during the editing of your manuscript (see below).
• Check for any other factual corrections (NB – only minor changes can be made at this
stage; major revisions cannot be accepted).
All required corrections should be submitted using the CATS online corrections form. Once you
have added ALL query answers and corrections, please press the SUBMIT button.
PLEASE NOTE THAT ONCE YOUR CORRECTIONS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE
ARTICLE, IT WILL BE CONSIDERED READY FOR PUBLICATION.
QUERY NO. QUERY DETAILS
General
Query 1
•
•
General
Query 2
AQ1
AQ2
As an author you are required to secure permission if you want to
reproduce any copyrighted material in your article. For further details,
please visit http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/preparation/permission.asp.
Please confirm that:
• permission has been sought and granted to reproduce the material in
both print and online editions of the journal; and
• any required acknowledgements have been included to reflect this.
Please confirm that all affiliation details for all authors are present and
correct. Please note that with the exception of typographical
errors/missing information, we are unable to make changes to authors or
affiliations. For clarification, please see
http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/preparation/writing.asp
Chadwick 2006 not in refs list, please give details.
Psychosis
Vol. 0, No. 0, Month 2011, 1–10
ISSN 1752-2439 print/ISSN 1752-2447 online
© 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17522439.2011.571705
http://www.informaworld.com
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
BRIEF REPORT
Talking with voices: Exploring what is expressed by the voices
people hear
Dirk Corstens*a, Eleanor Longdenb and Rufus Mayc
aRIAGG Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands; bDepartment of Psychological Sciences,
University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; cBradford District Care Trust, Bradford, UK
Taylor and FrancisRPSY_A_571705.sgm
(Received 6 March 2011; final version received 10 March 2011)
10.1080/17522439.2011.571705Psychosis – Psychological, Social and Integrative A1752-2439 (print)/1752-2447 (online)Original Article2011Taylor & Francis0000000002011Mr DirkCorstensd.corstens@riagg-maastricht.nl
Although people who hear voices may dialogue with them, they are regularly
caught in destructive communication patterns that disturb social functioning. This
article presents an approach called Talking With Voices, derived from the theory
and practice of Voice Dialogue (Stone & Stone, 1989: Embracing our selves: The
voice dialogue training manual, New York: Nataraj Publishing), whereby a
facilitator directly engages with the voice(s) in order to heighten awareness and
understanding of voice characteristics. The method provides insight into the
underlying reasons for voice emergence and origins, and can ultimately inspire a
more productive relationship between hearer and voice(s). We discuss the
rationale for the approach and provide guidance in applying it. Case examples are
also presented.
Keywords: auditory hallucinations; dissociation; trauma; therapy; psychosis
The fact that many people who hear voices have endured significant trauma is a much-
neglected aspect of the voice hearing (VH) experience (Read, van Os, Morrison, &
Ross, 2005). Psychiatry frequently dismisses VH as a meaningless pathological
phenomenon with no relevance to a person’s emotional or social circumstances, and
as such clinicians are generally encouraged not to engage with clients’ VH experi-
ences (Romme, Escher, Dillon, Corstens, & Morris, 2009). In contrast, Romme and
Escher (e.g. 1993, 2000) argue that VH onset is precipitated by individuals dissociat-
ing from emotional and experiential content, with voices emerging as (distorted)
reflections of threatening, overwhelming events. Indeed, VH is understood as having
a “protective” function: a manifestation of a vital defensive manoeuvre whereby trans-
forming internal conflict into voices is psychologically advantageous. In lieu of this
position, many people hearing disturbing voices have found that a turning point for
recovery is changing the relationship through finding different ways of understanding
and communicating with their voices (Romme et al., 2009).
Conceptualising VH within relational frameworks has recently become an area of
psychological inquiry, with numerous authors exploring the reciprocal dynamics
between hearer and voice (e.g. Chin, Hayward, & Drinnan, 2008; Hayward, Overton,
Dorey, & Denney, 2009; Pérez-Álvarez, García-Montes, Perona-Garcelán, & Vallina-
Fernández, 2008). Because many people can identify relationship styles with their
voices, preferred techniques in these studies are often role-playing scenarios that
*Corresponding author. Email: d.corstens@riagg-maastricht.nl
RPSY_A_571705.fm Page 1 Friday, April 8, 2011 5:14 PM
2 D. Corstens et al.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
attempt to modify interactions between the individual and their voice(s). In our
approach, which is derived from the Voice Dialogue method (Stone & Stone, 1989),
we talk directly to voices in order to explore their motives, discover different ways of
relating to them, and ultimately support the voice-hearer to develop a more construc-
tive relationship. Working in this way can foster a more independent position from
which an individual can reclaim control and choice. Some voices can even become
supportive (Moskowitz & Corstens, 2007).
The theory behind the technique
Voice Dialogue is derived from various theoretical traditions concerned with the
psychology of Self, including Jungian, Gestalt and Transactional Analysis (in this
context, voice does not actually refer to VH, but is a metaphorical allusion to aspects
of one’s personality). Originally conceived for exploring different roles, conflicts, and
tensions in social relationships, a key tenet of Voice Dialogue is that “normal” person-
ality is essentially dissociative (i.e. we all have different personality components that
exist simultaneously and of which we are not consciously aware). In contrast to the
general assumption of a single, monolithic identity, the Stones suggest that everyone
consists of numerous “selves” or “sub-personalities”, each with its own perception of
the world, personal history, emotional reactions, and opinions on how we should live
our lives. Dividing the personality into component parts in this way is not a novel
concept. See, for example, the writings of Berne (1964), James (1891), Jung (1912/
2003), and Young (1994) for models using similar principles.
Organised in opposites, so-called primary and disowned selves, these parts help us
adapt to the demands of our daily interactions. Dominant selves want us to succeed in
life by meeting the demands of social situation, yet in doing so they push away our
more vulnerable parts. These (disowned) selves become repressed and unable to play
a significant role, thereby restricting the repertoire of selves. Such adaptations are gener-
ally governed by rules that were prevalent during childhood, and initially the organi-
sation of the selves is beneficial as we learn what behaviour is necessary and expected
in daily life. However, as life circumstances change the selves often stay fixated in their
original roles and prevent us from adaptation. Mostly we are unaware of this. For exam-
ple, someone raised by strict, authoritarian parents may develop a primary self that
strongly wants to appease people. The opposite, disowned self (which wants to chal-
lenge and ask questions, even if it means rejection) is pushed away by the more dominant
“pleaser” self, which craves approval. A person with selves organised like this will
frequently neglect their own needs in favour of satisfying other peoples’.
Voice Dialogue facilitates exploration of the selves in order to heighten awareness
of the various sub-personalities one contains and establish greater control over the
thoughts and actions relating to them. In the practice of Voice Dialogue the inter-
viewer (who is not called a “therapist” but a “facilitator”) asks the client to concentrate
on a self (e.g. the pleaser, the inner child, the controller) and go into the energy of this
particular self by standing/sitting in a different part of the room. This self is then ques-
tioned about its function in the person’s life. The facilitator does not engage in debate
or persuasion or elaborate any pressure to change: they simply express their curiosity
and desire to acknowledge the presence and individuality of this particular self, who
in turn experiences this acknowledgement and displays feelings and emotions, like a
“real” person. Finally, the facilitator asks if the self has any advice for the person, then
thanks it and asks the person to return to their original seat and reflect on what has
RPSY_A_571705.fm Page 2 Friday, April 8, 2011 5:14 PM
Psychosis 3
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
occurred. Mostly people express surprise and a sense of increased understanding
about how this aspect of themselves conveys itself in daily life.
Talking with voices
In contrast, of course, voices are not felt as personality parts. On the contrary, they are
experienced as autonomous (possibly malicious and controlling) entities that oppress
and impose upon the hearer. Accordingly, getting rid of voices is a goal that preoccu-
pies many people (voice-hearers and professionals alike). However in our experience,
at least in the short-term, learning to cope with voices and accept their presence is a
more realistic aim. Voices represent a part of the person that wants to be heard and
acknowledged. Many voices are angry and malicious, but angry people want to vent
their outrage and express why they are so incensed. In some respects, voices are like
ordinary people. They have feelings, motives, shortcomings, and opinions. Further-
more, they may not use rational strategies, but react out of frustration. Voice Dialogue
therefore offers a good explanatory model of VH, as voices can be interpreted as
selves that relate to overwhelming emotional difficulties in the hearer’s life (Corstens,
Escher, & Romme, 2008).
Deeming VH a biological abnormality to be endured (rather than a significant
experience to be explored) discourages engaging with voices on the grounds that they
are meaningless symptoms of psychosis. Conversely, however, individuals who
engage with their voices are generally less distressed and disabled than those who lack
the capacity or motivation to do so (Mawson, Cohen, & Berry, 2010; Romme et al.,
2009; Shawyer et al., 2007; Veiga-Martinez, Perez-Alvarez, & Garcia-Montes, 2008).
The fact that resistance towards voices is significantly associated with anxious and
depressive symptomatology is consistent with claims that VH lies on a continuum
with intrusive cognitions whereby the act of suppressing and distancing against unac-
ceptable thoughts paradoxically heightens the likelihood of occurrence (Chadwick,
Lees, & Birchwood, 2000; Morrison & Baker, 2000). In contrast, acceptance and
acknowledgment allows individuals to deflect attention and behavioural resources
from avoiding and containing VH experiences towards the more important goal of
living a fulfilling life (Valmaggia & Morris, 2010).
Correspondingly, the dissociative literature generally accepts that direct engage-
ment with disparate, disowned aspects of the personality – including individuals with
co-morbid “psychotic” experience – is crucial for therapeutic change and integration.
Engaging and acknowledging voices has been advocated in the treatment of posttrau-
matic disorders (Brewin, 2003; Holmes, & Tinnin, 1995; Nurcombe, Scott & Jessop,
2008), whereas Ellason and Ross (1997) report significant reductions in Schneiderian-
type voices in dissociative identity disorder patients two years after psychotherapy
completion (see also Kluft, 1984). These approaches are partly guided by the rationale
that VH’s biographical context provides a framework for both exploring psychosocial
dilemmas and integrating traumatic, unassimilated experiences into existing represen-
tational structures (Mollon, 2001). Given that VH is increasingly being conceptualised
as dissociative (Moskowitz, Read, Farrelly, Rudegeair, & Williams, 2009), and that
voices in patients designated psychotic cannot be reliably distinguished from those
diagnosed with dissociative disorders (Moskowitz & Corstens, 2007), a model for
working with voices that emphasises their dissociative nature is a logical progression.
In a variant of Voice Dialogue, Talking With Voices, we have developed a proce-
dure that approaches VH in patients designated psychotic in a style considered
RPSY_A_571705.fm Page 3 Friday, April 8, 2011 5:14 PM
4 D. Corstens et al.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
customary in the field of dissociative disorders. The approach does not focus on
voices as a symptom of illness, nor does it concentrate on discovering what is
“wrong” with the person. Instead, it offers a neutral yet robust approach that empha-
sises acceptance as a core value (Romme & Escher, 1993). An important principle is
that we are not necessarily trying to change the voices, nor banish them from the
person’s life: instead, we are trying to explore the relationship; help the voice-hearer
reclaim control and ownership of their experiences; and understand the voices’
motives for appearing in a negative way. Indeed, both the voice and voice-hearer are
generally unhappy in their mutual conflict, so improving understanding between both
parties is an important aspect of the process. Further outcomes include discovering
more positive ways of negotiating and relating to voices, altering power dynamics,
enhancing coping, and heightening awareness and understanding of voice character-
istics. Furthermore, voices often harbour information that can be beneficial for
understanding the difficulties voice-hearers experience in their interpersonal lives.
Allowing others to “hear” the voices and witness the person’s experience more
directly can also prove empowering and validating, as well as mitigating the sense of
isolation voices often generate. Ideally, facilitators should have some formal exper-
tise in the Voice Dialogue method and/or have experienced it themselves. Further-
more, they must be capable of responding appropriately to the various experiences of
violation and trauma that voice-hearers and/or voices may disclose (e.g. childhood
abuse, sexual assault, attachment dysfunction).
Case example
“Jacob” is a 23-year-old man diagnosed with schizophrenia. He heard one extremely
destructive voice that urged him to kill himself and commented incessantly on his
thoughts and behaviour. Jacob was terrified of the voice and resented its presence.
After several unsuccessful attempts to mitigate it using medication, he was referred to
one of the authors (DC) for therapy. Prior to speaking with the voice, several sessions
were spent establishing a working relationship with Jacob, and gathering relevant
information about his voice and its relation with his life circumstances.
When the Talking With Voices method was described to Jacob, he was enthusias-
tic to try it. The voice also gave its permission, although it was initially hostile and
expressed considerable animosity towards Jacob. It described its constant sense of
outrage towards him, claiming that Jacob deserved to die because he was “weak” and
servile. When asked if such prolonged anger was tiring, the voice agreed that it was:
it wanted Jacob to be stronger, but all its comments only made him more anxious and
fearful, which was deeply frustrating. The facilitator observed that the voice seemed
to want Jacob to grow more resilient, which the voice agreed with, although when
questioned further conceded that its methods for attempting this were not effective.
The facilitator asked when Jacob became less anxious, to which the voice replied:
“when he is supported”. The facilitator asked whether the voice knew how to support
Jacob, and when it stated it did not, he described ways in which he had learned to
support anxious people. The voice was intrigued, and agreed that it would like to
become Jacob’s “Teacher”. In subsequent sessions the facilitator suggested ways the
voice could improve its supportive qualities and over time it amended its previous
haranguing, criticising attitude, evolving from a tormenter to an encouraging compan-
ion who helped Jacob express what he needed. Thereafter, treatment focus was shifted
towards helping Jacob set attainable social and occupational goals.
RPSY_A_571705.fm Page 4 Friday, April 8, 2011 5:14 PM
Psychosis 5
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Conducting a session
Before commencing, it is important to have some insight into the voice’s influence
within the person’s life. A good tool for this purpose is the Maastricht Hearing Voices
Interview (Romme & Escher, 2000), which examines associations between life history
and VH through a systematic exploration of: voice characteristics; content; triggers;
the history of VH; and significant events in the life of the voice hearer (Corstens et al.,
2008). The resulting information provides the basis for a psychosocial, dynamic
formulation of factors that provoked VH onset and/or continuance. Depending on
available time, it can be administered either directly before speaking with voices or
during a prior session.
Beginning the session
After describing the method’s rationale, the facilitator enquires how the person and the
voices would feel about talking with her, taking care to explore why they find it a good
idea or not. At all times she behaves as if talking to individual members of a continually
present group, who must all give their consent. If the voices do not agree, then the facil-
itator explains the possible advantages, but she never coerces either voice-hearer or
voices to partake in the interview. All three parties (facilitator, voice-hearer, voices)
must concur and feel safe, and if this condition is not fulfilled then the session should
not proceed. There are many other ways to achieve a better relationship with voices
(see Larøi & Aleman, 2010), and these can be discussed as more suitable alternatives.
Talking with the voice
The facilitator asks the person to concentrate on the chosen voice and, when contact
is established, to take another place in the room. This is usually based on where they
feel the voice is coming from, although it is not the sole criteria and the chair can be
placed anywhere, as long as it different to where the person was at the start of the
session. Using chairs in this way is important for distinguishing to both voice-hearer
and facilitator that what is speaking is a different part of the person.
The voice is welcomed by the facilitator who tries to adopt a suitable attitude towards
it. For example, a passive voice should be addressed in a gentle way, and a domineering
voice with respectful assertion. During questioning, the voice-hearer repeats the voice’s
comments word-for-word. If the person prefers to remain dominant, the facilitator can
speak indirectly to the voices, asking questions whose answers are formulated by the
voice-hearer as an intermediary. This can be used as a warm-up exercise or the sole
method, depending on the voice-hearer’s inclination, although if possible it is preferable
to repeat the voice verbatim as it allows it to express itself more directly. Table 1 provides
examples of questions to pose to the voice. Although it may seem strange to refer to
the voice-hearer in the third person, we have found that directly addressing the voice
stimulates it to remain present. In this model, the voice is performing a “job” for the
voice-hearer. Throughout the process the facilitator engages with the voice in an open
and respectful way, taking care to thank the voice for its explanations.
Ending the session
When the facilitator, voice-hearer, or voice wishes to close, the facilitator asks if the
voice is happy to finish the dialogue, and maybe renew the conversation at another
RPSY_A_571705.fm Page 5 Friday, April 8, 2011 5:14 PM
6 D. Corstens et al.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
time. She says goodbye to the voice, and possibly makes a positive comment about it,
then returns to the person who goes back to the chair they used at the start of the
session and reflects on what occurred. People often express surprise (particularly
when the voice presents previously unknown information) and may express a new
sense of objectivity towards the voice. The facilitator discusses how it felt to speak
with the voice, and the voice-hearer provides their perspective on what it said.
Finally, an Awareness phase is initiated. The facilitator asks the person to stand
beside her, and together they view the scene while the facilitator objectively
summarises what she saw. Most people appreciate this, as it helps them to become
(more) aware of what occurred during the interview. Before leaving, she encourages
the person to continue making contact with the voices at home, and maybe consider
some potentials for changing the relationship (e.g. negotiating; setting boundaries;
using voices as clues to inner emotional conflicts; responding to voices in a construc-
tive, tolerant way rather than hostility, or avoidance). It can be helpful to keep a diary
of progress between sessions.
Once this process is initiated, we frequently find that the voice-hearer and voices
begin to develop things for themselves. Ideally, the voice-hearer should have the
opportunity to talk with the voices directly using the chairs, as it permits them to
rehearse speaking with the voices in a safe environment, and with confidence they
may be able to do this independently. Sessions can also be summarised on paper after-
wards by the voice-hearer and/or facilitator. Time for planning future sessions should
be spent collaboratively so that the voice-hearer can determine what they want to
achieve, and the facilitator can express any concerns she may have in advance.
Case example
“Nelson” is 47-year-old man with a history of severe childhood abuse. He served in
the Army before mental health difficulties, precipitated by the murder of his wife,
forced him to retire. He was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, but had recently
withdrawn from medication after finding it ineffective. He heard three voices: John
(aged 7); Judas (aged 47), and Mother (who resembled Nelson’s mother when he was
7 years old). Judas and Mother were the most domineering voices, whereas John
Table 1. Potential questions.
1. Who are you? Do you have a name?
2. How old are you?
3. What do you look like?
4. How are you feeling at the moment?
5. Does (name of voice-hearer) know you?
6. When did you come into (name’s) life? What was your reason?
7. Did you have to do anything to look after (name)?
8. What do you want to achieve for (name)?
9. What’s your role in (name’s) life? Are you helping or causing problems?
10. What would happen to (name) if you weren’t there?
11. How does (name) feel about you?
12. What is it like being in (name’s) life?
13. Would you like to change anything in your relationship with (name)?
14. Do the other voices know about you? What do they think of you? Do they collaborate with
you?
15. Is there anything you want to advise/suggest to (name)?
RPSY_A_571705.fm Page 6 Friday, April 8, 2011 5:14 PM
Psychosis 7
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
represented the memories of Nelson’s abuse. Judas and John were constantly present
but the Mother voice appeared intermittently, usually during periods of intense stress.
Nelson attended a residential training workshop about VH run by two of the
authors (DC and EL). As Nelson had never worked therapeutically with either facili-
tator, time was spent prior to the Talking With Voices session exploring the content
and characteristics of his voices. Judas and John first appeared when Nelson was
seven, when they instructed him to build a tent in his bedroom. Throughout his child-
hood, Judas and John provided companionship and comfort. The Mother voice
appeared when Nelson had his first breakdown. This voice was cruel and destructive.
In turn, John was debilitating due to the intense feelings of fear and despair he induced
in Nelson. Although Judas was perceived as having good intentions, Nelson found
him frightening because of his austere, commanding nature. Nelson’s goal was to
learn to understand his voices and to cope with them in a more constructive way.
Both Nelson and the voices readily agreed to talk with us. Nelson was unsure
which voice to speak with first, and we advised to start with a dominant one, then ask
its permission to proceed to more disowned ones (if this is not done then the dominant
voice, whose task is to protect the voice-hearer, may grow annoyed and aggressive
towards the person and/or the vulnerable voices/parts). As Nelson was scared of the
Mother voice, we agreed to speak with Judas first. Because it is important that the
voice-hearer takes responsibility for the process, Nelson was told to stay present
during the dialogue and to intervene if necessary. Before proceeding, time was spent
discussing ways to help both Nelson and the voices feel safe. We agreed that when
Judas spoke, Nelson would need to stand and move about. We also reassured Nelson
that we could deal with verbal aggression, as he was afraid Judas would offend us.
Because Nelson was concerned the voice would take control of him during the
session, we agreed to use a firm, military-like sentence (“You may now sit”) as a cue
for Judas to leave and Nelson to resume control.
When we spoke with Judas, Nelson adopted a military stance and began pacing
round the room. The voice of Judas was assertive, and spoke in short, precise
sentences. He identified himself as an army officer and told us it was his responsibility
to plan and organise Nelson’s life. Judas reported that Nelson could not travel, work,
or socialise without him, and that he forced Nelson to go to nightclubs in order to meet
women (one of Judas’ ambitions was for Nelson to overcome his fear of intimacy and
find a partner). Judas described how he and John first appeared to help Nelson survive
the abuse and bear his loneliness. However, Judas also told us that while he still knew
John, they were no longer on friendly terms because “John didn’t grow up, whereas I
became a man.” Judas stated that he didn’t know what fear was; he was always there
and didn’t need rest or respite. He also explained his name: Judas was the protector of
Christ, and Judas had a desire to help and support Nelson. Because Nelson’s family
was very religious, Judas believed this was a name Nelson would relate to. His desire
was to be accepted by Nelson. He was responsive to the facilitators’ suggestion to try
to find more common ground with John. At the end of the conversation, we thanked
Judas for answering our questions and asked to speak with Nelson again.
When Nelson sat down, the voice of John appeared. It was clear that John
harboured significant pain, anxiety and grief. Because of the limited time available,
we could not talk to John. However, we advised Nelson to discuss his feelings with
John, and to try and promote contact between John and Judas. Nelson expressed his
fear that he did not know how to connect with women, even though he wanted a rela-
tionship. The facilitators suggested that with Judas’ assistance, and when John felt
RPSY_A_571705.fm Page 7 Friday, April 8, 2011 5:14 PM
8 D. Corstens et al.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
safer, Nelson could try to meet a partner. Although some voice-hearers dissociate
during a session, Nelson was aware of the conversation with Judas and showed no
evidence of amnesia. For instance, he had been intrigued by Judas’ account of his
name, as he had previously been unaware of its origins.
On the basis of this work, Judas and Nelson’s relationship changed significantly,
becoming more positive and supportive. Indeed, the next day Nelson told us that
Judas had said “good morning” to him in a friendly manner for the first time in seven
years. Nelson was advised to find ways to support the voice of John to mature and
gain trust in Nelson, and to recruit the help of Judas in this by defending, reassuring
and caring for John. In order to help Judas and John become allies again, Nelson
intended to build a new tent (to mimic the one in which the three of them first met) to
begin a process of integration and reconciliation. Email contact was sustained with
Nelson after the course, in which it transpired that this strategy had been successful.
Nelson subsequently began a paid position training junior psychiatrists in supporting
and understanding VH.
Conclusions
Currently, the most dominant psychological model of VH comes from the cognitive
tradition, which argues that VH arises from distorted information processing and
misattribution of internal events. However, these perspectives seem inadequate given
the way many voice-hearers conceptualise their experiences. While persuasive at
explaining how thoughts may be experienced as projected/intrusive, cognitive models
provide a less compelling account of how externalised thoughts become audible,
particularly as most voice-hearers make clear distinctions between voices and
thoughts (Hoffman, Varanko, Gilmore, & Mishara, 2008). Dissociative processes, by
contrast, appear indispensable for explaining one of the most vital aspects of VH: that
of “other” dynamically engaging with “self”. It is not immediately apparent how indi-
viduals cultivate, negotiate, and modify relationships with externalised thoughts, yet
a process of communication and interaction is how VH is consistently described
(Romme et al., 2009). Therapeutic models which recognise this not only resituate VH
in the context of the hearer’s social relations, they emphasise the importance of inte-
grating the experience within their own internal dialogue. Indeed, as May (quoted in
James, 2009, p. 18) has observed “(w)hile some cognitive approaches might mindfully
step back from the voices, [Talking With Voices] can be seen as mindfully engaging
with voices". This is particularly relevant given that much VH, including the most
stressful, high-risk varieties, are often resistant to standard treatments that focus on
eliminating the experience rather than understanding, interpreting, and integrating it
(Birchwood & Spencer, 2002). Furthermore, while more recent forms of CBT (e.g.
Chadwick, 2006) are increasingly advocating relational ideas, they still do not address
voices directly, rather beliefs and assumptions about them.
We have practiced the Talking With Voices approach with numerous voice-hearers
over the last decade. These individuals experienced it as a safe way to enhance under-
standing of their voices through the provision of normalising frameworks and insight
into the underlying reasons for voice emergence, ultimately acting as a catalyst for
establishing more productive relationships between hearer and voice. Furthermore, the
approach can improve social functioning for voice-hearers who are trapped in destruc-
tive communication patterns with their voices. Of course, not all voice-hearers are will-
ing (or able) to directly dialogue with their voices, in which case other approaches are
AQ1
RPSY_A_571705.fm Page 8 Friday, April 8, 2011 5:14 PM
Psychosis 9
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
available. Furthermore, while one-session transformations can occur, prolonged and
systematic exploration is often necessary to enact lasting change. Finally, the emotional
material voices represent may sometimes be so threatening that voice-hearers dissociate
when the facilitator communicates with the voice. In such instances, more prolonged
therapy in the line of dissociative disorder protocols are needed. Future systematic
research is being prepared to address indications, contra-indications and effectiveness
of the Talking With Voices approach. Some considerations regarding this can be found
at www.hearingvoicesmaastricht.eu.
References
Berne, E. (1964). Games people play. The psychology of human relationships: New York,
NY: Penguin.
Birchwood, M., & Spencer, E. (2002). Psychotherapies for schizophrenia. In M. Maj &
N. Sartorius (Eds.), Schizophrenia: WPA series in evidence-based psychiatry (2nd
ed., pp. 147–241). Chichester: Wiley.
Brewin, C. (2003). Posttraumatic stress disorder: Malady or myth. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Chadwick, P., Lees, S., & Birchwood, M. (2000). The revised Beliefs About Voices Question-
naire (BAVQ-R). The British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 229–232.
Chin, J., Hayward, M., & Drinnan, A. (2008). ‘Relating’ to voices: Exploring the relevance of
this concept to people who hear voices. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research
and Practice, 82, 1–17.
Corstens, D., Escher, S., & Romme, M. (2008). Accepting and working with voices: The Maas-
tricht Approach. In A. Moskowitz, I. Schafer & M. J. Dorahy (Eds.), Psychosis, trauma and
dissociation: Emerging perspectives on severe psychopathology (pp. 319–331). Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Ellason, J., & Ross, C. (1997). Two-year follow-up of inpatients with dissociative identity
disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 832–839.
Hayward, M., Overton, J., Dorey, T., & Denney, J. (2009). Relating therapy for people who
hear voices: A case series. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 16, 216–227.
Hoffman, R., Varanko, M., Gilmore, J., & Mishara, A. (2008). Experiential features used by
patients with schizophrenia to differentiate ‘voices’ from ordinary verbal thought.
Psychological Medicine, 38, 1167–1176.
Holmes, D., & Tinnin, L. (1995). The problem of auditory hallucinations in combat PTSD.
Traumatology, 1, 1–7.
James, A. (2009). Voice recognition. Mental Health Today, February, 16–18.
James, W. (1891). Principles of psychology. London: Macmillan.
Jung, C.G. (1912/2003). Psychology of the unconsciousness. New York, NY: Dover Publica-
tions.
Kluft, R.P. (1984). Treatment of multiple personality disorder. Psychiatry Clinics of North
America, 7, 9–29.
Larøi, F., & Aleman, A. (Eds.) (2010). Hallucinations: A guide to treatment and management.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mawson, A., Cohen, K., & Berry, K. (2010). Reviewing evidence for the cognitive model of
auditory hallucinations: The relationship between cognitive voice appraisals and distress
during psychosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 248–258.
Mollon, P. (2001). Multiple selves, multiple voices: Working with trauma, violation and disso-
ciation. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.
Morrison, A., & Baker, C. (2000). Intrusive thoughts and auditory hallucinations: A
comparative study of intrusions in psychosis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38,
1097–1106.
Moskowitz, A., & Corstens, D. (2007). Auditory hallucinations: Psychotic symptom or disso-
ciative experience? The Journal of Psychological Trauma, 6, 35–63.
Moskowitz, A., Read, J., Farrelly, S., Rudegeair, T., & Williams, O. (2009). Are psychotic
symptoms traumatic in origin and dissociative in kind? In P. Dell & J. O’Neill (Eds.),
RPSY_A_571705.fm Page 9 Friday, April 8, 2011 5:14 PM
10 D. Corstens et al.
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Dissociation and the dissociative disorders: DSM-V and beyond (pp. 521–533). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Nurcombe, B., Scott, J., & Jessop, M. (2008). Trauma-based dissociative hallucinosis: Diagno-
sis and treatment. In A. Moskowitz, I. Schäfer & M. J. Dorahy (Eds.), Psychosis, trauma
and dissociation: Emerging perspectives on severe psychopathology (pp. 271–280).
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Pérez-Álvarez, M., García-Montes, J., Perona-Garcelán, S., & Vallina-Fernández, O. (2008).
Changing relationships with voices: New therapeutic perspectives for treating hallucina-
tions. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 15, 75–85.
Read, J., van Os, J., Morrison, A., & Ross, C. (2005). Childhood trauma, psychosis and schizo-
phrenia: A literature review with theoretical and clinical implications. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandinavica, 112, 330–350.
Romme, M., & Escher, S. (1993). Accepting voices. London: Mind Publications.
Romme, M., & Escher, S. (2000). Making sense of voices. London: Mind Publications.
Romme, M., Escher, S., Dillon, J., Corstens, D., & Morris, M. (2009). Living with voices:
Fifty stories of recovery. Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.
Shawyer, F., Ratcliff, K., Mackinnon, A., Farhall, J., Hayes, S., & Copolov, D. (2007). The
voices acceptance and action scale (VAAS): Pilot data. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
63, 593–606.
Stone, H., & Stone, S. (1989). Embracing our selves: The voice dialogue training manual.
New York, NY: Nataraj Publishing.
Valmaggia, L., & Morris, E. (2010). Attention Training Technique and Acceptance and
Commitment Therapy for distressing auditory hallucinations. In F. Larøi & A. Aleman
(Eds.), Hallucinations: A guide to treatment and management (pp. 123–141). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Veiga-Martinez, C., Perez-Alvarez, M., & Garcia-Montes, J. (2008). Acceptance and commit-
ment therapy applied to treatment of auditory hallucinations. Clinical Case Studies, 7,
118–135.
Young, J. (1994). Cognitive therapy for personality disorders: A schema-focused approach.
Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
RPSY_A_571705.fm Page 10 Friday, April 8, 2011 5:14 PM
