Introjects, Fictives, & Factives
My Thoughts & What I’ve Learned
Over the years, the DID/OSDD community has been gaining relevance on many different social media platforms: Tumblr, Instagram, and even Youtube and Tiktok as of more recently. I won’t lie! The slow gain of exposure is a bit scary. Bringing awareness to DID/OSDD and advocating for those of us with posttraumatic stress conditions has always been a passion of mine. I want the world to be a safer and more understanding place for people with DID and OSDD. When more of the public eye is on people with such complex trauma-based disorders, I would surely want it to be out of a desire to understand and empathize.
Unfortunately, society still has its prejudices.
There is no one who is being open about their DID or OSDD on the Internet as an invitation for harsh scrutiny and ridicule. Unfortunately, these things will and do happen, because the reality is that odds are stacked against those of us with mental health disorders in our society. Things are getting better, slowly, but they are not perfect.
Outside of mental health spaces (and even within some), conversations about DID/OSDD often take a much more narrow look at the disorders. It seems like the parts is more or less what the Internet likes to put on a pedestal. This isn’t unusual. The news does it, the media does it, hey- the Internet is going to do it too.
So then there’s the introjects. Er- fictives, factives, f*cktives…whatever people are calling them these days. There’s such a focus on them! Especially in certain online DID/OSDD circles, there is such a special air put around introject alters. Often, I see them treated as if they are something completely separate and unique from other alters. I’ve seen rules made up to go along with them; things that would never be seen in a diagnostic screening, but would automatically render someone a malingerer to a person on the Internet. It’s incredibly bizarre!
But I’m getting way ahead of myself here. Let’s take a step back from all of that and start off with the very basics. What even are introject alters?
[Image description: A quote from the article Your Brain On Fiction (Paul, 2012). It says: “The brain, it seems, does not make much of a distinction between reading about an experience and encountering it in real life; in each case, the same neurological regions are stimulated.”]
What is an introject alter?
An introject alter is a dissociated part that is based on a person or figure, such as an abuser, a caregiver, a celebrity, or a fictional character. They may or may not genuinely believe that they are the figure in question. Additionally, they may or may not internally look like, sound like, or act like the figure.
In online communities, especially Tumblr, I usually see introject alters divided into two different types. The first type are the introjects that are based on something that is fictional, which online circles might call fictives. The second type are introjects that are based on something that is real, which online circles might call factives. There are other community terms as well to highlight subtle differences, which are okay to use if that’s what makes you happy.
In clinical literature, however, there is not really that much differentiation- after all, it’s common for alters to draw traits from external things. Clinical literature doesn’t often pin labels onto parts, but rather defines functions that are commonly, but not always, found within dissociated systems. I was really surprised by this at first, because I was so used to being in the community which put such a big emphasis on labeling parts. I often see DID/OSDD articles address introject alters as imitating parts, mimicking parts, copying parts, and introjected parts. I personally have more of an affinity to this kind of phrasing. I feel like it conveys the function of these parts much better than fictive/factive does- but that’s my personal opinion!
[Image description: A screenshot of google’s definition for introject. It says: “unconciously adopt the ideas or attitudes of others.”]
Introject alters have been mentioned in many credible sources such as:
The Haunted Self by Onno van der Hart, Ellert R. S. Nijenhuis, and Kathy Steele
Understanding and Treating Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Relational Approach by E. F. Howell
Becoming Yourself: Overcoming Mind Control and Ritual Abuse by Alison Miller
Coping With Trauma-Related Dissociation: Skills Training for Patients and Therapists by Onno van der Hart, Suzette Boon, and Kathy Steele
Treating Trauma-related Dissociation: A Practical, Integrative Approach by the same authors from #4
And most other relevant literature on DID/OSDD.
[Image description: A quote from Howell (2011, p.160). It says: “Through a process of identification with the aggressor, a part of the child may begin to feel that she is the aggressor. Once created, this identity state may become increasingly utilized in the service of predicting the aggressor’s behavior, consequently avoiding some harm and preempting the aggressor’s perceived power and threat.”]
What makes an introject alter an introject alter?
According to the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation [ISSTD] (2011), when a person has DID or OSDD, new alters can form at any time in their life. This means that, at any point in time, a system could potentially split off an alter that is based on someone else. I have seen some online circles perpetuating the ideas that introject alters are a very rare phenomenon or somehow function differently from other alters. From what I’ve learned, however, this is far from the truth!
Kluft (1988) explains that most dissociated systems have parts that are based on a person or figure, and some few even have massive amounts of these parts. In one of his case studies, he describes several patients with alters based on their own family members as well as literature such as Lord of the Rings and Shakespeare’s Tempest. Van der Hart, Nijenhuis, and Steele (2006) describe a patient with a group of alters based on characters from Star Trek. Additionally, Beidel, Frueh, & Hersen (2014) explain that they have received reports of alters based on fictional characters, rock stars, and even religious figures. Furthermore, just about every relevant piece of literature on DID/OSDD I’ve read has mentioned perpetrator-imitating parts in some capacity.
Someone may find themself wondering: why does this happen? What makes an introject alter an introject alter?
I’ve learned that it has to do with something called a substitute belief. According to van der Hart, Nijenhuis, and Steele (2006), a substitute belief is an idea or a fantasy that is substituted in place of processing a real thought, emotion, event, or experience. Substitute beliefs can impact how someone perceives their self, their past, and the world around them. Janet (as cited by Steele, Boon, & van der Hart, 2017) described substitute beliefs in alters as the identifying features (their names, ages, genders, internal appearances, etc.) which occur when one cannot integrate an experience. (It’s important to remember here that integration means to fully process and take ownership of an experience- which can often take quite a bit of therapeutic work to achieve if that experience is connected to trauma.)
Putting it into perspective
So, let’s say I have an alter who is a dog. That would mean that at some point I had the belief "I am a dog” substituted in place of integrating a real experience I went through- an experience that I may or may not even remember! And then I split off an alter who compartmentalized this substituted belief. There’s probably hundreds of people with DID or OSDD who also experience having dog alters. However, the reason behind why my alter is a dog will be entirely unique and specific to me, my system, my life, and my history- just as it will be for every other system with dog alters.
So, let’s think about this. What are some reasons someone might develop the substitute belief “I am a dog?” Here are a few reasons I can come up with off the top of my head:
Maybe they experienced abuse/trauma that made them feel like a dog?
Maybe there was a dog involved in their abuse/trauma?
Maybe dogs brought them comfort during a particularly traumatic/stressful/difficult period of their life?
Maybe they believed being a dog would help them prevent the abuse/trauma/event?
Maybe the idea of being a dog brought them a sense of comfort/safety somehow in other ways?
The more you think about it, the more it seems ridiculous to even try making a list, doesn’t it? That’s because literally anything can be a valid answer! After all, we all experience, react to, and cope with trauma and life events differently.
[Image description: A quote from van der Hart, Nijenhuis, and Steele (2006, p.26). It says: “[…] Events are not traumatic in themselves, rather, they may be so in their effect on a given individual. Thus not every individual who experiences an extremely stressful event will actually be traumatized.”]
Any alter can develop or compartmentalize substitute beliefs about anything for any reason. Introject alters are only unique from other alters in that their substitute belief is specifically about being a pre-existing person or figure, such as a caregiver or a character from a novel.
With all that being said, please understand that you do not need to know why an alter split as an introject in order to validate their existence. Substitute beliefs and the reasons behind them can be very difficult to pinpoint; they’re extremely personal, subjective, and will be different for every system and for every alter. It’s very likely that the system themself may not be able to pinpoint these things on their own without the help of their therapist. (Please do not attempt stuff like this without a professional’s support.)
You also do not need to know whether an alter is “truly” an introject alter or not in order to use this sort of terminology. If these terms and the understanding behind them are beneficial to you, use that!
Weird misconceptions I keep seeing
Out of all the ‘types’ of alters I see misconceptions being spread about, introject alters are pretty up there for being sorely misunderstood (persecutory alters are always #1 on that rank, though, oh my GOD). However it’s specifically with introjects where I see a lot of people getting particularly vicious over who’s real and who’s fake. Personally, I find it a bit funny because most of these people are vastly unqualified to be making these sorts of judgements and the people who are qualified would surely have to be violating some sort of ethical rules.
These were misconceptions that I was told by various people on the Internet who looked like they knew what they were talking about and I genuinely believed a lot of them! Have you seen any of these myths below? Did you also believe any of them?
Myth: Introjects, in general, are rare.
Truth: From what I’ve written so far in the post, we know that this just isn’t true.
Myth: Introject alters are like being otherkin.
Truth: Otherkin is not a mental disorder and it has nothing to do with DID or OSDD. Here is the Wiki on otherkin. People who think this probably just saw the terms fictive/factive and got them confused with fictionkin/factkin.
Myth: You can only develop introject alters as a child.
Truth: A person who has DID or OSDD can continue to form new alters, including introjects, at any point in their life. (ISSTD, 2011)
Myth: Someone who has a lot of introject alters is automatically faking DID/OSDD.
Truth: The amount of introject alters a person with DID or OSDD has is not a part of the criteria for diagnosis. Here is the DSM-V criteria for DID. If you fit the criteria for DID and are about to get diagnosed with it, your clinician is not going to do a 180 just because a lot of your alters are based on, let’s say, characters. All systems will have different 'types’ of alters in different amounts depending on who they are, what their history is, and what has helped them survive. Comparing one system versus another system is pointless and undermines the complexity of the disorder they share and how it has protected them.
Furthermore, Kluft (1988) describes that most people with DID/OSDD have introject alters, and that a small percentage develop massive amounts of them. He described this “massive introjection” occuring to some of his patients as a defense against object loss.
Myth: Introject alters only form if you like the person/character or find them “relatable.”
Truth: While the "relatability” of the figure can influence a substitute belief, so can anything else. How liked or relatable the figure is could be the reason behind the substitute belief for one introject, and it could also not be for another introject. This is why some introject alters can be based on figures that trigger or terrify the system, such as past abusers or characters that resemble those abusers. This is just how complex and highly subjective both substitute beliefs and DID/OSDD are.
Myth: Enjoying media will cause an introject from that media to split off.
Truth: The creation of new parts is dissociation, and dissociation always has a reason for occurring. Splitting may occur when the system is in an overwhelming situation that has exceeded the system’s ability to cope. (van der Hart, Nijenhuis, and Steele, 2006) Everyone’s tolerance level on this is different, however. (Kluft, 1988) That’s why, if someone split off a media-introject alter, that split did not occur solely because they consumed that media. There was dissociation afoot!
If a system truly split because of media itself, the logical conclusion would be that it was because the media was (or added to) the overwhelming situation that exceeded the system’s ability to cope. If the media retraumatized the individual, for example, or if the media was an element incorporated into their abuse, etc.
However, there is a minority of dissociated systems who are so prone to dissociation and so invested in having alters that they may split alters simply because they want more. Kluft (1988) dubbed this “ego-syntonic splitting” and explained that these individuals usually fall under the category of patients who flaunt their DID/OSDD for secondary gain (such as attention or financial compensation).
Myth: Introject alters have to be exactly like the person/character they’re based off of.
Truth: Introject alters can be very different from the actual figure they’re based off of. First off, the traits that are introjected into an alter are perceived traits. I may perceive a fictional character as very brave, while another person may perceive that same character as very cowardly. Everyone perceives things differently. Additionally, perception can change as well. There are many characters and people that I liked as a child but no longer particularly like or agree with as an adult, now.
What I’m trying to say is that an introject alter can be very, very different from the figure they’re based on, all while still being based on them.
Even when an introject alter does seem similar to the figure they’re based on, introject alters are not literally that person or character. While some of them may think they truly are, it’s important to understand that all alters are dissociated parts of one single individual. All parts of this individual are capable of change and growth, because all individuals are continuously changing and growing!
Based on my personal experience and the experiences of others I’ve known in the community, it seems to be fairly common for introject alters to originally feel very similar to the figure they’re based on, but much later feel like they have grown into a more fully fleshed out individual beyond their introjected identity.
After all, this is not your favorite anime protagonist we’re talking about. This is a real person.
[Image description: A quote from Steele, Boon, and van der Hart (2017, p.19). It says: “Dissociative patients often have what is called psychic equivalence—that is, they experience internal reality (dissociative parts, flashbacks, even thoughts or emotions) as real and powerful external realities (Fonagy, Gergely, Jurist, & Target, 2005; Target & Fonagy, 1996). […] Thus, they may view parts as real people instead of disowned parts of the self. They experience flashbacks as real events in the present instead of as memories of the past. They may literally perceive the therapist as the abuser because they feel abused. They may take their strong feeling of being bad as unbearable evidence that they are bad.”]
I know there’s a lot of mixed opinions about these terms. Some people love them. Some people hate them. Some people really hate them. Personally, I don’t use them because singlets often get them mixed up with fictionkin/factkin. But there’s nothing wrong with these terms. They don’t mean anything harmful. Other people are allowed to use the words that make them happy and suit their experiences the best.
However, what I do take issue with is how detached community terms tend to get from DID/OSDD despite, well, being community terms! Fictive/Factive on its own doesn’t really have any indicator that it’s related to DID or OSDD, does it? A lot of community “alter role” labels are like this, actually; protector, persecutor, etc. Notice how I used the word “introject alters” way more than I used “introjects” in this post? I think this ends up becoming a bridge that allows people to start detaching these things from DID/OSDD, or applying weird rules that don’t really make much sense, or allowing people without DID/OSDD to accidentally intrude on these experiences.
I wonder what would happen if people started saying things like “fictive alters” and “factive parts” instead?
In the past, I’ve witnessed a lot of witch-hunting and fakeclaiming (both within and outside of the online community) that hinged on nothing but introject alters. I had seen so many ‘facts’ about introject alters crop up which oh-so conveniently invalidated literally everyone except the speaker, but I had never seen any information to back these statements up. For the most part, I saw people claiming that there was hardly any research on introjects at all, so obviously everyone had to be faking it. Yet, the more I’ve read about DID/OSDD in books and articles, the more I’ve realized that introject alters are mentioned literally everywhere!
I think the reason that research does not look at introject alters as a separate concept from alters is because they’re not a separate concept. What I mean here is that dissociated parts who are based on a person or figure are still just alters in the same way dissociated parts who are dogs are also still just alters. Think back to the list I was making about what kind of reasons might cause someone to develop the substitute belief “I am a dog.” The reasons are infinite. This is the same for “I am Superman,” or “I am my father,” or “I am my abuser.” Every single person is going to be different- just, inherently.
Being an introject alter does not open up special treatment options that wouldn’t also be available for any other alter. You do not need any special qualities about yourself or comorbid disorders in order to split off introject alters. There are no rules on introject alters. There are not any specific introject alters who are more or less “valid” than others. The criteria and limitations for DID/OSDD do not change just because you’ve developed an introject part.
Introject alters are not fake. The only people who think this are the people who do not understand DID/OSDD.
I’ve always felt like it’s important to understand that no matter how different and individual an introject alter may perceive themself to be, they are not actually separate from the body and its privileges. They should be made aware of what kind of body they’re in, and what is and is not appropriate for a body like this to do. For example, it’s not appropriate for a young alter in the body of an adult to be interacting with actual children in a way an adult should not be. Alternatively, it’s not appropriate for an adult alter in the body of a minor to be interacting with actual adults in the way a minor should not be.
My general rule of thumb has always been: if it would be inappropriate for someone without DID or OSDD to do it, then it’s inappropriate for someone with DID or OSDD to do it too. If you wouldn’t condone a white singlet using people of color as their faceclaims and saying “I am them,” then you shouldn’t condone a white system allowing their alter to do that either. If you wouldn’t condone a white singlet culturally appropriating an Asian name, then you shouldn’t condone a white system allowing their alter to do that either. Having a mental disorder is not and will never be an excuse to act in harmful or inappropriate ways.
People treat introject alters really weirdly and say a lot of inaccurate things about them. I can’t really control that. But I sure as hell can write up a long post with my thoughts on this stuff and all the information I’ve learned about introject alters with APA citations. Basically uhhhh here you go. I hope you enjoyed.
Here’s my reference list. 🥺
dailybridgerton
jbbartram-illu
tangentwithtanner
titsay
dededos
ellievsbear
romaincrisis
