‘Acute’ and ‘Chronic’ Hysteria

Abstract

The diagnosis of hysteria has seemed a hazardous one since Slater (1965) pronounced it ‘not only a delusion but also a snare’. His conclusion was based on the demonstrable fragility of the diagnosis when usually accepted criteria are used. Against this, Guze (1967) has put forward evidence which suggests that when his criteria are applied the diagnosis is a stable one. Lader and Sartorius (1968), in a study of 10 patients, also seemed to show that those with conversion hysteria were a single group on the criterion of their failure to habituate to 20 repetitions of a standard stimulus, a disability which distinguished them from other neurotic groups. Slater, however, in criticizing the Perley and Guze (1962) concept, remarked that two residual groups, rather than one, remained as diagnostically unchanged in his 10-year follow-up.