Lire cet article en français

TIRCIA · Professionals · Clinical practice

Fraser’s dissociative table in EMDR: value, limits and precautions

Where the technique comes from, what it is for, where its boundaries lie, and what is known about its effectiveness

By Marie-Agnès Thulliez · Author · Publishing Director13-minute read

Illustration: around a large table, a woman welcomes children and a gruff-looking giant; other children stay hidden under the table, and kindly figures look on from a balcony.
Illustration: one possible representation of the meeting place, where each takes whatever place it can, including at a distance. In a patient, parts may take many other forms, or no visual form at all.

“Part of me wants to move forward, another part is blocking.” Many EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) practitioners have heard this sentence, or seen reprocessing come to a sudden halt for no apparent reason.

Fraser’s dissociative table is one of the clinical techniques proposed to give these inner reactions a space. It features in several trainings devoted to working with parts. This article presents its origins, its principle, its indications, its precautions, and what is known, or not yet known, about its effectiveness.

In brief

  • The dissociative table was described by the Canadian psychiatrist George A. Fraser (1991, 2003) as a set of adjunctive strategies. In 2012, Kathleen M. Martin proposed an eight-step implementation for EMDR practitioners, centred on the table imagery.
  • The patient imagines a meeting place where different aspects of themselves can appear, at their own pace. The aim is to understand their function and to foster inner cooperation.
  • In the version presented here, it is used neither as a screening tool, nor as a method for retrieving memories, nor as a procedure for fusing parts. Fraser’s original version did, however, include techniques devoted to memories and to fusion.
  • It is used within phase-oriented treatment, most often in phase 2 of the EMDR protocol according to Martin, with sufficiently stable patients and by clinicians trained in dissociative disorders.
  • To our knowledge, no controlled study has evaluated its specific effectiveness. It rests on clinical publications and expert opinion.

1. Where the table comes from

George A. Fraser, a psychiatrist in Ottawa trained in particular in hypnosis and Gestalt therapy, described the technique in 1991 in the journal Dissociation, then revised it in 2003 (Fraser, 1991; Fraser, 2003). He presented it as a group of adjunctive strategies serving the therapist’s approach, rather than as a therapy in its own right.

The heart of the technique is imagery: the patient, first relaxed, imagines a pleasant room where nothing can happen to them, with an oval table surrounded by as many chairs as needed, then invites their various ego states into it. For patients made uneasy by the image of a table, Fraser already considered another place, such as a field or a rock beside a stream. Around this imagery he described other strategies, including a screen technique for working on memories, a memory protection technique, and techniques for the fusion and integration of parts (Fraser, 1991).

Martin’s version and its vocabulary

In 2012, Kathleen M. Martin published in the Journal of EMDR Practice and Research an eight-step version designed for EMDR practitioners and centred on the table imagery (Martin, 2012). Among other things, she adds a distinct calming step, a check that the image is new and neutral, and a general “meeting place” script, which she presents as a departure from Fraser’s instructions. For the other strategies, she refers readers to Fraser’s papers.

The two authors use different words. Fraser speaks of “ego states”; Martin speaks of “parts” and draws on the model of structural dissociation of the personality, which distinguishes one or more parts that manage daily life from emotional parts that remain fixed in the defensive reactions linked to trauma (van der Hart et al., 2006). Here we use the word “parts”.

Key points

  • Described by Fraser in 1991 and revised in 2003, the technique is intended as a set of adjunctive strategies, rather than a therapy in its own right.
  • Its heart is imagery: the relaxed patient imagines a pleasant room where nothing can happen to them, and invites their ego states into it.
  • In 2012, Martin published an eight-step version, designed for EMDR practitioners and centred on the table imagery.
  • Fraser speaks of “ego states”, Martin of “parts”; this article uses the word “parts”.

2. What it is, and where its boundaries lie

The patient builds, in imagination, a meeting place distinct from their safe place, and takes whichever seat they choose. In Martin’s instructions, they then invite the different aspects of themselves to come and take a seat; those that cannot may stay to one side or in a neighbouring room. The therapist then helps to understand what each one is trying to protect, and to negotiate a first agreement, however modest. A more focused variant, which we present in section 4, limits the invitation to the aspects involved in the current difficulty.

The table can be used to…Precautions: in the version presented here, it should not be used to…
give a representation to inner conflicts already identifieddiagnose a dissociative disorder
facilitate communication between different partssearch for new parts beyond what the patient describes
understand the protective function of a reactionattribute to the patient parts they have not described
strengthen orientation to the presentretrieve or confirm memories
prepare reprocessing carefullyforce access to traumatic material
negotiate greater safety and cooperationimpose fusion or the disappearance of a part

These limits reflect the recommendations for caution regarding suggestion (ISSTD, 2011) and the author’s position. They do not correspond to the full set of strategies described by Fraser in 1991.

Martin is explicit on one point: the table is not a screening tool for dissociation. She encourages normalising the experience of “parts” with the patient: having inner conflicts does not mean having a dissociative disorder, and seeing parts appear at the table does not allow one to conclude that such a disorder is present. Diagnosis rests on clinical assessment, with validated instruments if needed, such as the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES; Bernstein and Putnam, 1986). We describe these tools in detail in the article “Dissociation and EMDR: recognising, assessing, adapting treatment”.

Key points

  • In an imaginary meeting place, distinct from their safe place, the patient invites the different aspects of themselves.
  • The therapist helps to understand what each one is trying to protect and to negotiate a first agreement, however modest.
  • Here, the table is used neither to force access to trauma, nor to retrieve memories, nor to attribute parts that have not been described.
  • According to Martin, it is not a screening tool: seeing parts at the table does not allow one to conclude that a dissociative disorder is present.

3. When to consider it, when to wait

According to Martin, the table is used within phase-oriented treatment, by clinicians trained in the treatment of dissociative disorders, whatever the patient. She recommends supervision, and considers it essential with patients who have a severe dissociative disorder: used too early with some of them, particularly in dissociative identity disorder, the table can cause problems. Fraser already stressed the need for a qualified therapist and a follow-up plan before “opening the doors” of dissociation.

The guidelines that follow are clinical pointers proposed by the author, consistent with the principles of phase-oriented treatment (ISSTD, 2011); they are not derived from studies.

Minimum conditions

  • the patient understands the aim and consents to it;
  • they can stay in contact with the therapist while observing their inner experience;
  • they have a calming resource already installed and tested in session, such as the safe place, which Martin recommends putting in place beforehand;
  • they can say stop;
  • their current life is sufficiently stable and follow-up is possible;
  • dissociation has been assessed: the ISSTD strongly recommends assessing dissociation in all patients before introducing EMDR procedures (ISSTD, 2011).

Situations in which it is better to wait

  • immediate safety not ensured, suicidal or self-harming behaviour insufficiently contained;
  • marked disorientation, intoxication, acute withdrawal, a manic or psychotic episode;
  • violence still active in the patient’s life;
  • alliance and means of stabilisation still insufficient;
  • lack of training or supervision on the therapist’s part.

Within EMDR, Martin most often places the table in phase 2, preparation. She also suggests introducing it when a part “hijacks” reprocessing and takes the patient out of their window of tolerance: work on the target is then suspended and the patient stabilised before returning to it. Once installed, the table can be used to close an incomplete session.

Key points

  • According to Martin: phase-oriented treatment, clinicians trained in dissociative disorders, supervision recommended, essential in severe dissociative disorder.
  • Pointers from this article, not derived from studies: dissociation assessed, calming resource tested, ability to say stop; wait if safety or stabilisation are insufficient.
  • Martin places it mainly in phase 2; if a part “hijacks” reprocessing, the target is suspended and the patient stabilised before returning to it.

4. The procedure, in outline

Martin’s version comprises eight steps: present the exercise and obtain agreement; check that the patient can picture a place; bring them into a calm state; build the meeting place; check that it is new and neutral; let the patient take their seat in it; invite the parts; gather the clinical information.

Some of Martin’s instructions deserve emphasis:

  • Give no examples of parts (“a little child”, “an angry teenager”): the patient may conform to the therapist’s list instead of exploring their own inner landscape.
  • Keep the meeting place distinct from the safe place, so as to protect the latter from “contamination” by the difficult subjects that will be addressed.
  • Leave the choice of seat to the patient, rather than suggesting, for example, “at the head of the table”, an instruction Martin considers too directive: the seat the patient chooses is clinical information.
  • Ask “who and what” the patient sees, because some parts may take a non-human form.
  • Go through the adult part. In Martin’s method, all communication with the emotional parts goes through the part that manages daily life: it remains present and reports what it perceives. The therapist takes care to keep all parts within the window of tolerance; we would add: if a part seems to be taking control, pause and reorient.
  • No bilateral stimulation while the table is being set up. Once the table is established, Martin uses it to install gains, with slower and fewer sets, as in resource installation, rather than for reprocessing. As a precaution, we would add: if traumatic material emerges, stop the stimulation and return to stabilisation.

At step 8, Martin gathers a great deal of information about each part: names, ages, functions, alliances and fears between parts, orientation in time, degree of co-consciousness. She records names and ages so as to be able to attune to each part. For our part, we propose a more focused variant: invite only the aspects involved in the current difficulty, and focus on each part’s function rather than its names and ages, which are noted if they are offered spontaneously. This cautious choice aims to limit the risk of suggestion; it departs from Martin and has been neither published as a protocol nor evaluated.

Key points

  • Martin’s version comprises eight steps, from presenting the exercise to gathering clinical information.
  • Martin recommends giving no examples of parts and keeping the meeting place distinct from the safe place.
  • No bilateral stimulation during set-up; afterwards, slow sets to install gains, rather than to reprocess; stop if traumatic material emerges.
  • The focused variant proposed here, as a precaution against suggestion, departs from Martin and has been neither published as a protocol nor evaluated.

5. Essential precautions

Suggestion and memory

The guidelines of the ISSTD (International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation) list Fraser’s table among the hypnotic techniques that foster communication between parts. They call for informed consent for hypnosis or any other specialised technique, explaining its benefits, risks, limitations and the controversies surrounding it. They point out that suggestive interventions, such as misleading questions, can produce memory distortions, particularly in highly hypnotisable people, and ask that leading questions be kept to a minimum when hypnosis is used for exploration (ISSTD, 2011; Scoboria et al., 2006). Fraser himself emphasised that guided imagery can have a profound effect on people prone to dissociation, who respond readily to suggested images (Fraser, 1991).

In practice, if an image or memory arises at the table, it is acknowledged without deciding there and then what it represents, and questions such as “Who did this to you?” or “How old were you?” are avoided.

Hostile parts

Hostile parts may appear, or figures reminiscent of an abuser. Martin notes that some representations of family members are in fact internalised abusive figures. She recommends welcoming them like all other parts, while observing how the other parts react. We advise against confronting them; supervision is particularly useful at such times.

Knowing when to stop

Exploration is interrupted in the event of loss of contact, disorientation, increasing immobility, arousal that is hard to modulate, dangerous impulses or a clear inner refusal. The patient then leaves the imagery: eyes open, orientation to the present (place, date, objects in the room), sensory grounding, contact with the therapist, before any resumption.

If a part expresses suicidal, self-harming or violent intent, the matter moves beyond negotiation with a part: it becomes a question of safety concerning the whole person. The risk is assessed with the patient, in the present, following the usual procedures (risk assessment, safety plan, emergency resources), and the session does not end until safety has been checked.

Always close

The session ends with careful closure: announce the end, thank the parts, close the place, return to the present and check safety before the patient leaves. In the transcript published by Martin, the patient is finally brought back to their already installed calm place.

Safety point

The table works alongside the assessment of dissociation, stabilisation and supervision, and replaces none of them. It requires training in the treatment of dissociative disorders and, in the face of severe dissociation, the support of an experienced clinician.

Key points

  • Limit suggestion: informed consent, no leading questions; an image or memory that arises is acknowledged without deciding its meaning.
  • Suicidal, self-harming or violent intent expressed by a part is a safety matter, to be assessed for the whole person.
  • Exploration is interrupted at warning signs, and the session ends with careful closure, including a safety check.
  • The table replaces neither the assessment of dissociation, nor stabilisation, nor supervision.

6. What is known about its effectiveness

To our knowledge, no controlled study has evaluated the dissociative table itself. The available sources are clinical descriptions and expert opinion, including the papers by Fraser and Martin.

The table sits within phase-oriented treatment, which the ISSTD recommends, on the basis of expert consensus, for dissociative identity disorder and related disorders. A recent systematic review included 19 studies of psychotherapies for dissociative identity disorder and other specified dissociative disorders. Only three specifically evaluated a phase-oriented treatment, and none of those three was a randomised controlled trial: the review’s only randomised trial concerned a psychoeducation group. Most studies had no control group. According to the appraisal tool used, 58% of studies were of low quality, 32% of moderate quality and 11% of high quality (rounded percentages). The authors conclude that there is “emerging” evidence in favour of psychological interventions in these disorders, including phase-oriented treatment, and call for large controlled trials (Griffiths et al., 2025). This review does not concern the table.

Key point

It is accurate to present the table as an adjunctive clinical technique, used to support inner communication and cooperation within phase-oriented treatment. It would be inaccurate to present it as a scientifically validated technique for treating dissociation.

Clinical vignette

A fictional case, composed from common clinical situations. It illustrates an approach; it does not constitute evidence of effectiveness.

Marc, 46, in therapy for a year, has already installed and tested a safe place. The assessment of dissociation did not reveal a dissociative disorder. Two attempts to reprocess a work-related memory were interrupted by a sharp rise in anxiety. He describes “a part that refuses”. Other phase 2 tools could have been considered; the therapist, trained in working with parts, chooses the table here.

He introduces it without giving examples of parts. Marc imagines a bright room with a long table, distinct from his safe place. He describes an angry part, sitting opposite him, and an empty chair. The therapist makes no attempt to fill the chair. He asks Marc what the angry part is trying to protect. Marc replies that it fears he will “fall apart like last time”.

The therapist acknowledges this concern and asks what would help it feel safer. They agree on a first arrangement: at a forthcoming session, the part will agree to observe the resumption of work on the target, starting with a very brief, measured exposure, with the agreed stop signal. The session ends with full closure, a return to the safe place and a check on Marc’s state. Reprocessing resumes only once the conditions have been checked.

What is established, and what is not

  • Described in clinical publications: the technique and its eight-step implementation (Fraser, 1991, 2003; Martin, 2012).
  • Recommended by expert consensus: phase-oriented treatment of dissociative identity disorder and related disorders (ISSTD, 2011).
  • Recommended, drawing on research into memory suggestibility: caution regarding suggestive questions (ISSTD, 2011; Scoboria et al., 2006).
  • Emerging evidence, mostly uncontrolled: symptom improvement with psychotherapy in these disorders; for phase-oriented treatment, three studies, with no randomised trial.
  • Not evaluated in controlled studies: the specific effectiveness of the dissociative table.

Frequently asked questions

Is the table reserved for severe dissociative disorders?

No. Fraser and Martin describe it for working with parts of the personality in the broad sense. But Martin reserves its use for clinicians trained in the treatment of dissociative disorders, whatever the patient, and recommends supervision in all cases, essential in severe dissociation.

What if the patient cannot visualise?

According to a personal communication reported by Martin, Fraser considered visualisation necessary; in 1991, he saw its absence as a possible sign of resistance or of misdiagnosis. Martin suggests, in this case, replacing the imagery instructions with a list of the different aspects of the self. One can also adapt with words or sensations, a clinical practice that has not been evaluated. In our view, the absence of mental imagery deserves an open mind rather than an immediate reading as resistance or a diagnostic sign.

And if nothing happens at the first attempt?

Martin invites the clinician to look for the reason: a presentation that suggested parts, or, more often in her view, the patient’s reluctance to turn towards their inner world. In that case, return to stabilisation and offer the table again later. In severe dissociative disorders, it is to be expected that not all parts will present themselves straight away: there is no need to insist.

Further reading on TIRCIA

In one sentence

Fraser’s table aims to create, step by step, the conditions in which the patient can open their inner doors at their own pace, instead of having to hold them shut in an emergency.

It is an adjunctive technique, to be considered with stable patients, within phase-oriented treatment, by trained clinicians, with non-suggestive instructions and careful closure.

References

  1. Bernstein, E. M., & Putnam, F. W. (1986). Development, reliability, and validity of a dissociation scale. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 174(12), 727–735. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-198612000-00004
  2. Fraser, G. A. (1991). The dissociative table technique: A strategy for working with ego states in dissociative disorders and ego-state therapy. Dissociation, 4(4), 205–213. https://hdl.handle.net/1794/1467
  3. Fraser, G. A. (2003). Fraser's “Dissociative Table Technique” revisited, revised: A strategy for working with ego states in dissociative disorders and ego-state therapy. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 4(4), 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1300/J229v04n04_02
  4. Griffiths, T. A., Dimitrova, L. I., Linington, M., Terhune, D. B., & Reinders, A. A. T. S. (2025). Effectiveness of phase-oriented treatment for trauma-related dissociative disorders: A systematic review. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 16(1), 2545734. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2025.2545734
  5. International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation. (2011). Guidelines for treating dissociative identity disorder in adults, third revision. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 12(2), 115–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2011.537247
  6. Martin, K. M. (2012). How to use Fraser's Dissociative Table Technique to access and work with emotional parts of the personality. Journal of EMDR Practice and Research, 6(4), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1891/1933-3196.6.4.179
  7. Scoboria, A., Mazzoni, G., & Kirsch, I. (2006). Effects of misleading questions and hypnotic memory suggestion on memory reports: A signal-detection analysis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 54(3), 340–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207140600689538
  8. van der Hart, O., Nijenhuis, E. R. S., & Steele, K. (2006). The haunted self: Structural dissociation and the treatment of chronic traumatization. W. W. Norton & Company.

This article summarises the scientific evidence available at the date of publication. It is no substitute for clinical training, supervision, or the advice of a health professional.

Declaration of interests: the author directs TIRCIA, some of whose online programmes are mentioned in this article.

Créé avec