1. Introduction to the Triphasic Model
Trauma profoundly disrupts an individual’s sense of safety, coherence, and control, affecting every aspect of human experience—emotionally, cognitively, physically, relationally, and existentially. Effective trauma treatment, therefore, necessitates a comprehensive, structured approach to address this complexity. The Triphasic Model of trauma treatment, widely recognized as the foundational framework in contemporary psychotraumatology, offers precisely such a structured approach, guiding clinicians step-by-step through the complexities of trauma recovery.
Historical Context and Origins of the Triphasic Model
The roots of the Triphasic Model can be traced back to the pioneering work of the French psychiatrist Pierre Janet in the late 19th century. Janet was among the first to recognize that successful treatment of psychological trauma required a careful, systematic approach. He advocated stabilizing patients emotionally and relationally before engaging with traumatic memories directly, effectively laying the foundations for what later became the modern triphasic model (Janet, 1889; Van der Hart, Brown & van der Kolk, 1989).
In the early 1990s, Harvard psychiatrist Judith Herman revitalized Janet’s phased approach, explicitly delineating the modern triphasic structure in her seminal work Trauma and Recovery (Herman, 1992). Herman’s influential framework described three distinct phases of trauma recovery: (1) establishing safety and stabilization, (2) remembering and mourning traumatic events, and (3) reconnecting and integrating trauma into one’s broader life experience. Today, Herman’s approach remains foundational and influential, inspiring numerous trauma specialists to adapt and refine these phases according to emerging clinical insights and neurobiological discoveries.
Core Conceptual Framework and Clinical Rationale
The Triphasic Model is fundamentally structured around the understanding that trauma profoundly destabilizes the survivor’s internal regulatory systems, making direct processing of traumatic memories potentially overwhelming if undertaken prematurely. Instead, the triphasic framework methodically builds capacities and strengths in the survivor before addressing traumatic memories directly (Van der Kolk, 2014; Courtois & Ford, 2013).
The three-phase model systematically addresses trauma recovery through:
- Safety and Stabilization: Establishing emotional, psychological, physical, and relational safety, building self-regulation capacities, and fostering a secure therapeutic alliance.
- Remembrance and Processing: Gradually processing and integrating traumatic memories safely, carefully, and effectively, minimizing the risk of retraumatization and emotional overwhelm.
- Integration, Reconnection, and Rehabilitation: Restoring and enhancing relational and existential well-being, reconstructing a coherent self-narrative, and supporting long-term post-traumatic growth and resilience.
Each phase addresses specific clinical challenges, carefully preparing the patient for the next phase, thereby ensuring emotional and neurobiological readiness before more intensive therapeutic interventions. This phased approach minimizes risk, respects patient autonomy, and enhances therapeutic efficacy and sustainability.
Neurobiological Foundations of the Triphasic Model
Emerging neurobiological research provides robust support for the phased structure of the Triphasic Model. Neuroscientific evidence clearly indicates that traumatic stress disrupts the brain’s integrative functions—specifically, its capacity for emotional regulation, memory processing, and cognitive coherence (Perry, 2009; Van der Kolk, 2014). Initially, focusing on stabilization and emotional safety directly addresses the hyperactivation of limbic and autonomic nervous systems, which often persists in traumatized individuals. Techniques that emphasize grounding, regulation, and relational safety help restore balanced functioning within neural circuits responsible for emotion and arousal regulation (Porges, 2011; Ogden, Minton, & Pain, 2006).
Only after establishing basic regulatory capacity does the Triphasic Model engage in the targeted processing of traumatic memories. At this stage, therapeutic interventions (such as EMDR or somatic psychotherapy techniques) facilitate the integration of fragmented traumatic memories into coherent, tolerable narratives. These methods directly engage neural networks involved in memory reconsolidation, promoting effective trauma integration and significantly reducing symptoms (Shapiro, 2018; Ecker, Ticic, & Hulley, 2012).
The final phase—reconnection and integration—utilizes neural plasticity to reinforce positive relational patterns, adaptive coping mechanisms, and healthy meaning-making processes, consolidating neurological changes and enhancing long-term resilience (Schore, 2003; Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004).
Clinical and Ethical Justification of the Phased Approach
Clinically, the Triphasic Model’s structured progression is critical. Attempting to process traumatic memories prematurely—before establishing safety and emotional regulation—can retraumatize patients, exacerbate dissociative symptoms, and destabilize treatment (Herman, 1992; Courtois & Ford, 2013). Ethically, therapists bear the responsibility to first ensure patient safety and adequate emotional resources before attempting memory integration. The structured, phased model respects patient autonomy and prioritizes therapeutic safety, informed consent, and collaborative participation.
Conclusion and Relevance in Contemporary Psychotraumatology
The Triphasic Model remains a central therapeutic framework precisely because of its flexibility, clinical effectiveness, and robust empirical support. By integrating historical insights, contemporary clinical practice, and neurobiological evidence, the Triphasic Model offers clinicians a coherent, ethically sound, and empirically validated path through the complexities inherent in trauma recovery.
In the following sections, we will examine each phase of the model in greater detail, including specific interventions, assessment tools, adaptations for various types of trauma, common pitfalls, and critical considerations to ensure clinical effectiveness and ethical practice.
References
Courtois, C. A., & Ford, J. D. (2013). Treatment of complex trauma: A sequenced, relationship-based approach. Guilford Press.
Ecker, B., Ticic, R., & Hulley, L. (2012). Unlocking the emotional brain: Eliminating symptoms at their roots using memory reconsolidation. Routledge.
Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery: The aftermath of violence—from domestic abuse to political terror. Basic Books.
Janet, P. (1889). L’Automatisme psychologique. Félix Alcan.
Ogden, P., Minton, K., & Pain, C. (2006). Trauma and the body: A sensorimotor approach to psychotherapy. Norton.
Perry, B. D. (2009). Examining child maltreatment through a neurodevelopmental lens: Clinical applications of the neurosequential model of therapeutics. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 14(4), 240–255.
Porges, S. W. (2011). The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions, attachment, communication, and self-regulation. Norton.
Schore, A. N. (2003). Affect regulation and disorders of the self. Norton.
Shapiro, F. (2018). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy: Basic principles, protocols, and procedures. Guilford Press.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15(1), 1–18.
Van der Hart, O., Brown, P., & van der Kolk, B. A. (1989). Pierre Janet’s treatment of post-traumatic stress. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2(4), 379–395.
Van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The body keeps the score: Brain, mind, and body in the healing of trauma. Viking.