Trauma and Symbolic Objectification: A Representational Gate to Capture and Persistent Re-Experiencing

1. Why Severity and Arousal Are Not Enough

A defining puzzle in traumatic stress is variability: why do some people develop persistent intrusion, hyperarousal, avoidance, and flashback-like re-experiencing after exposures that others metabolize with minimal lasting impairment? Event severity matters, but it does not fully determine outcome. Two observations sharpen the problem.

First, acute post-event distress is common and often resolves; persistence requires an account of why certain threat memories remain “unfinished,” returning with a here-and-now quality and weak contextual anchoring (Brewin et al., 1996). Second, elevated arousal is not, by itself, synonymous with disorganization. People can exhibit high physiological mobilization while remaining oriented, coherent, and planful—consistent with models treating threat responding as graded rather than a simple “panic switch” (Phelps & LeDoux, 2005; Etkin et al., 2011). Together, these observations suggest that the decisive vulnerability is not merely “how much arousal occurred,” but whether the nervous system maintained an operating state in which arousal remained compatible with symbolic cognition and integrative processing.

This manuscript proposes that traumatic persistence is often shaped by a representational-format bottleneck: the capacity to symbolically objectify threat under activation. In everyday cognition, the mind routinely converts persons, objects, and events into bounded objects-of-cognition—representations that can be labeled, held, sequenced, and manipulated while executive continuity stays online. SOH treats this as an adaptive cognitive achievement: object-mode allows contact with intense material without converting experience into an immersive field-state that commandeers survival control.

A complementary, intuitive principle—visible in narrative art and horror genres—can be stated simply: threat scales with perceived agency. When an inert stimulus is represented as alive, intentional, and self-moving, it becomes terrifying even if nothing physical changes. Conversely, when a threatening situation (or feared person) is cognitively rendered as a bounded, inspectable object-of-thought—an “it” that can be described, placed, and sequenced—imminence drops. SOH formalizes this contrast as agency inflation versus agency deflation:

• Agency inflation: the stimulus is encoded as an actor (“it wants,” “it’s coming,” “it will do it again”), promoting immersive action readiness.
• Agency deflation via symbolic objectification: the stimulus is held as a bounded episode/object (“this is a memory/event I can label and sequence”), preserving continuity.

When symbolic objectification is maintained, mobilization can rise without overthrowing executive continuity. When objectification fails—because the stressor is too intense, the system is compromised (injury, depletion, cumulative load), or competing demands reduce capacity—the organism shifts toward immersive action-mode: the stimulus is no longer primarily held as a bounded representation but becomes a self-immediate field demanding action. In that state, mobilization is more likely to recruit survival-mode control in a way that constricts working memory, disrupts sequencing, and degrades contextual tagging—processes downstream models identify as central to persistent re-experiencing and intrusion (Brewin et al., 1996; Ehlers et al., 2012). The outcome is not merely a strong memory, but a memory prone to reinstating action-mode at retrieval—experienced as re-occurring rather than remembered.

This framing shifts emphasis from arousal magnitude to mode stability under activation. The central question becomes: during threat exposure, early stabilization, and later cue-driven reactivation, can the system sustain symbolic objectification long enough for contextual anchoring and updating to occur—or does objectification failure precipitate dominance capture that makes integrative processing unreliable (Ehlers et al., 2012)?

2. SOH in Simplest Form: Symbolic Objectification as an Operating-Mode Gate

2.1. Core Claim

SOH proposes that the capacity to hold threat in symbolic object-mode functions as an operating-mode gate. When threat is represented as a bounded object-of-cognition—labelable, containable, and sequenceable—mobilization can remain graded and compatible with executive continuity. When symbolic objectification fails, representation drifts toward agency-inflated immersion: the event is no longer an object one is thinking about, but a field one is inside of. Under these conditions, mobilization is more likely to cross a threshold into defensive dominance capture, a mode transition in which survival control becomes dominant and executive continuity becomes unreliable.

SOH is not a claim that symbolic objectification “reduces emotion.” Mobilization can remain high while organization is preserved. The claim is narrower and mechanistic: representational format constrains whether mobilization remains compatible with the cognitive conditions needed for integration—conditions implicated in experimental manipulations of unwanted trauma memory persistence (Ehlers et al., 2012).

SOH acknowledges that immersion is often reported phenomenologically as “it’s happening again” or “I’m back there.” However, present-tense reliving is treated as a downstream signature of objectification failure and capture dynamics, not as the gate itself.

2.2. Causal Chain (Objectification Gate → Capture → Tagging Failure → Re-Experiencing)

SOH specifies a directional mechanism linking representational format to symptom persistence:

SO state and SO maintenance/restoration capacity (momentary degree of symbolic objectification and the ability to re-establish it under activation) constrain

→ dominance capture (operating-mode transition in which executive continuity becomes unreliable), which produces

→ acute degradation of continuity and contextual tagging (sequencing, temporal anchoring, context binding), yielding

→ traces that, upon later reactivation, tend to

→ reinstate immersive action-mode (flashback-like re-experiencing / present-tense reliving) and rapidly re-escalate mobilization, narrowing the opportunity for updating (Brewin et al., 1996; Ehlers et al., 2012).

This chain generates separable empirical predictions. In SOH, the best predictor of later present-tense intrusions is not peak arousal alone, but the combination of objectification failure and capture dynamics during encoding or reactivation.

2.3. Two Entry Points: Encoding and Reactivation

SOH allows two nonexclusive routes to persistence:

Dominance-captured encoding. During the event or immediate aftermath, symbolic objectification fails, executive continuity is compromised, contextual tagging weakens, and the trace becomes prone to later immersive reactivation (Brewin et al., 1996).

Dominance-captured reactivation. Even if initial encoding is partly integrated, later cue engagement can repeatedly collapse objectification and trigger capture, reducing the likelihood of successful updating and keeping retrieval state-dependent—consistent with evidence that the manner of post-event engagement shapes unwanted memory outcomes (Ehlers et al., 2012).

Thus, the model is not limited to the moment of exposure; it predicts that the same gating problem can recur whenever the memory is engaged.

3. Core Constructs and Boundaries

SOH depends on keeping constructs tight and noncircular. The central claim is a representational-format gate—symbolic object-mode vs agency-inflated immersion—that constrains whether mobilization remains compatible with executive continuity or shifts into defensive dominance capture.

3.1. Symbolic Objectification (SO): Definition and Scope

Symbolic Objectification (SO) is the achieved operating-state in which threat is held in symbolic object-mode—as a bounded object-of-cognition that is labelable, containable, and manipulable—with executive continuity preserved (i.e., maintained orientation and the ability to sustain a working thread without blanks/step-loss in the moment). In SOH, preserved executive continuity is not merely a correlate; it is a necessary condition for classifying the state as SO, because object-mode representation is only mechanistically meaningful when it remains usable by executive control rather than collapsing into discontinuity.

SO is not synonymous with calm affect, low arousal, or narrative polish. Mobilization can remain high while SO is intact; what distinguishes SO is representational format + preserved continuity under activation (Phelps & LeDoux, 2005; Etkin et al., 2011).

SOH distinguishes two related constructs:

• SO state: the momentary degree to which threat material is held in symbolic object-mode with preserved orientation and thread continuity during engagement (vs. agency-inflated immersion or shutdown-type dissociation).
• SO maintenance/restoration capacity: the ability—spontaneous or instructed—to sustain or re-establish SO (object-mode + preserved continuity) under activation, i.e., to keep the material symbolically bounded while maintaining the working thread as mobilization rises.

Boundary note (ethical/semantic). “Objectification” is used here in a strictly representational/format sense (bounded, inspectable object-of-cognition), not as an interpersonal moral prescription.

3.2. Agency-Inflated Immersion and Defensive Dominance Capture

When SO fails, the system shifts toward agency-inflated immersion, in which threat is no longer primarily a bounded object but a self-immediate field demanding action (“it is acting / about to act”). SOH proposes that agency-inflated immersion increases the probability of defensive dominance capture—an operating-mode transition in which survival control becomes dominant, and executive continuity becomes unreliable. This aligns with evidence that prefrontal–limbic regulation reflects dynamic coupling rather than simple “amygdala inhibition,” and that threat mobilization can remain organized until a transition occurs (Etkin et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2011; Urry et al., 2006).

SOH uses three related terms:

• Defensive dominance: the mode state, in which survival control governs the operating mode and executive continuity is unreliable.
• Dominance capture: the transition event into that state.
• Dominance threshold: the boundary conditions (within-person, context-dependent) under which capture becomes likely.

3.3. Executive Continuity and Contextual Tagging as Downstream Consequences

SOH treats executive continuity and contextual tagging as downstream mechanisms, not definitional criteria.

• Executive continuity: the ability to maintain a working thread—sequencing, step tracking, and short-horizon working memory—under activation.
• Contextual tagging: features that allow retrieval as “a past event” rather than re-occurrence: temporal order, context detail, source/context discrimination, and coherent autobiographical placement. These features are central to dual representation and contextualization accounts of intrusion and timeless re-experiencing (Brewin et al., 1996) and are directly manipulated in analogue paradigms aimed at reducing unwanted trauma memories (Ehlers et al., 2012; Varma et al., 2024).

SOH’s specific claim is that SO failure + dominance capture makes these integrative functions unreliable during encoding and/or reactivation, thereby increasing later retrieval that feels like re-entry rather than recall.

3.4. SO Is Not Dissociation

A central boundary condition of SOH is that symbolic objectification must be distinguished from dissociation, because both can be described colloquially as “distance,” yet they have opposite implications for integration.

3.4.1. Core Distinction: SO Preserves Continuity; Dissociation Entails Executive Shutdown

SO (adaptive object-mode) is the state in which threat material is held as a bounded object-of-cognition—labelable, containable, and sequenceable—with executive continuity preserved. The person remains oriented and is able to maintain the working thread while contacting the material.

Shutdown-type dissociation, in contrast, is characterized by executive-function shutdown and continuity failure. Subjective detachment (“unreal,” “numb,” “far away”) may occur, but the defining feature for SOH is that detachment coincides with thread loss, blanks, step-loss, impaired sequencing, and reduced ability to sustain coherent, trackable contact with the material in real time (van der Kolk, 2014).

3.4.2. Why This Matters: Distance-like Reports Are Ambiguous Without Continuity

Because dissociation can feel like distance, relying on self-reported “distance” alone risks misclassifying shutdown as regulation. SOH therefore treats executive continuity as a validity condition for interpreting SO. A report of “it feels far” does not count as SO unless orientation and thread integrity are preserved.

3.4.3. Operational Classification Rule During Engagement (Pre-Specified)

During threat or memory engagement, SOH classifies state using a pre-specified rule:

• SO present: object-mode indicators are endorsed, and executive continuity is intact (orientation preserved; thread maintained).
• Dissociation present (shutdown-type): detachment/unreality indicators rise, and executive continuity drops (thread loss, blanks, step-loss), regardless of subjective “distance” (van der Kolk, 2014).
• Immersion/action-mode (non-dissociative): object-mode indicators fall, and agency/imminence indicators rise while continuity remains at least partially intact.

This rule prevents circularity and protects SOH from the critique that it is merely re-labeling “distance” or “present-tense feeling.” SO is a format-with-function state (object-mode + preserved continuity), whereas dissociation is a shutdown state that disrupts the continuity needed for sequencing and contextual tagging.

3.4.4. Clinical Implication

Clinically, SOH predicts that the therapeutic goal is not detachment, but object-mode contact with continuity preserved. If a client appears “calmer” because shutdown-type dissociation has emerged, SOH predicts that integration is less likely in that moment; the immediate task becomes restoring orientation and continuity before further processing (van der Kolk, 2014).

3.5. SO Is Not Strategy Labels: Reappraisal, Self-Distancing, and Decentering

Reappraisal and self-distancing can recruit prefrontal systems and reduce distress in some contexts (Ochsner et al., 2002, 2004; Koenigsberg et al., 2010; Ayduk & Kross, 2008; Kross & Ayduk, 2011). SOH treats these as possible routes to achieving SO, but is not equivalent to SO.

Strategy ≠ achieved state. A person may attempt reappraisal without achieving symbolic objectification under activation; conversely, SO can occur organically without explicit strategy.

Primary construct = SO state under activation. SOH’s claim is that clinical outcomes depend most on whether SO is actually maintained/restored while the memory or cue is active—because that determines whether dominance capture occurs and whether updating is possible (Gross, 2015; Ehlers et al., 2012).

4. Operationalization: Measuring Symbolic Objectification and Dominance Capture Without Circularity

SOH is only as useful as its measurement separability. The central challenge is to measure Symbolic Objectification (SO)—object-mode representation under activation—without redefining SO as “good memory,” narrative coherence, or symptom relief. SOH therefore separates: (a) SO state/capacity during standardized engagement, (b) dominance capture as a performance discontinuity + recovery phenomenon, and (c) present-tense reliving/immediacy and related intrusion qualities as ecological outcomes measured outside the lab/clinic (Brewin et al., 1996; Ehlers et al., 2012; Varma et al., 2024).

4.1. Avoiding Circularity: SO State, Executive Continuity, Dissociation, and Present-Tense Reliving

SOH uses terms that can sound phenomenologically adjacent (object-mode vs immersion; “reliving” vs “distance”), so the manuscript specifies in advance how constructs are separated to prevent definitional overlap and shared-method circularity.

4.1.1. What SO Is (and Is not)

SO is an in-the-moment operating-state in which threat is held as a bounded object-of-cognition—labelable, containable, and manipulable—while executive continuity is preserved. SO is not defined by low arousal, low distress, narrative coherence, or reduced intrusions. Mobilization can remain high while SO is intact; what distinguishes SO is representational format plus preserved thread integrity under activation (Phelps & LeDoux, 2005; Etkin et al., 2011).

4.1.2. Three Separations That Prevent Circularity

SOH avoids circularity by separating three domains that are often conflated:

• SO state (representational format + validity condition): assessed during standardized engagement using format indicators (object-of-cognition, boundedness, labelability, manipulability), interpreted as SO only when continuity is intact.
• Executive continuity (concurrent functional condition): assessed in parallel (brief continuity of items and/or microprobes). Continuity is not the representational-format component of SO and not an ecological symptom outcome; it is the concurrent condition required to classify object-mode reports as SO rather than shutdown/detachment.
• Present-tense reliving/immediacy (ecological symptom outcome): assessed outside engagement (EMA/diary), anchored to spontaneous intrusions—capturing present-tense quality, perceptual dominance, and action-urgency without making those features definitional of SO (Brewin et al., 1996; Ehlers et al., 2012; Varma et al., 2024).

This architecture ensures that SO is not a re-labeling of intrusion phenomenology, and that SO is not defined by the downstream effects it is hypothesized to enable.

4.1.3. Classification Rule During Engagement (Explicit Decision Logic)

During cue engagement, SOH applies a pre-specified classification rule:

• SO present: object-mode indicators are endorsed, and continuity is intact.
• Immersion/action-mode (non-dissociative): object-mode indicators fall (and/or immersion indicators rise) while continuity remains at least partially intact.
• Dissociation (shutdown-type): detachment/unreality indicators rise, and continuity drops (thread loss, blanks, step-loss), regardless of any “distance-like” phenomenology (van der Kolk, 2014).

Crucially, SOH treats distance-like feelings without continuity as not SO. This is the primary safeguard against equating dissociation with successful objectification.

4.1.4. Why Intrusion Phenomenology Is Measured But Does Not Define SO

SOH treats present-tense reliving qualities as (a) correlates of immersion during standardized engagement and (b) ecological outcomes in daily life. Neither role defines SO. This prevents the circular move of defining SO by “not reliving” and then predicting “less reliving.” SO is defined by representational format (with preserved continuity); intrusion phenomenology is treated as a downstream product of immersion and capture dynamics (Brewin et al., 1996; Ehlers et al., 2012).

4.1.5. Practical Implication for Measurement Design

To reduce shared-method inflation:

• SO-format items should avoid “it feels like it’s happening now” phrasing and instead assess object-mode properties (boundedness, labelability, manipulability).
• Continuity checks should be brief, repeated, and anchored to immediate functioning (thread integrity), with optional micro-probes to detect within-person drops relative to immediate baseline.
• Present-tense reliving qualities should be assessed in real time (EMA/diary) during spontaneous intrusions using language clearly distinct from SO-format items (Ehlers et al., 2012; Varma et al., 2024).

4.2. Measuring SO State and SO Maintenance/Restoration Capacity

SOH requires that Symbolic Objectification be measured without collapsing into symptom outcomes (“better memory,” fewer intrusions) or generic strategy labels (reappraisal/self-distancing). Accordingly, SO is operationalized as a representational-format state—holding threat as a bounded object-of-cognition—while executive continuity is assessed in parallel as a concurrent validity condition.

4.2.1. SO State: Representational-Format Indicators

SO state is indexed using brief, repeated items targeting object-mode representation during engagement. Items emphasize objectification and boundedness—what the representation is like in mind—rather than temporal-placement language.

Example SO-format items (administered pre-cue, mid-cue, post-cue):

• Object-of-cognition: “I can hold this as something I am thinking about (an object), not something I am inside of.”
• Boundedness/containment: “This feels like a bounded episode I can ‘hold’ in mind.”
• Symbolic labelability: “I can put what is active into words while it is active.”
• Manipulability: “I can shift attention within the material (parts/sequence) without losing the whole thread.”

These items target format under activation, consistent with the claim that mobilization can be high while organization remains intact (Phelps & LeDoux, 2005; Etkin et al., 2011).

4.2.2. Executive Continuity: Concurrent Validity Screen

Because SO is classified only when object-mode representation is present, and continuity is preserved, continuity is assessed as a parallel track.

Examples (choose one brief item + one micro-task as feasible):

• Thread integrity item: “Right now, can you keep the thread of what you were doing/saying without blanks or step-loss?”
• Orientation micro-check: “Where are you right now?” / “What day is it?”
• Micro-probe (10–20 seconds): rapid working-memory update or simple continuous-performance probe, used to detect state drops relative to immediate baseline (Ehlers et al., 2012).

Interpretation rule: SO-format endorsements count as SO only when continuity is intact; if continuity is degraded, the state is classified separately.

4.2.3. Dissociation Screen: Identifying Shutdown-Type States

Shutdown-type dissociation is assessed concurrently because it can mimic “distance” while impairing continuity.

Minimal dissociation screen (brief; repeated during engagement):

• “Things feel unreal or far away.”
• “I feel detached from myself or what is happening.”
• “My mind is blanking / I’m losing time / I can’t track sequence.”

When dissociation indicators rise and continuity drops, the state is classified as shutdown/detachment rather than SO (van der Kolk, 2014).

4.2.4. SO Maintenance/Restoration Capacity: Change Under Instruction (Format-Specific)

SO maintenance/restoration capacity is indexed as the ability to re-establish object-mode format under activation when it begins to degrade, measured via brief standardized prompts that target representational format directly (not “calm down”).

Example restoration instruction (standardized):

“Hold this as a bounded object-of-thought. Keep labeling what you notice in words. Track the sequence as an observer while allowing emotion to be present.”

Primary index: within-episode improvement in SO-format items (boundedness/labelability/manipulability) without a concurrent continuity collapse—keeping the construct distinct from strategy labels while consistent with evidence that cognitive operations recruit prefrontal systems during regulation (Ochsner et al., 2002, 2004; Koenigsberg et al., 2010; Ayduk & Kross, 2008; Kross & Ayduk, 2011; Gross, 2015).

4.2.5. Optional Immersion Correlates (Track, Do Not Define SO)

To connect with intrusion research without making intrusion phenomenology definitional, SOH treats experiential correlates of immersion as trackers:

• “It feels like I am inside it rather than observing it.”
• “My body is preparing to act as if this is current danger.”

These are useful for mapping phenomenology and linking engagement states to ecological intrusion outcomes, but SO is determined by format indicators + intact continuity (Brewin et al., 1996; Ehlers et al., 2012; Varma et al., 2024).

4.3. Measuring Defensive Dominance Capture: Discontinuity and Recovery Dynamics

SOH’s distinctive prediction concerns abrupt operating-mode transitions during cue engagement. Dominance capture is operationalized as a within-person discontinuity pattern (change-point/lapse cluster) plus slowed recovery following cue offset. The model anticipates at least two capture phenotypes:

• Discontinuity-type capture (continuity collapse): abrupt thread loss, step-loss, blanks, task abandonment, or sequencing failure.
• Immersion-dominant capture without full shutdown: representational collapse (loss of object-mode/objectification) with narrowed attentional control and rigid action-urgency, while gross task behavior may still continue—followed by protracted recovery.

Recommended measurement structure 

Immediate pre-cue baseline (repeatable, brief):

• a continuity micro-probe (10–20 seconds) to establish within-session baseline variability
• a brief SO-format probe (objectification/object-mode items) to establish representational baseline

During engagement (high temporal density sampling):

• repeated micro-probes to detect abrupt lapse clusters / change points
• brief state items for: (a) objectification/object-mode indicators, (b) dissociation screen, (c) immersion correlates (tracked, not definitional)

Post-cue (recovery window):

• continue micro-probes and brief ratings to quantify recovery slope back to baseline

Dominance capture indicators (primary) 

• acute within-person discontinuity relative to immediate baseline (abrupt drop or lapse cluster exceeding baseline variability)
• continuity failure behavior: thread loss, step loss, task abandonment, marked sequencing collapse
• representational collapse signature: drop in objectification/object-mode indices (bounded object-of-thought, labelability, manipulability)
• slowed recovery after cue offset relative to (a) neutral cues, and (b) matched-load control cues

Convergent markers (secondary) 

Physiological indices can be treated as convergent markers—especially recovery dynamics—consistent with regulation work emphasizing return-to-baseline as a key signature of successful control (Urry et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2011; Etkin et al., 2011; Phelps & LeDoux, 2005).

4.4. Essential Controls to Rule out “It’s Just Load” Explanations

Because executive performance can degrade under generic distraction, dual-task demand, or fatigue, SOH requires controls that separate capture (a mode transition) from ordinary load.

Minimum controls 

• matched-load control engagement: comparable cognitive demand without trauma/threat meaning (to isolate meaning-driven capture from generic effort)
• arousal/distress covariates: to test SOH’s claim that mobilization magnitude alone does not explain capture/outcomes (Phelps & LeDoux, 2005; Etkin et al., 2011)
• concurrent state dissociation: to prevent “distance-like” detachment from being misclassified as successful objectification (van der Kolk, 2014)
• baseline executive capacity + short-term confounds: sleep, intoxication, acute illness, medication changes; and trait dissociation indices where relevant (Ehlers et al., 2012)

Discriminant claim (testable): distress and arousal will not reliably predict later flashback-like present-tense reliving/immediacy unless objectification failure and dominance capture occur during encoding or reactivation (Brewin et al., 1996; Ehlers et al., 2012; Varma et al., 2024).

5. Mechanisms of Symbolic Objectification

SOH reframes the pivotal regulatory variable as symbolic objectification: the capacity to represent threat as a bounded object-of-cognition while preserving executive continuity. This representational formatting allows affective and sensory content to remain contactable without forcing the system into immersive action-mode, thereby reducing the probability that mobilization escalates into defensive dominance capture (Phelps & LeDoux, 2005; Etkin et al., 2011).

5.1. Objectification as a “Harmlessness Transform”

In everyday cognition, symbolization routinely turns encounters into objects: something can be emotionally salient yet still be held, named, and sequenced in working memory. SOH proposes that this objectification functions as a harmlessness transform—not by removing emotion, but by converting “threat-as-field” into “threat-as-object,” thereby preserving the conditions needed for sequencing, contextual tagging, and updating.

When SO fails, representation collapses toward immersive action-mode: attention narrows, self-immediacy rises, and executive continuity becomes vulnerable. Under those conditions, mobilization is more likely to tip into dominance capture, compromising contextual tagging, and increasing the probability of later reliving/flashback-style retrieval (Brewin et al., 1996; Ehlers et al., 2012).

5.2. Humanization vs Objectification as Representational Polarity

A useful clarifying polarity is humanization ↔ objectification. Humanization increases agency, intentionality, and moral salience; objectification reduces perceived agency and renders an entity/situation more inert and manipulable. SOH’s claim is not ethical endorsement of dehumanization in social contexts; it is a mechanistic claim about representational format under threat: when a threatening cue is formatted as an object, it is less likely to function as a present-tense field that commandeers action systems.

This framing also clarifies why “distance-like” phenomenology can mislead: dissociative shutdown can feel far away while simultaneously eliminating the continuity required for integration (van der Kolk, 2014). In SOH, SO is “distant” only in the specific sense of being objectified and still trackable.

5.3. Symbolic Mediation: Labeling and Sequencing as Stabilizers of SO

Symbolic mediation (language, labeling, conceptual framing) stabilizes object-mode. Regulation work shows that cognitive operations recruit prefrontal systems and can modulate affective responses (Ochsner et al., 2002, 2004). SOH makes a narrower claim: what matters mechanistically is not whether distress decreases, but whether labeling and sequencing remain usable during activation—because that is what sustains object-mode and prevents capture.

5.4. Predictive Processing and Updating as Format-Dependent Computation

From predictive processing perspectives, updating requires sustained access to the target representation while error signals can be integrated (Friston, 2010; Clark, 2013). SOH frames effective safety updating as requiring not only exposure to corrective information but also the capacity to keep the memory/cue in object-mode long enough for updating computations to run without being pre-empted by capture.

5.5. Executive Continuity as the “Work Surface” for Integration

SOH treats executive continuity as the work surface on which sequencing and contextual tagging occur. When continuity collapses (capture or shutdown), integration is not simply harder—it becomes intermittently impossible in the moment. This is consistent with dynamic prefrontal–limbic coupling accounts in which threat responding can remain graded until a transition in control occurs (Etkin et al., 2011; Urry et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2011; Phelps & LeDoux, 2005).

6. Flagship Predictions and Disconfirmations

SOH is intended to be falsifiable. Its distinctive claim is that symbolic objectification under activation gates whether mobilization remains compatible with executive continuity or transitions into dominance capture—thereby shaping whether later retrieval is contextualized (“then/there”) or becomes immersion-dominant reliving/flashback-style experience (Brewin et al., 1996; Ehlers et al., 2012).

Prediction 1: SO maintenance/restoration predicts flashback-style immediacy beyond severity, arousal, and dissociation 

Claim. Individual differences in SO maintenance/restoration capacity during early post-exposure engagement and/or standardized cue reactivation predict later intrusion immediacy/reliving quality beyond event severity, peak arousal, and dissociation.

Test. Prospective or analogue-trauma designs assess (hours–days):

• SO state and SO restoration capacity (format indicators + continuity checks)
• capture indices (discontinuity + recovery slope)
• covariates: severity, arousal, baseline executive capacity, sleep disruption, trait/state dissociation
• outcome: EMA/diary intrusion quality (immediacy/reliving, action-urgency, contextual anchoring), secondarily frequency/distress (Ehlers et al., 2012; Varma et al., 2024)

Falsifiable pattern. SO capacity explains unique variance in intrusion quality when severity/arousal/dissociation is controlled.

Prediction 2: SO failure covaries with capture discontinuities and slowed recovery 

Claim. Within-person drops in SO state during cue engagement covary with capture signatures: abrupt continuity discontinuities and slowed recovery after cue offset.

Test. Repeated sampling during engagement:

• SO state (object-mode indicators)
• executive micro-probe performance (change-point / lapse clusters)
• recovery slope post-cue
• convergent physiology as available (Urry et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2011)

Falsifiable pattern. SO failure temporally couples to discontinuity/recovery beyond distress/arousal alone (Etkin et al., 2011; Phelps & LeDoux, 2005).

Prediction 3: Dissociation will not behave like SO 

Claim. Shutdown-type dissociation is not “strong SO.” It may elevate detachment/unreality while degrading continuity and contextual access, predicting poorer tagging/anchoring.

Test. During cue engagement:

• measure SO state + continuity concurrently
• measure state dissociation
• assess tagging/sequence/context detail immediately after engagement

Falsifiable pattern. SO predicts better contextual tagging; dissociation predicts poorer tagging even when it feels “far” (van der Kolk, 2014; Brewin et al., 1996).

Prediction 4: Treatment mechanism—reductions in immersion-dominant reliving are mediated by SO restoration and reduced capture 

Claim. In effective trauma-focused treatment, reductions in immersion-dominant reliving/flashback quality are mediated by improved SO restoration under activation and reduced capture during memory engagement—rather than distress reduction alone.

Test. Across sessions:

• embed brief standardized engagement segments and assess SO restoration capacity under instruction
• capture indices (discontinuity + recovery)
• outcomes: intrusion quality (immediacy/reliving), contextual anchoring, avoidance, functioning
• compare standard protocol vs SO-restoration-augmented protocol (Boterhoven de Haan et al., 2020; Ehlers et al., 2012)

Prediction 5: “Same distress, different outcome” when SO is manipulated 

Claim. Manipulating SO should dissociate immediate distress from later intrusion quality: similar distress can yield different outcomes depending on whether object-mode is achieved, and capture is prevented.

Test. Randomize during engagement:

• SO manipulation: bounded object-of-thought + labeling + sequence scaffolding while maintaining continuity
• controls: matched-demand or strategies that reduce distress without improving SO indicators
• outcomes: later intrusion quality (EMA/diary), controlling for distress/arousal (Ehlers et al., 2012; Varma et al., 2024)

Core disconfirmations 

SOH would be weakened by robust evidence that:

• SO adds no predictive value beyond severity/arousal/dissociation and baseline executive capacity.
• capture indices do not covary with SO state shifts during engagement.
• treatment reduces immersion-dominant reliving without measurable improvements in SO restoration under activation and without capture changes.
• shutdown-type dissociation reliably improves continuity/tagging during activation (opposite of SOH’s boundary claim) (van der Kolk, 2014).

7. Relation to Prevailing PTSD and Trauma Models

SOH is not offered as a replacement for established accounts; it is proposed as a first-line representational gating mechanism that helps explain when downstream processes—contextualization, appraisal-based updating, and therapeutic change—succeed or fail under activation.

7.1. Dual Representation and Contextual-Binding Accounts

Dual representation theory converges on the idea that persistent symptoms involve retrieval that is poorly contextualized and experienced as timeless/present (Brewin et al., 1996). SOH accepts this downstream description and adds an upstream gate: when objectification collapses and capture occur, the system is less able to generate and sustain the contextual tags required for autobiographical placement.

7.2. Cognitive Models of PTSD and Meaning/Appraisal Frameworks

Cognitive models emphasize maladaptive appraisals, cue-driven retrieval, and incomplete safety-updating (Ehlers et al., 2012). SOH is compatible but refines the point of failure: even when a person can endorse “I’m safe now” at rest, engagement may destabilize representational format; if capture occurs, the window for reflective appraisal narrows because continuity and contextual access become unreliable.

7.3. Regulation Accounts, Self-Distancing, and Decentering

Self-distancing and reappraisal can reduce distress and recruit prefrontal systems (Ayduk & Kross, 2008; Ochsner et al., 2002, 2004). SOH’s distinct claim is that strategy labels matter less than whether objectification is actually achieved and maintained under activation—preventing capture and preserving continuity for integration.

7.4. Defensive Cascade / Threat Imminence Traditions

SOH aligns with the notion that perceived imminence matters but targets a more specific mechanism than “current threat”: representational animacy/agency in the moment (objectified object-of-thought vs immersive, agentic, action-commanding field-state). SOH links this to a distinctive signature measurable as discontinuity + recovery dynamics (Etkin et al., 2011; Urry et al., 2006; Kim et al., 2011).

8. Clinical Implications

SOH reframes trauma persistence around a precise target: the ability to restore and sustain symbolic objectification under activation so that mobilization does not tip into dominance capture and compromise updating.

8.1. The Clinical Problem SOH Is Trying to Solve

Many trauma-focused approaches require engaging traumatic material. SOH predicts variability when engagement repeatedly collapses objectification and triggers capture: the session may be intense, but the cognitive conditions needed for integration—continuity, sequencing, contextual tagging—are unreliable. Under those conditions, memory remains prone to flashback-like reliving rather than anchored remembering (Brewin et al., 1996; Ehlers et al., 2012).

8.2. Two Clinical Targets that Should Not Be Conflated

• Upstream target: objectification restoration capacity under activation (hold as bounded object-of-thought while preserving orientation/thread).
• Downstream target: stabilization after capture. When the system is captured (escalation or shutdown-like detachment), the immediate task is restoring orienting and continuity before further processing (van der Kolk, 2014).

8.3. Practical Sequencing Principle

When a client cannot reliably sustain objectification during engagement, therapy may benefit from explicitly re-establishing:

• bounded object-mode representation (objectification)
• oriented observer-capable tracking (without shutdown-like detachment)
• stepwise sequencing that preserves the thread
• labeling/symbolic mediation during contact

SOH does not require eliminating emotion; it predicts better outcomes when mobilization remains compatible with continuity and contextual tagging during engagement (Ehlers et al., 2012).

8.4. What to Measure Clinically (and Why)

SOH suggests sharpening session-level assessment by tracking:

• brief objectification state ratings during engagement (boundedness, labelability, manipulability)
• brief continuity probes / behavioral markers (thread loss, lapse clusters, slowed recovery)
• state dissociation (to avoid mistaking detachment for successful objectification) (van der Kolk, 2014)

9. Limitations and Alternative Explanations

SOH is a mechanism proposal, not a comprehensive trauma theory.

9.1. Construct Overlap and Boundary Risks

Objectification is close to constructs such as psychological distance, threat imminence, temporal contextualization, and decentering. SOH’s defensibility depends on tight operational separation: objectification is defined as object-mode representational format with intact continuity, not as reduced distress, narrative coherence, or improved outcomes.

9.2. Alternative Mechanism 1: Hippocampal/Context Binding Limits

A competing view is that contextual integration fails primarily due to binding constraints under stress, with reliving emerging downstream. SOH differs by predicting that objectification collapse + capture signatures during engagement add explanatory power beyond binding outcomes. Evidence favoring the alternative would show strong prediction from binding indices with minimal incremental value of objectification/capture measures.

9.3. Alternative Mechanism 2: Catecholaminergic Effects on Executive Continuity

Stress neurochemistry can disrupt working memory directly. SOH can accommodate this as a contributing pathway, but its distinctive claim is that objectification stability determines when disruption manifests as capture-like discontinuity with slowed recovery. Evidence favoring a non-SOH account would show continuity disruption fully explained by physiology/arousal proxies with no incremental role for objectification shifts.

9.4. Alternative Mechanism 3: Salience-Network Dominance Without Format Specificity

A competing interpretation is that capture reflects salience-network dominance broadly, not representational format. SOH is weakened if salience indices predict discontinuity/recovery and later reliving equally well without a specific role for objectification state.

9.5. Generalizability and Heterogeneity

SOH is focused on threat-linked PTSD-like persistence. Moral injury, grief, complex developmental trauma, and ongoing threat contexts may involve additional mechanisms. SOH predicts that ongoing threat constrains objectification restoration because “it’s over” may be partially untrue; this boundary condition should be specified empirically.