In a recent article in this journal, D. H. Gleaves (1996) criticized the sociocognitive model (SCM; N. P. Spanos, 1994) of dissociative identity disorder (DID) and argued in favor of a posttraumatic model (PTM) in which DID is conceptualized as a consequence of childhood abuse and other traumatic events. The present authors demonstrate that (a) many of Gleaves's arguments were predicated on misunderstandings of the SCM, (b) scrutiny of the evidence regarding the psychopathology and assessment of DID raises questions concerning the PTM's conceptual and empirical underpinnings, (c) the treatment literature suggests that iatrogenic factors play an important role in the etiology of DID, and (d) the evidence linking child abuse to DID is more problematic than implied by Gleaves. The present authors conclude that Gleaves's analysis underemphasized the cultural manifestations of multiple role enactments and that the history of DID imparts a valuable lesson to contemporary psychotherapists.