Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) remains a major public health challenge, affecting 3.9% of the world population (Koenen et al., 2017), with only a minority of patients achieving durable remission while many develop chronic, complex, or dissociative forms of PTSD despite evidence-based trauma-focused psychotherapies (Kessler et al., 1995; Steenkamp et al., 2015; Schnurr et al., 2022). Dominant therapeutic models emphasize fear extinction, emotional regulation, and cognitive restructuring. While these approaches are indispensable, they may insufficiently address a more fundamental disruption produced by trauma-related disruption: dissociation, understood as a collapse of grounding to reality, involving alterations in proprioception, interoception, chronesthesia, sense of body ownership and sense of agency. Reconsidering PTSD through the lens of agency offers a unifying framework that connects peritraumatic experience, dissociation, memory fragmentation, and symptom persistence.
Why agency matters
Agency refers to the prereflective feeling of initiating and controlling one's actions and their consequences (Tsakiris et al., 2007; Haggard and Chambon, 2012). Although conceptually distinct, the sense of body ownership, that refers to the experience that one's body and experiences belong to oneself, and the sense of agency are deeply intertwined within multisensory and predictive processes integrating proprioception, interoception, motor intentions, and sensory feedback. Crucially, agency anchors the self as an actor in the world: it is through agency that perception, action, and meaning are dynamically coupled, within the past, present and future. Indeed, acting involves not only controlling one's actions in the present, but also anticipating their future consequences and embedding them within an autobiographical contin.
Psychiatric research has extensively examined alterations of body ownership and control, particularly in dissociation. By contrast, agency has received comparatively little attention in trauma research, despite growing evidence that it is profoundly altered in PTSD and its dissociative subtypes (Rabellino et al., 2018; Ataria, 2015).
Trauma as a breakdown of agency
From an enactive and predictive-processing perspective, a traumatic event (TE) overwhelms the individual's capacity to act meaningfully on the environment. The TE exceeds available sensorimotor and cognitive models, leaving no reliable predictions to guide perception or action (Friston, 2017; Linson and Friston, 2019). Neurobiologically, this corresponds to hyperactivation of threat-detection systems alongside reduced prefrontal and hippocampal regulation (Shin et al., 2005; Lanius et al., 2010; Akiki et al., 2017).
Clinically, this collapse of agency is experienced as helplessness, freezing, or tonic immobility, hallmark features of peritraumatic distress (Bracha, 2004). These states reflect not merely fear, but a failure of agency—an inability to initiate or modulate action in response to threat. Peritraumatic dissociation may then emerge as a protective response, disconnecting perception and bodily experience from overwhelming stimuli (Rabellino et al., 2018; van der Kolk, 2014). While dissociation can reduce immediate suffering, its intensity predicts subsequent PTSD, suggesting that early agency failure has lasting consequences (Ozer et al., 2003; Brewin et al., 2000).
Trauma thus constitutes more than a disruption of safety or meaning: it is a sensorimotor rupture in which the self is no longer experienced as an embodied and effective agent in the world within a temporal continuity. The traumatic event is not integrated as an episode located in the past, but remains experientally present, fragmented and decontextualized (Rybyk and Medvedev, 2025; Correa et al., 2022; Keidar et al., 2025).
PTSD symptoms as attempts to restore agency
If trauma entails a collapse of agency, PTSD symptoms can be reinterpreted as efforts—often maladaptive—to restore it. This reframing shifts symptoms from being mere pathological residues to being understandable, though costly, adaptive strategies.
Intrusive thoughts and flashbacks may represent attempts to reprocess the TE and regain control over its unfolding. Repetitive mental replay can be seen as a search for an alternative action trajectory—an effort to reconstruct causality and agency retrospectively (Murray et al., 2022; Shipherd and Salters-Pedneault, 2008; Herman, 1992). Similarly, behavioral reenactments and risk-taking, particularly observed in complex PTSD, may reflect attempts to actively appropriate danger rather than remain passively subjected to it (van der Kolk, 2014).
Avoidance behaviors can be understood as compensatory strategies to reassert agency by controlling exposure to triggers (Mairean, 2020). When internal regulation fails, avoiding environments, sensations, or relationships becomes the only reliable means of preventing further loss of control. Substance use may function analogously, modulating perception and affect to restore a sense of mastery, albeit transiently (Flynn et al., 2022).
Negative cognitions, including guilt and self-blame, paradoxically preserve agency by locating causality within the self rather than in an uncontrollable world. “If it was my fault, then I had control” becomes a psychologically coherent—though damaging—solution to helplessness (Ozer et al., 2003; Keane et al., 2006).
Hypervigilance and chronic arousal further illustrate this logic: constant monitoring of threat aims to prevent future agency collapse, even as it entrenches anxiety and physiological dysregulation (Cameron and Mamon, 2019).
Finally, dissociation occupies a paradoxical position. It simultaneously reflects a loss of agency and an active strategy to counter passive helplessness. By disengaging from perception or embodiment, individuals may reclaim a minimal sense of control over overwhelming experience—at the cost of coherence, presence, and long-term functioning (Morgan, 2013; Taylor and Morgan, 2014).
Clinical and conceptual implications
Viewing PTSD through the prism of agency has important implications. First, it offers a unifying account linking peritraumatic responses, symptom clusters, and chronicity. Second, it complements cognitive and emotional models by foregrounding the embodied dimension of trauma, emphasizing action, sensorimotor prediction, and environmental engagement. Third, it challenges clinicians to consider not only how patients remember trauma, but how they experience themselves as agents in everyday life, but also within an assimilated past and an anticipable future.
Restoring agency may thus represent a core therapeutic target across PTSD subtypes, including dissociative and complex presentations, for which treatment guidelines remain limited (Brewin et al., 2017; Maercker et al., 2022). While established therapies may indirectly support agency by improving regulation and narrative coherence, an explicit focus on agency could help explain non-response and guide innovation.
Conclusion
Psychological trauma can be understood as a profound loss of the SA, disrupting the individual's capacity to act meaningfully on the world. PTSD symptoms, in turn, reflect persistent attempts to repair this rupture—attempts that are understandable, adaptive in intent, yet often self-defeating. Re-centering agency in trauma theory invites a shift from viewing PTSD solely as a disorder of fear or memory toward recognizing it as a disorder of action, control, and embodied selfhood. Such a perspective may open new avenues for conceptual clarity and therapeutic progress in a field still marked by significant unmet needs.
Statements
Author contributions
VA: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MT: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. FS: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Conflict of interest
In the past years, FS cofounded and received compensation from BeSound SAS. VA also received compensation from BeSound SAS.
The remaining author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Generative AI was used in the translation of some terms from French to English.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1
Akiki T. J. Averill C. L. Abdallah C. G. A. (2017). Network-based neurobiological model of PTSD: evidence from structural and functional neuroimaging studies. Curr. Psychiatry Rep.19:81. doi: 10.1007/s11920-017-0840-4
2
Ataria Y. (2015). Dissociation during trauma: the ownership-agency tradeoff model. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci.14, 1037–1053. doi: 10.1007/s11097-014-9392-9
3
Bracha H. S. (2004). Freeze, flight, fight, fright, faint: adaptationist perspectives on the acute stress response spectrum. CNS Spectr.9, 679–685. doi: 10.1017/S1092852900001954
4
Brewin C. R. Andrews B. Valentine J. D. (2000). Meta-analysis of risk factors for posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed adults. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol.68, 748–766. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.68.5.748
5
Brewin C. R. Cloitre M. Hyland P. Shevlin M. Maercker A. Bryant R. A. et al . (2017). A review of current evidence regarding the ICD-11 proposals for diagnosing PTSD and complex PTSD. Clin. Psychol. Rev.58, 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.09.001
6
Cameron A. Y. Mamon D. (2019). Towards A Better Understanding of Hypervigilance in Combat Veterans. Mil. Behav. Health7, 206–217. doi: 10.1080/21635781.2018.1526144
7
Correa R. Rodriguez N. Bortolaso M. (2022). What is the nature of the alteration of temporality in Trauma-Related Altered States of Consciousness? A neuro-phenomenological analysis. Eur. J. Trauma Dissoc.6:100227. doi: 10.1016/j.ejtd.2021.100227
8
Flynn A. J. Navarro G. Y. Basehore H. K. (2022). PTSD avoidance symptoms associated with alcohol craving in treatment-seeking veteran population. J. Dual Diagn.18, 135–143. doi: 10.1080/15504263.2022.2089799
9
Friston K. J. (2017). Precision psychiatry. Biol. Psychiatry Cogn. Neurosci. Neuroimaging2, 640–643. doi: 10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.08.007
10
Haggard P. Chambon V. (2012). Sense of agency. Curr. Biol.22:R390–2. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.02.040
11
Herman J. L. (1992). Complex PTSD: a syndrome in survivors of prolonged and repeated trauma. J. Trauma. Stress5, 377–391. doi: 10.1002/jts.2490050305
12
Keane T. M. Marshall A. D. Taft C. T. (2006). Posttraumatic stress disorder: etiology, epidemiology, and treatment outcome. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol.2, 161–197. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.2.022305.095305
13
Keidar A. Gafter L. Lahav Y. (2025). Trapped in time: time perspective explains PTSD symptom severity following childhood abuse. Child Abuse Negl.164:107450. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2025.107450
14
Kessler R. C. Sonnega A. Bromet E. Hughes M. Nelson C. B. (1995). Posttraumatic stress disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry52, 1048–1060. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1995.03950240066012
15
Koenen K. C. Ratanatharathorn A. Ng L. McLaughlin K. A. Bromet E. J. Stein D. J. et al . (2017). Posttraumatic stress disorder in the World Mental Health Surveys. Psychol. Med.47, 2260–2274. doi: 10.1017/S0033291717000708
16
Lanius R. A. Vermetten E. Loewenstein R. J. Brand B. Schmahl C. Bremner J. D. et al . (2010). Emotion modulation in PTSD: clinical and neurobiological evidence for a dissociative subtype. Am. J. Psychiatry167, 640–647. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09081168
17
Linson A. Friston K. (2019). Reframing PTSD for computational psychiatry with the active inference framework. Cogn. Neuropsychiatry24, 347–368. doi: 10.1080/13546805.2019.1665994
18
Maercker A. Cloitre M. Bachem R. Schlumpf Y. R. Khoury B. Hitchcock C. et al . (2022). Complex post-traumatic stress disorder. Lancet400, 60–72. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00821-2
19
Mairean C. (2020). Fear and avoidance of driving among drivers involved in a road traffic crash. The role of traumatic fear and driving cognitions. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav.74, 322–329. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2020.08.026
20
Morgan C. A. III. Taylor M. K. (2013). Spontaneous and deliberate dissociative states in military personnel: are such states helpful?J. Trauma. Stress26, 492–497. doi: 10.1002/jts.21834
21
Murray H. Grey N. Warnock-Parkes E. Kerr A. Wild J. Clark D. M. et al . (2022). Ten misconceptions about trauma-focused CBT for PTSD. Cogn. Behav. Therap.15:s1754470x22000307. doi: 10.1017/S1754470X22000307
22
Ozer E. J. Best S. R. Lipsey T. L. Weiss D. S. (2003). Predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder and symptoms in adults: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull.129, 52–73. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.1.52
23
Rabellino D. Burin D. Harricharan S. Lloyd C. Frewen P. A. McKinnon M. C. et al . (2018). Altered sense of body ownership and agency in posttraumatic stress disorder and its dissociative subtype: a rubber hand illusion study. Front. Hum. Neurosci.12:163. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00163
24
Rybyk L. Medvedev V. (2025). Perception of time perspective in the first year after the loss of a loved one. Med. Res. Arch.13:6359. doi: 10.18103/mra.v13i2.6359
25
Schnurr P. P. Chard K. M. Ruzek J. I. Chow B. K. Resick P. A. Foa E. B. et al . (2022). Comparison of prolonged exposure vs cognitive processing therapy for treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder among us veterans: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw. Open5:e2136921. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.36921
26
Shin L. M. Wright C. I. Cannistraro P. A. Wedig M. M. McMullin K. Martis B. et al . (2005). A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of amygdala and medial prefrontal cortex responses to overtly presented fearful faces in posttraumatic stress disorder. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry62, 273–281. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.62.3.273
27
Shipherd J. C. Salters-Pedneault K. (2008). Attention, memory, intrusive thoughts, and acceptance in PTSD: an update on the empirical literature for clinicians. Cogn. Behav. Pract.15, 349–363. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpra.2008.01.003
28
Steenkamp M. M. Litz B. T. Hoge C. W. Marmar C. R. (2015). Psychotherapy for military-related PTSD: a review of randomized clinical trials. JAMA314, 489–500. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.8370
29
Taylor M. K. Morgan C. A. III (2014). Spontaneous and deliberate dissociative states in military personnel: relationships to objective performance under stress. Mil. Med.179, 955–958. doi: 10.7205/MILMED-D-14-00081
30
Tsakiris M. Schütz-Bosbach S. Gallagher S. (2007). On agency and body-ownership: phenomenological and neurocognitive reflections. Conscious. Cogn.16, 645–660. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2007.05.012
31
van der Kolk B. A. (2014). The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. New York, NY: Viking.
Summary
Keywords
agency, chronesthesia, dissociation, grounding, posttraumatic stress disorder, psychological trauma, psychomotor therapy, sensorimotor
Citation
Adrien V, Trousselard M and Schoeller F (2026) Editorial: Agency in posttraumatic stress disorder: theoretical approach and therapeutic perspectives. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 20:1785574. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2026.1785574
Received
11 January 2026
Accepted
14 January 2026
Published
02 February 2026
Volume
20 - 2026
Edited and reviewed by
Elizabeth B. Torres, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Adrien, Trousselard and Schoeller.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Vladimir Adrien, vladimir.adrien@aphp.fr
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.