The language of mental illness is indispensable. Diagnostic terms, equivalent to depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), permeate popular culture and saturate the net world. They are the currency of countless news and awareness campaigns.
The rise of Diagnostic label could be celebrated. This suggests that the general public's mental health literacy is increasing and the stigma related to mental illness is decreasing. As the associated shame diminishes, mental illness comes out of the shadows.
But the rise of diagnostic language may also have downsides. Some critics say it reflects Medical treatment of pain And it might occur Contribute to over-medication.. And just as naming conditions can reduce stigma, they may also increase it. Labels could be sticky, having lasting effects on how others see individuals with mental illness, and the way they see themselves.
In one A new studymy colleagues and I examined how labeling an individual with relatively mild or minor mental health problems affects how others perceive them.
We found that the presence of labels increased empathy and concern for those affected, but in addition pessimism about their ability to get well. Essentially, diagnostic labels look like a mixed blessing when applied to the less severe end of the suffering spectrum.
Concept creep
When we talk concerning the rise of diagnostic labels, a selected concern is that concepts of mental illness have proliferated in recent times. They now encompass a wider range of experiences than before. This so-called “Concept creep” means that individuals are using diagnostic terms to check with phenomena which can be relatively mild or minor.
British psychologist Lucy Foulkes has argued that individuals are growing faster. Over identification Mental illness means they're labeling experiences that fall below the diagnostic threshold.
Recent studies (incl who are from my research group.) support this possibility. Research has shown that individuals who hold broad concepts of mental illness usually tend to self-diagnose than those that hold narrow concepts.
The implications of applying diagnostic terminology loosely are unclear. Using them to label relatively mild pain can have positive effects, equivalent to encouraging people to take the pain seriously and seek skilled help.
But it might have equally negative effects, resulting in the stigmatization of the labeled person or the praise and restriction of their illness. It may even lead people to diagnose themselves inappropriately.
February_Love/Shutterstock
Our study
We wanted to know the impact of those broad conceptualizations of mental illness by examining how diagnostic labeling affects the perception of individuals with relatively mild problems.
Over the course of two experiments, we presented nearly 1,000 American adults with a transient description of a hypothetical person experiencing a light, non-severe mental health problem. Every detail was rigorously scrutinized to return near the diagnostic threshold.
Participants were randomly assigned to read the identical descriptions with or with no diagnostic label (major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and bipolar disorder in Experiment 1, and PTSD, obsessive-compulsive disorder). Complaints and experience of binge-eating disorder in two).
After reading each description, we asked participants to report how much sympathy they felt for the person, how appropriate they were for skilled treatment, and the way much accommodation they need to receive in school or work, e.g. Extra time on assignments or special leave.
We also asked how likely they thought the person was to make a full recovery (Experiment Two) and the way much control they'd over their problems (Experiment Two). We then compared these judgments between the label and no-label conditions.
The label had an effect.
Participants who read the statements before the diagnostic label reported more empathy toward the person and more support for his or her efforts to regulate to their problems. They also saw the person as more suitable for treatment than those that read the identical description without the label.
At the identical time, the presence of labels made participants see the person's problems as more enduring and their recovery as less under their control.
Many of those judgments differed between disorders. There was some evidence that labeling effects were strongest for less familiar disorders equivalent to binge-eating and bipolar disorders.
Okrasiek/Shutterstock
Mixed blessings.
When diagnostic labels are applied to minor cases of mental illness, the implications look like mixed. On the one hand, labels legitimize help-seeking, promote flexible helping, and promote empathy. These positives contradict these propositions. Labeling promotes stigma..
However, diagnostic labels also appear to encourage the view that mental health problems are everlasting and that individuals have a limited ability to beat them. In other words, diagnostic labels can lead people to view mental illness as a permanent identity fairly than a short lived condition. These perceptions can undermine people's expectations of recovery and undermine efforts to realize it.
Even the apparent advantages of labeling can have adversarial effects within the context of relatively mild distress. It could be motivating Unnecessary and ineffective treatment Or play the role of “patient” by offering special accommodations to individuals with minor disabilities.
Our results highlight the potential consequences of the continued expansion of diagnostic concepts. As these concepts expand into less severe types of suffering and impairment, and diagnostic labels are used more loosely, we should be alert to potential costs in addition to advantages.