scholarly journals Comparing the Psychological Effects of Different Psychiatric Labels: Borderline, Paranoid, and Antisocial Personality Disorder; Major Depression; Anxiety Disorder; and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-44
Author(s):  
Sarah Celaire ◽  
Mark R. McDermott

The psychological effects of six Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) psychiatric labels on respondents were evaluated, three of them being variants of “personality disorder” (PD). Self-selecting students from a university in London, United Kingdom, were invited to take part in a repeated-measures questionnaire study delivered online. One hundred and seventy-three participants completed the questionnaire, responding to 16 items for each of the six mental health labels. Results showed that respondents reported the greatest dysphoric reactions to the “paranoid personality disorder” label, followed by the “borderline” and “antisocial” personality disorder labels, with “major depression,” “anxiety disorder,” and “posttraumatic stress disorder” thereafter. Borderline personality disorder was designated as being least understandable of the six labels. It is evident that the PD psychiatric labels have greater iatrogenic effects than the others included here. From this, we conclude that PD labels produce greater dysphoric consequences because they can be construed as implying a fault in an individual’s core and immutable sense of self, which in turn may cause significant stigma and distress in those to whom they have been applied. We conclude that given these adverse effects of PD labels and conceptual problems associated with the notion of personality disorder, that such labels at the very least should be replaced by more compassionate and self-explanatory terms, which reflect the chronic difficulties forming and maintaining attachments that underpin this group of presenting complaints.

2019 ◽  
Vol 98 ◽  
pp. 106012
Author(s):  
Barbosa Carolina Maria Motta Stoffel ◽  
Paim Kessler Felix Henrique ◽  
Pechansky Flavio ◽  
von Diemen Lisia ◽  
Sudbrack Maria Fátima Olivier ◽  
...  

1998 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward B. Blanchard ◽  
Todd C. Buckley ◽  
Edward J. Hickling ◽  
Ann E. Taylor

2007 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. 1289-1297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong-Shing Chen ◽  
Ming-Chao Chen ◽  
Frank Huang-Chih Chou ◽  
Feng-Ching Sun ◽  
Pei-Chun Chen ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. 43-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulrike Schmidt ◽  
Sebastian F. Kaltwasser ◽  
Carsten T. Wotjak

PTSD can develop in the aftermath of traumatic incidents like combat, sexual abuse, or life threatening accidents. Unfortunately, there are still no biomarkers for this debilitating anxiety disorder in clinical use. Anyhow, there are numerous studies describing potential PTSD biomarkers, some of which might progress to the point of practical use in the future. Here, we outline and comment on some of the most prominent findings on potential imaging, psychological, endocrine, and molecular PTSD biomarkers and classify them into risk, disease, and therapy markers. Since for most of these potential PTSD markers a causal role in PTSD has been demonstrated or at least postulated, this review also gives an overview on the current state of research on PTSD pathobiology.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document