Abstract
The conceptualization of mental disorders varies among professionals, impacting diagnosis, treatment, and research. This cross-disciplinary study aimed to understand how various professionals, including psychiatrists, psychologists, medical students, philosophers, and social sciences experts, perceive mental disorders, their attitudes towards the disease status of certain mental states, and their emphasis on biological versus social explanatory attributions. A survey of 371 participants assessed their agreement on a variety of conceptual statements and the relative influence of biological or social explanatory attribution for different mental states. Our findings revealed a consensus on the need for multiple explanatory perspectives in understanding psychiatric conditions and the influence of social, cultural, moral, and political values on diagnosis and classification. Psychiatrists demonstrated balanced bio-social explanatory attributions for various mental conditions, indicating a potential shift from the biological attribution predominantly observed among medical students and residents in psychiatry. Further research into factors influencing these differing perspectives is necessary.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aftab, A., & Ryznar, E. (2021). Conceptual and historical evolution of psychiatric nosology. International Review of Psychiatry, 33(5), 486–499.
Aftab, A., & Waterman, G. S. (2021). Conceptual competence in psychiatry: Recommendations for education and training. Academic Psychiatry, 45, 203–209.
Aftab, A., Joshi, Y., & Sewell, D. (2020). Conceptualizations of mental disorder at a US Academic Medical Center. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 208(11), 848–856.
Ahn, W., Flanagan, E. H., Marsh, J. K., & Sanislow, C. A. (2006). Beliefs about essences and the reality of mental disorders. Psychological Science, 17(9), 759–766.
Armstrong, T. (2015). The myth of the normal brain: Embracing neurodiversity. AMA Journal of Ethics, 17, 348–352.
Blume, H. (1998, September). Neurodiversity: On the neurological underpinnings of Geekdom. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1998/09/neurodiversity/305909.
Bringmann, L. F., Elmer, T., & Eronen, M. I. (2022). Back to basics: The importance of conceptual clarification in psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(4), 340–346.
Butlin, B., Laws, K., Read, R., Broome, M. D., & Sharma, S. (2019). Concepts of mental disorders in the United Kingdom: Similarities and differences between the lay public and psychiatrists. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 65(6), 507–514.
Chapman, R. (2019). Neurodiversity theory and its discontents: Autism, schizophrenia, and the social model of disability. In S. Tekin, & R. Bluhm (Eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to the Philosophy of Psychiatry.
Chapman, R. (2021). Neurodiversity and the Social Ecology of Mental functions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1360–1372.
Conrad, P. (1992). Medicalization and social control. Annual Review of Sociology, 18(1), 209–232.
De Haan, S. (2020). Enactive Psychiatry. Cambridge University Press.
Doyle, N., & McDowall, A. (2021). Diamond in the rough? An empty review of research into neurodiversity and a road map for developing the inclusion agenda. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 41(3), 352–382.
Eronen, M. I. (2021). The levels problem in psychopathology. Psychological Medicine, 51(6), 927–933.
Fried, E. I. (2022). Studying mental health problems as systems, not syndromes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(6), 500–508.
Harland, R., Antonova, E., Owen, G. S., Broome, M., Landau, S., Deeley, Q., & Murray, R. (2009). A study of psychiatrists’ concepts of mental illness. Psychological Medicine, 39(6), 967–976.
Jaarsma, P., & Welin, S. (2012). Autism as a Natural Human variation: Reflections on the claims of the Neurodiversity Movement. Health Care Analysis, 20, 20–30.
Kendler, K. (2008). Explanatory models for psychiatric illness. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(6), 695–702.
Kendler, K. (2016). The phenomenology of major depression and the representativeness and nature of DSM criteria. American Journal of Psychiatry, 173(8), 771–780.
Lebowitz, M. S., & Appelbaum, P. S. (2019). Biomedical explanations of psychopathology and their implications for attitudes and beliefs about Mental disorders. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 15, 555–577.
Milton, D. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: The ‘double empathy problem.’ Disability & Society, 27, 883–887.
Rehm, J., & Shield, K. D. (2019). Global burden of disease and the impact of mental and addictive disorders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 21, 1–7.
Sartorius, N., & Maric, N. P. (2017). How many categories in a classification of psychiatric disorders do we need? Medicinski Podmladak, 68(2).
Singer, J. (1999). Why can’t you be normal for once in your life? From a ‘problem with no name’ to the emergence of a new category of difference. In M. Corker, & S. French (Eds.), Disability discourse (pp. 59–67). Open University Press.
Tikkinen, K. A. O., Rutanen, J., Frances, A., Perry, B. L., Dennis, B. B., Agarwal, A., & Järvinen, T. L. N. (2019). Public, health professional and legislator perspectives on the concept of psychiatric disease: A population-based survey. British Medical Journal Open, 9(6), e024265.
Tse, J. S., & Haslam, N. (2023). What is a mental disorder? Evaluating the lay concept of Mental Ill Health in the United States. BMC Psychiatry, 23(1), 1–10.
Wade, D. T., & Halligan, P. W. (2017). The biopsychosocial model of illness: a model whose time has come. Clinical rehabilitation, 31(8), 995–1004.
Westerhaus, M., Finnegan, A., Haidar, M., Kleinman, A., Mukherjee, J., & Farmer, P. (2015). The necessity of social medicine in medical education. Academic Medicine, 90(5), 565–568.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Jerotic, S., Ignjatovic, N., Maric, N.P. et al. A Comparative Study on Mental Disorder Conceptualization: A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis. Community Ment Health J 60, 813–825 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-024-01240-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-024-01240-3