Download PDF
Psychiatr Prax 2017; 44(06): 356-360
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-100025
Kritisches Essay
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Vom psychiatrischen Fachbegriff zur schädlichen Plattitüde – Eine kognitionspsychologische Analyse

From Technical Terminology to Prejudicial Plattitudes – A Cognitive Analysis of Jargon in Psychiatric Institutions
Daniel Nischk
1   Zentrum für Psychiatrie Reichenau
,
Philippe Merz
2   Thales-Akademie für Wirtschaft und Philosophie, Freiburg
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
03 April 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

In psychiatrischen Institutionen werden Menschen mit psychischen Störungen häufig unreflektiert mithilfe von Fachbegriffen aus verschiedenen Disziplinen beschrieben und analysiert. Durch solche Gewohnheiten werden Fachbegriffe jedoch zu unscharfen, allzu evaluativen und real gedachten Alltagsbegriffen, die durch Prozesse des schematischen Denkens das unvoreingenommene Verständnis gegenüber psychisch Kranken und die Validität der Diagnosen gefährden sowie den therapeutischen Prozess erheblich erschweren können. Die Kenntnis dieser Mechanismen, die regelmäßige Analyse der eigenen sprachlichen Gewohnheiten sowie bestimmte klinische Kontextbedingungen können helfen, diese Gefahren zu erkennen und abzumildern.

Abstract

Within psychiatric institutions it is common to label psychiatric patients with a broad array of technical terms from different domains. However, through their nonreflective usage technical terms gradually become “fuzzy” in content, enriched with normative evaluations and finally reificated as “real” entities. This evolvement of meaning may foster a schematic and biased understanding of mental patients, threaten the validity of psychiatric diagnoses and negatively influence the therapeutic process. Becoming familiar with the underlying cognitive mechanisms, frequent supervision and the provision of context factors that permit the development of a close therapeutic alliance can help to alleviate these potential dangers to efficient psychiatric therapy.

Schlüsselwörter

Fachsprache - Stigma - Psychiatrie - kognitive Verzerrungen

Keywords

technical terminology - stigma - psychiatry - cognitive bias
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Poland J, Caplan PJ. The deep structure of bias in psychiatric diagnosis. In: Caplan PJ, Cosgrove L. eds. Bias in psychiatric diagnosis. Lanham, USA: Rowmann & Littlefield; 2004: 9-24
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Thornicroft G, Rose DK. Discrimination in health care against people with mental illness. Int Rev Psychiatry 2007; 19: 113-122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Helmchen H. Anmerkungen zur Sprache des Psychiaters und Stigmatisierung psychisch Kranker. Nervenarzt 2013; 84: 334-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jason LA, Taylor RR, Plioplys S. et al. Evaluating attributions for an illness based upon the name: chronic fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalopathy and Florence Nightingale disease. Am J Community Psycho 2002; 30: 133-148
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lewis G, Appleby L. Personality disorder: the patients psychiatrists dislike. Br J Psychiatry 1988; 153: 44-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Langer EJ, Abelson RP. A patient by any other name-clinician group difference in labeling bias. J Consult Clin Psychol 1974; 42: 4-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Mittal D, Corrigan P, Sherman MD. et al. Healthcare providers’ attitudes toward persons with schizophrenia. Psychiatr Rehabil J 2014; 37: 297-303
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Walker MT. The social construction of mental illness and its implications for the recovery model. Int J Psych Reh 2006; 10: 71-87
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sass H. Die Krise der psychiatrischen Diagnostik. Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr 1987; 55: 355-360
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ahn W, Luhmann CC. Demystifying theory-based categorization. In: Gershkoff-Stowe L, Rakison DH. eds. Building object categories in developmental time. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005: 277-300
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Rosch E. Principles of categorization. In: Rosch E, Lloyd BB. eds. Cognition and categorization. New York: Hillsdale; 1978: 1-25
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Bleuler E. Dementia praecox oder die Gruppe der Schizophrenien. Leipzig, Wien: Deuticke; 1911
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Angermeyer MC, Matschinger H. The Stereotype of schizophrenia and its impact on discrimination against people with schizophrenia: Results from a representative survey in Germany. Schizophr Bull 2004; 30: 1049-1061
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kim NS, Ahn W. Clinical psychologists’ theory-based representations of mental disorders predict their diagnostic reasoning and memory. J Exp Psychol 2002; 131: 451-476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wahl O, Aroesty-Cohen E. Attitudes of mental health professionals about mental illness: A review of the recent literature. J Community Psychol 2010; 38: 49-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mendel R, Traut-Mattausch E, Jonas E. et al. Confirmation bias: why psychiatrists stick to wrong preliminary diagnoses. Psychol Med 2011; 41: 2651-2659
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lang FU, Kösters M, Lang S. et al. Veränderung der Einstellung zur Schizophrenie durch das Psychiatriepraktikum im Medizinstudium. Psychiat Prax 2014; 41: 160-163
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hackett Renner C. Validity effect. In: Pohl RF. ed. Cognitive illusions. Hove, UK: Psychology Press; 2004: 201-213
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Maier W, Zobel A, Wagner M. Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: differences and overlaps. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2006; 19: 165-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Francken JC, Slors M. From commonsense to science, and back: The use of cognitive concepts in neuroscience. Conscious Cogn 2014; 29: 248-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kihlstrom JF. No need for repression. Trends in cognitive sciences 2002; 6: 502
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Fiske ST, Taylor SE. Social Cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Klayman J. Varieties of Confirmation Bias. Psychol Learn Motiv 1995; 32: 385-418
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Berner ES, Graber ML. Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. Am J Med 2008; 121: 2-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rosenhan DL. On being sane in insane places. Science 1973; 179: 250-258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Malle BF, Knobe JM, Nelson SE. Actor-observer asymmetries in explanations of behavior: new answers to an old question. J Pers Soc Psychol 2007; 93: 491-514
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol Bull 1977; 84: 888-918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Semin GR, Fiedler K. The linguistic category model, its bases, application and range. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 1991; 2: 1-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kahneman D. Schnelles Denken, langsames Denken. München: Siedler; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Mosher LR. Soteria California und ihre amerikanischen Nachfolgeprojekte – therapeutische Elemente. In: Ciompi L, Hoffmann H, Broccard M. Hrsg. Wie wirkt Soteria?. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer-System-Verlag; 2011: 13-42
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Nischk D, Merz P, Rusch J. Aktuelles aus der Soteria – Die Förderung lebenspraktischer und sozialer Fertigkeiten von Menschen mit Schizophrenien aus phänomenologischer Sicht. Psychiat Prax 2014; 41: 49-49
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar