Cognitive Implications of Clinicians' Natural Taxonomies

临床医生自然分类法的认知意义

• 批准号: 6694274
• 负责人: Elizabeth H. Flanagan
• 金额: $ 3.97万
• 依托单位: YALE UNIVERSITY
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 财政年份: 2003
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2003-09-15 至 2006-09-14
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://reporter.nih.gov/project-details/6694274
• 关键词: adult human (21+); bias; clinical research; cognition; culture; disease /disorder classification; health care personnel performance; health insurance; human subject; mental disorders; mental health personnel; postdoctoral investigator; prejudice; psychiatrist; psychiatry; psychological values; psychosocial service; social service; university student

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The goal of this series of studies is to determine the natural taxonomies that clinicians have of mental disorders and the cognitive consequences of having those taxonomies. The first series of studies (1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d) attempts to determine what are the "true" or "generic" mental disorder categories. The second series of studies investigates the organization of these generic mental disorder categories into hierarchies (2a) as well as the basic level (2b), the level of inductive privilege (2c), and essentialism and essentialist beliefs (3) within the hierarchies. Study 4 investigates the occurrence of these phenomena cross-culturally. All of the studies test whether these phenomena vary according to the profession of the participants (psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers), and level of expertise (students versus experts). Biological reductionism, by itself, will not explain psychopathology. Psychiatric classification must reflect how mental health professionals are influenced by cultural context (e.g., gender bias), economic factors (e.g., insurance reimbursement rates), and values (e.g., the subjectivity of humanism vs. objectivity of empirical science).

描述(由申请人提供)：这一系列研究的目标是确定临床医生对精神障碍的自然分类以及这些分类的认知后果。第一系列研究(1a、1b、1c和1d)试图确定什么是“真实的”或“一般的”精神障碍类别。第二个系列的研究调查了这些一般精神障碍类别在等级中的组织(2a)以及等级内的基本水平(2b)、归纳特权水平(2c)以及本质主义和本质主义信念(3)。研究4从跨文化的角度考察了这些现象的发生。所有这些研究都测试了这些现象是否会因参与者的职业(精神病学家、心理学家和社会工作者)和专业水平(学生与专家)而不同。生物还原论本身无法解释精神病理学。精神病学分类必须反映精神卫生专业人员如何受到文化背景(例如性别偏见)、经济因素(例如保险报销率)和价值观(例如人文主义的主观性与经验科学的客观性)的影响。