Cognitive Implications of Clinicians' Natural Taxonomies

描述（由申请人提供）：本系列研究的目的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。第一个系列的研究（1a、1b、1c和1d）试图确定什么是“真正的”或“一般的”精神障碍类别。第二系列研究将这些一般精神障碍类别分为层次（2a）、基本层次（2b）、归纳特权层次（2c）以及层次内的本质主义和本质主义信仰(3)。研究4调查了这些现象在跨文化中的发生情况。所有的研究都测试了这些现象是否会根据参与者的职业（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）而有所不同。生物还原论本身并不能解释精神病理学。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（如性别偏见）、经济因素（如保险报销率）和价值观（如人文主义的主观性与经验科学的客观性）的影响。

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).