Cognitive Implications of Clinicians' Natural Taxonomies

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“真正的”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性精神障碍类别的组织结构，分为等级（2a）和基本等级（2b），归纳特权等级（2c），以及等级中的本质主义和本质主义信仰（3）。研究4调查了这些现象的跨文化发生。所有的研究都测试了这些现象是否因参与者的职业（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）而异。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的影响（例如，性别偏见），经济因素（例如，保险补偿率），和值（例如，人文主义的主观性与经验科学的客观性）。

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).