Classification of mental illness
Chambers Mary in Psychiatric and mental health nursing, 2017
Personality disorder, as discussed previously, is a very unhelpful and stigmatizing term which overgeneralizes behaviour, especially when referring to relationships with others. Classification systems include a range of terms, most of which are unhelpful, as people do not present to services with, for example, narcissistic personality. They will present with, for example, depression or anxiety. The way they respond to these emotions will be affected by, and cause effects on, their relationships. ‘Borderline’ personality disorder is probably a more useful grouping, which presents as an emotional disorder with extreme but often fluctuating distress in the context of negative childhood experiences. Antisocial personality disorder (or similar terms) is also recognized but not responsive (yet, perhaps) to psychological treatment. It is arguable whether it is helpful to describe it as a mental disorder and rarely, if ever, does describing it as a mental illness help the individual (at least in the long term) or society. ‘Conduct disorder’, a diagnosis used for children, is arguably a more descriptive term, and treatment is offered for this for immediate management and prevention of progression into adulthood.
Personality Disorders
John C. Gunn, Pamela J. Taylor in Forensic Psychiatry, 2014
Harrington and Bailey (2003, 2004a) summarised the different approaches to prevention of antisocial personality disorder and reviewed evidence of their effectiveness. Broadly, there are two main approaches to primary prevention, aimed at reducing the incidence of adult antisocial personality disorder – the application of ‘universal’, school-based programmes and selective prevention. The former is aimed at improving relevant aspects of the environment for everyone, and particularly targets aggressive behaviours, academic failure and low commitment to school. Thus, interventions include reduction in class size, improved organisation and oversight of classroom behaviour, behaviour management strategies and good citizenship skill promotion (Hawkins and Herrenkohl, 2003). Bullying has received specific attention, and effective programmes reduce this by at least 50% (e.g. Olweus, 1994). A criticism of this type of approach with respect to prevention of disorder is that, because it has to be relevant to everyone, it is too dilute to be of much use to those who are most at risk.
From young victim to perpetrator
Panos Vostanis in Helping Children and Young People Who Experience Trauma, 2021
One construct particularly stands out, across fiction, popular media and law. But what do we really mean by ‘psychopathy’? Some view it as the extreme of antisocial personality disorder, or a ‘chronic disturbance in relations with self, others and the wider environment that result in inability to fulfil social roles’. Psychopathy includes distinct features of shallow emotions, callousness, lack of remorse, self-centredness combined with lack of empathy, and often superficial charm. There is an irony in its Greek origin of ψνχη (psyche = mind or soul) and παθοζ (pathos = suffering, or evoking feelings), as it rather denotes the absence of such emotional components from that individual, in contrast with the responses it provokes from others. Is somebody born with it or do they acquire it over time? Traits could arguably be seen in people who do not necessarily commit crime or violence, but who are simply deeply egocentric and unpopular, although uncovering them can take time. In its severe and ‘active’ forms, a number of factors appear to interplay, by when such patterns are difficult both to predict and to change. The interpersonal and affective criteria of psychopathy, rather than its socially deviant behaviours, appear to distinguish it from the broader and pretty heterogeneous construct of antisocial personality disorder.
Mental Disorders, Personality Traits, and Grievance-Fueled Targeted Violence: The Evidence Base and Implications for Research and Practice
Published in Journal of Personality Assessment, 2018
Emily Corner, Paul Gill, Ronald Schouten, Frank Farnham
Initial forays into the study of psychopathology and terrorist engagement during the 1970s and 1980s focused on personality traits and disorders, especially three that are found within Cluster B of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM–5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) personality disorders: borderline, narcissistic, and antisocial. Such approaches hold instinctive appeal and the symptoms that individuals with these disorders present mirror what many assume the behavior and personality of a terrorist is like. Those diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder present with persistent disregard for and violation of the rights of others, disrespect toward the feelings of others, and indifference and a lack of remorse for their negative actions. Individuals diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder are marked by grandiosity, a lack of empathy, and a pathological need for admiration. Individuals with borderline personality disorder present with identity disturbance, difficulties controlling anger, impulsivity, and instability in personal relationships (DSM–V; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Other personality-driven explanations suggested that early life and familial influences serve as a factor for terrorist engagement (Ferracuti & Bruno, 1981; Johnson & Feldman, 1982; Kent & Nicholls, 1977; Olsson, 1988; Pearlstein, 1991).
Psychopathy and Protective Behavioral Strategies: PBS Mediates the Relationships between Primary and Secondary Psychopathy and Alcohol Consumption and Problems
Published in Psychiatry, 2022
Matthew P. Kramer, Roselyn Peterson, Emy A. Willis, Angelina V. Leary, Tatiana Magri, Jessica L. Cora, Robert D. Dvorak
Though not an official DSM-5 diagnosis, psychopathy is conceptualized as an extreme variation of antisocial personality disorder (Coid & Ullrich, 2010). One of the most widely known models of psychopathy consists of two variants: primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy (Karpman, 1941, 1948; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). Primary psychopathy is identified as the interpersonal and affective component of psychopathy and includes abusive and predatory interpersonal behaviors (e.g., lying, cheating, aggression), callousness, low anxiety, and an overall lack of empathy (Berg et al., 2013; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996; McHoskey et al., 1998; Poythress & Hall, 2011). Secondary psychopathy is identified as the more impulsive, antisocial lifestyle facet and is marked by poor self-control, risky decision making, and thrill-seeking (Anestis et al., 2009; Berg et al., 2013; Dean et al., 2013; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). Psychopathy has been associated with a host of negative outcomes (Widiger, 2006), including higher quantity and frequency of alcohol use and subsequent problems (Kimonis et al., 2012; LaLiberte & Grekin, 2015; Neumann & Hare, 2008; Smith & Newman, 1990; Sylvers et al., 2011; Taylor et al., 2006). As such, the present study aims to further elucidate the relationship between primary and secondary psychopathy and alcohol pathology (both consumption and problems) by examining the potential role of protective behavioral strategies (i.e., specific strategies for reducing alcohol consumption and problems).
Tobacco use disorder: Prevalence, associated factors and its influence on quality of life among patients on methadone assisted treatment
Published in Journal of Addictive Diseases, 2020
Chee Hoong Moey, Anne Yee, Suhana Binti Muhamud @ Kayat
When assessed for psychiatric disorders using M.I.N.I., 7.6% (n = 13) of the patients were diagnosed to have non-substance use (SUD) Axis I disorder. Anxiety disorder was the most prevalent non-SUD Axis I disorder (6.5%, n = 11), followed by depressive disorder (4.7%, n = 8). Approximately one-fifth of the patients (21.1%, n = 36) were diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder. The prevalence of psychiatric disorders among patients on MAT in this study was noticeably lower compared to rates reported in the United States (ranged 44%-47%).18,19 The studies from the United States were prospective in design, and therefore the subjects were recruited and assessed for psychiatric comorbidities during the early phase of MAT (within 6 weeks). In contrast, more than half of the participants in this study had been receiving MAT for at least one year before recruitment. Long-term MAT was effective in normalizing the patients’ psychopathological manifestations,20 which may explain the lower rates of psychiatric disorders in this study.
Related Knowledge Centers
- Aggression
- Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
- Empathy
- International Classification of Diseases
- Personality Disorder
- Psychopathy
- Substance Abuse
- Mental Disorder
- Maladaptation
- Cognitive Disorder
- International Classification of Diseases
- Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders