Literature DB >> 8259825

The illusion of mental health.

J Shedler1, M Mayman, M Manis.   

Abstract

It is argued that researchers' reliance on "objective" mental health scales and disregard for clinical judgment has led to many mistaken conclusions. Specifically, standard mental health scales appear unable to distinguish between genuine mental health and the facade or illusion of mental health created by psychological defenses. Evidence is presented indicating that (a) many people who look healthy on standard mental health scales are not psychologically healthy, and (b) illusory mental health (based on defensive denial of distress) has physiological costs and may be a risk factor for medical illness. Clinical judges could distinguish genuine from illusory mental health, whereas "objective" mental health scales could not. The findings call into question the conclusions of many previous studies that rest on standard mental health scales. They suggest new ways of understanding how psychological factors may influence health. Finally, they suggest that clinical methods (which researchers often malign) may have an important role to play in meaningful mental health research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8259825     DOI: 10.1037//0003-066x.48.11.1117

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Psychol        ISSN: 0003-066X


  31 in total

1.  Measurement of negativity bias in personal narratives using corpus-based emotion dictionaries.

Authors:  Shuki J Cohen
Journal:  J Psycholinguist Res       Date:  2011-04

2.  The unique effects of forgiveness on health: an exploration of pathways.

Authors:  Kathleen A Lawler; Jarred W Younger; Rachel L Piferi; Rebecca L Jobe; Kimberley A Edmondson; Warren H Jones
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2005-04

Review 3.  Repressing distress in childhood: a defense against health-related stress.

Authors:  Armande Gil
Journal:  Child Psychiatry Hum Dev       Date:  2005

4.  The effects of response bias on self-reported quality of life among childhood cancer survivors.

Authors:  Tara E O'Leary; Lisa Diller; Christopher J Recklitis
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-07-11       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Conceptualizing and assessing self-enhancement bias: a componential approach.

Authors:  Virginia S Y Kwan; Oliver P John; Richard W Robins; Lu Lu Kuang
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2008-06

6.  Predicting adaptation to presymptomatic DNA testing for late onset disorders: who will experience distress? Rotterdam Leiden Genetics Workgroup.

Authors:  A C DudokdeWit; A Tibben; H J Duivenvoorden; M F Niermeijer; J Passchier
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 6.318

7.  Evolution: Selection for positive illusions.

Authors:  Matthijs van Veelen; Martin A Nowak
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2011-09-14       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 8.  Response Bias in Research on Religion, Spirituality and Mental Health: A Critical Review of the Literature and Methodological Recommendations.

Authors:  Everton de Oliveira Maraldi
Journal:  J Relig Health       Date:  2020-04

9.  How self-enhancers adapt well to loss: The mediational role of loneliness and social functioning.

Authors:  Oscar H Yan; George A Bonanno
Journal:  J Posit Psychol       Date:  2015-07-01

10.  A critical reanalysis of the relationship between genomics and well-being.

Authors:  Nicholas J L Brown; Douglas A MacDonald; Manoj Pratim Samanta; Harris L Friedman; James C Coyne
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 11.205

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.