显示样式:     当前期刊: Psychological Science in the Public Interest    加入关注    导出
  • Three Approaches to Understanding and Classifying Mental Disorder: ICD-11, DSM-5, and the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC)
    Psychol. Sci. Public Interest (IF 14.143) Pub Date : 2017-12-06
    Lee Anna Clark; Bruce Cuthbert; Roberto Lewis-Fernández; William E. Narrow; Geoffrey M. Reed

    The diagnosis of mental disorder initially appears relatively straightforward: Patients present with symptoms or visible signs of illness; health professionals make diagnoses based primarily on these symptoms and signs; and they prescribe medication, psychotherapy, or both, accordingly. However, despite a dramatic expansion of knowledge about mental disorders during the past half century, understanding of their components and processes remains rudimentary. We provide histories and descriptions of three systems with different purposes relevant to understanding and classifying mental disorder. Two major diagnostic manuals—the International Classification of Diseases and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—provide classification systems relevant to public health, clinical diagnosis, service provision, and specific research applications, the former internationally and the latter primarily for the United States. In contrast, the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria provides a framework that emphasizes integration of basic behavioral and neuroscience research to deepen the understanding of mental disorder. We identify four key issues that present challenges to understanding and classifying mental disorder: etiology, including the multiple causality of mental disorder; whether the relevant phenomena are discrete categories or dimensions; thresholds, which set the boundaries between disorder and nondisorder; and comorbidity, the fact that individuals with mental illness often meet diagnostic requirements for multiple conditions. We discuss how the three systems’ approaches to these key issues correspond or diverge as a result of their different histories, purposes, and constituencies. Although the systems have varying degrees of overlap and distinguishing features, they share the goal of reducing the burden of suffering due to mental disorder.

  • About the Authors
    Psychol. Sci. Public Interest (IF 14.143) Pub Date : 2017-12-06

    Lee Anna Clark is Professor and Chair of the University of Notre Dame Department of Psychology. A clinical psychologist whose research focuses on personality disorder assessment, she is widely published and is one of the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI)’s “most highly cited” psychologists. She was a member of the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorder Work Group and is a member of the Personality Disorder Working Group for ICD-11. Her current research focus is identifying the core elements of personality pathology that are needed to diagnose personality disorder and determining how personality pathology relates both to other types of psychopathology and to psychosocial disability. For her work spanning the fields of personality and psychopathology, she was awarded the Society for Personality and Social Psychology’s 2017 Jack Block Award for Distinguished Contributions to Personality and the Society for Research in Psychopathology’s 2017 Joseph Zubin Award for Lifetime Contributions to Psychopathology.

  • Moving Toward the Future in the Diagnosis of Mental Disorders
    Psychol. Sci. Public Interest (IF 14.143) Pub Date : 2017-12-06
    Paul S. Appelbaum

    No brief commentary can do justice to the elegant historical and conceptual analysis provided by Clark, Cuthbert, Lewis-Fernández, Narrow, and Reed (2017; this issue) of the major approaches to the diagnosis of mental disorders. Scholars and clinicians interested in understanding the evolution of current diagnostic approaches and the challenges that need to be addressed as we attempt to move forward will find the report to be an invaluable resource. Here, I want only to highlight and comment on three issues related to the future of the diagnosis of mental disorders addressed by Clark et al.: the role of scientific evidence in revision of current diagnostic frameworks; how dimensional approaches might be incorporated into diagnostic schemas in productive ways; and the basis for differences among diagnostic classifications.

  • Erratum
    Psychol. Sci. Public Interest (IF 14.143) Pub Date : 2017-04-10

    Original article: Bailey, J. M., Vasey, P. L., Diamond, L. M., Breedlove, S. M., Vilain, E., & Epprecht, M. (2016). Sexual orientation, controversy, and science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17, 45–101. doi:10.1177/1529100616637616

  • The Relationship Between Eyewitness Confidence and Identification Accuracy: A New Synthesis
    Psychol. Sci. Public Interest (IF 14.143) Pub Date : 2017-03-22
    John T. Wixted; Gary L. Wells

    In his book On the Witness Stand: Essays on Psychology and Crime, Hugo Münsterberg (1908) warned about the unreliability of eyewitness memory. As it turns out, he was prescient. Since 1989, 349 wrongful convictions have been overturned through DNA testing, and eyewitness misidentification played a role in over 70% of those cases—far more than any other contributing cause (Innocence Project, 2016). No one doubts that the large majority of these misidentifications were made in good faith. Somehow, these eyewitnesses came to honestly but mistakenly believe that the innocent defendant was the person who committed the crime. How did that happen? The short explanation is that the procedures used for testing eyewitness identification were not developed and validated in the scientific laboratory before being implemented in the field. Instead, they were developed within the criminal justice system and implemented under the mistaken assumption that they accurately identified the guilty without unduly jeopardizing the innocent.

  • Distilling the Confidence-Accuracy Message: A Comment on Wixted and Wells (2017)
    Psychol. Sci. Public Interest (IF 14.143) Pub Date : 2017-04-10
    Laura Mickes; Steven E. Clark; Scott D. Gronlund

    There has been a slow but steady evolution in how eyewitness researchers and the criminal justice system view the relationship between the accuracy of a witness’s initial identification and the confidence that the witness expresses in that identification. This evolution is most clearly illustrated in a comparison of the conclusions drawn by Sporer, Penrod, Read, and Cutler (1995) with those drawn by Wixted, Mickes, Clark, Gronlund, and Roediger (2015). Sporer et al. concluded,

  • Better-Informed Juries Will Yield More Reliably Just Outcomes: A Commentary on Wixted and Wells (2017)
    Psychol. Sci. Public Interest (IF 14.143) Pub Date : 2017-04-10
    Andre M. Davis

    Twenty years ago, I was a United States district court judge presiding over civil and criminal cases, including jury trials, in the federal district court in Maryland. Then as now, a staple of the federal courts’ activity was the trial of those charged with robbery of federally insured financial institutions such as banks and credit unions. One such case sparkles in my memory.

  • If I’m Certain, Is It True? Accuracy and Confidence in Eyewitness Memory
    Psychol. Sci. Public Interest (IF 14.143) Pub Date : 2017-04-10
    Elizabeth F. Loftus; Rachel L. Greenspan

    Two highly distinguished academics, John Wixted from the University of California, San Diego, and Gary Wells from Iowa State University, have come together to present a new synthesis of the literature on the relationship between the confidence of an eyewitness and the accuracy of that witness. The joining of these two forces will come as a surprise to many of us in the field who have seen them duke it out at professional meetings, and even more so to those who know that it even got personal in a widely circulated manuscript. It is a testament to the leadership at Psychological Science in the Public Interest that these two former adversaries could come together to produce a common product.

  • About the Authors
    Psychol. Sci. Public Interest (IF 14.143) Pub Date : 2017-04-10

    John T. Wixted is a distinguished professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of California, San Diego. He earned his PhD in clinical psychology from Emory University in 1987. Although he is clinically trained, his research has always been concerned with understanding the basic mechanisms of human memory, which he investigates from a variety of different perspectives. In recent years, his work has focused on signal-detection analyses of recognition memory, the neuro-science of memory and amnesia, and eyewitness identification. Professionally, he has served as editor in chief of Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, and he recently completed a term as an associate editor of Psychological Review. He is the current editor of the upcoming five-volume 4th edition of the venerable Stevens’ Handbook, now titled Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience. In recognition of his achieve-ments, he has received numerous teaching awards over the years, and in 2011, he was the recipient of a prestigious award from the Society of Experimental Psychologists for distinction in contemporary research, the Howard Crosby Warren Medal.

Some contents have been Reproduced with permission of the American Chemical Society.
Some contents have been Reproduced by permission of The Royal Society of Chemistry.
化学 • 材料 期刊列表