The emerging field of Mad Studies has returned attention to deficiencies of the medical model, refocusing scholars on social causes of mental health problems and on consumers’/survivors’ experiences of labeling and stigma. These themes echo issues addressed in traditional and modified labeling theories. A fundamental labeling premise is that professional categorization as “mentally ill” is a major determinant of individuals’ poorer psychological well-being. However, this relationship has not been tested appropriately because past studies frequently measured formal labeling by a person’s involvement in treatment. Treatment involvement can indicate the receipt of potentially beneficial services or harmful categorization with a stigmatizing label. Independent measures of these constructs in the National Comorbidity Survey-Replication enable reexamining traditional and modified labeling hypotheses for individuals with (N = 1,255) and without (N = 4,172) a recurrent clinical disorder. Supporting labeling theory’s central proposition, formal labeling was linked to more negative affect and disability days in both groups. These relationships were not spurious products of preexisting serious symptoms, refuting a psychiatric explanation. Treatment involvement effects differed noticeably between the groups, underscoring the need to keep treatment and labeling measures distinct.

疯狂研究的新兴领域使人们重新关注医学模型的缺陷，使学者重新关注精神健康问题的社会原因以及消费者/幸存者的标签和污名化体验。这些主题呼应了传统和改良标签理论中所解决的问题。一个基本的标签前提是，将专业归类为“精神病患者”是个人较弱的心理健康的主要决定因素。但是，这种关系尚未得到适当的检验，因为过去的研究经常通过一个人的参与来衡量正式的标签。参与治疗可能会显示带有污名化标签的潜在有益服务或有害分类。在国家合并症调查-复制中对这些构建物的独立测量可以对具有（N = 1,255）和没有（N = 4,172）复发性临床疾病的个体重新检查传统的和修改的标签假设。支持标签理论的中心命题，正式标签与两组中更多的负面影响和残疾日有关。这些关系不是预先存在的严重症状的虚假产物，驳斥了精神病学的解释。两组之间的治疗参与效果明显不同，强调需要保持治疗和标签措施的区别。正式标签与两组中更多的负面影响和残疾日有关。这些关系不是预先存在的严重症状的虚假产物，驳斥了精神病学的解释。两组之间的治疗参与效果显着不同，强调需要保持治疗和标签措施的不同。正式标签与两组中更多的负面影响和残疾日有关。这些关系不是预先存在的严重症状的虚假产物，驳斥了精神病学的解释。两组之间的治疗参与效果明显不同，强调需要保持治疗和标签措施的区别。