FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1152202419> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1152202419 endingPage "644" @default.
• W1152202419 startingPage "621" @default.
• W1152202419 abstract "PSYCHOLOGICAL abnormality holds a great fascination in the public mind. People regard the mad, the odd, the miserable, and the intemperate with a mixture of amusement, alarm, and repugnance . We gossip about them, demonize some and romanticize others, stare or avert our eyes, show concern or contempt. Laypeople pay engrossed attention to psychological deviance and they have well-developed but often poorly articulated understandings of its manifestations. Making sense of these understandings has great practical importance. It is lay rather than professional conceptions of mental disorder that determine whether professional help is sought by those directly or indirectly affected by psychological disturbance, and that decide how sufferers are treated by their families and peers. Lay conceptions guide public attitudes of tolerance or repudiation toward sufferers. Discrepancies between lay and professional conceptions impede the necessary alliance between sufferers and those charged with treating them. Discrepancies between indigenous understandings of deviancy and imported systems of psychiatric diagnosis produce deeper conflicts. For all these reasons, lay conceptions of mental disorder demand empirical and theoretical attention. Social and behavioral scientists have approached laypeople’s understandings of psychological abnormality from several distinct perspectives. Three approaches predominate, which I dub the ethnopsychiatric, the sociological, and the attributional. The tradition of anthropological work on indigenous understandings SOCIAL RESEARCH, Vol. 70, No. 2 (Summer 2003) Folk Psychiatry: Lay Thinking about Mental Disorder NICK HASLAM of mental disorder, or ethnopsychiatry (Gaines, 1992), stretches back for a century. Ethnographic studies have traced the variant manifestations of psychiatric phenomena around the globe, and charted the conceptual resources and healing practices that cultures deploy to deal with them. Sociologists and epidemiologists embody another tradition, drawing on community surveys of public beliefs about and attitudes towards mental disorder (for example, Angermeyer and Matschinger, 1999; Link et al., 1999). Their studies, conducted chiefly in the industrialized West, yield quantitative descriptions of lay conceptions and how they depart from contemporary psychiatric knowledge and practice. Psychologists working from the standpoint of attribution theory (for example, Corrigan, 2000), finally, have pursued a research program that explores lay beliefs about the causes of mental disorder . A particular focus of study in this tradition is how the attribution of disorder to controllable versus uncontrollable and temporally stable versus unstable causes bears on attitudes toward the disordered. Inevitably, these three dominant perspectives offer complementary insights and have complementary limitations. Ethnopsychiatric studies offer rich qualitative description and forceful reminders of the extent and depth of cross-cultural variation in lay thinking about psychological abnormality, but their particularism discourages attempts to draw general conclusions or make systematic cross-cultural comparisons. Sociological surveys yield precise snapshots of lay conceptions, affording comparisons across locales and historical periods and capturing the conceptual variance within cultures. However, their assessment of lay understandings as sets of declarative statements about disorder lacks psychological depth and they are often associated with a “mental health literacy” perspective (Jorm, 2000) that views lay conceptions simply as deficient approximations of professional beliefs. Attribution theory locates lay thinking about psychiatric phenomena within a more systematic and less normative account of causal understanding, but it also reflects an impoverished model 622 SOCIAL RESEARCH of lay explanation. How people explain and interpret social behavior cannot be reduced to their intuitions about the controllability and malleability of its causes without leaving a large, unexamined remainder. In this paper I will sketch a new approach to laypeople’s thinking about mental disorder that has enough points of difference from these alternatives to warrant a new label. “Folk psychiatry” nods to recent cognitive psychological research on lay understandings of normal mental processes, conducted under the rubric of “folk psychology” (D’Andrade, 1995; Fletcher, 1995). In some respects, my approach is an interdisciplinary hybrid. I intend the folk psychiatry approach to supply a framework for ethnographic inquiry that is sensitive to cultural variation but also, unlike much ethnopsychiatric work, universally applicable and useful for cross-cultural comparison. The approach aspires to give shape and direction to sociological survey research on lay conceptions, which has tended to lack an integrative theoretical perspective or any recognition of the psychological structures and dynamics that underlie the public beliefs that it describes. The folk psychiatry approach also shares with the attributional approach a..." @default.
• W1152202419 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1152202419 creator A5090589044 @default.
• W1152202419 date "2003-06-01" @default.
• W1152202419 modified "2023-10-10" @default.
• W1152202419 title "Folk Psychiatry: Lay Thinking about Mental Disorder" @default.
• W1152202419 cites W128610435 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W143489512 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1486477330 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1566114072 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1568638438 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1581239810 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1604024618 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1612607976 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1614675676 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1719717336 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1861568580 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1922310028 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1966336792 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1977654489 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1977880769 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1978511419 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1980653867 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1981532063 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W1996894553 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2000557706 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2005553507 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2020089267 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2020662562 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2026031825 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2033524266 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2035782089 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2036974784 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2040378670 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2065084534 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2071584883 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2079843222 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2081355811 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2083191585 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2084795550 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2088543388 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2090633568 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2098145847 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2102945862 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2107030454 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2110893896 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2111472185 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2113019196 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2122607434 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2131425673 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2136434200 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2170551792 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2170577691 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2171620352 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2264406560 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2485424467 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2508766626 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2795910429 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W2944388042 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W3006385125 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W3150381664 @default.
• W1152202419 cites W382159368 @default.
• W1152202419 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2003.0030" @default.
• W1152202419 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W1152202419 type Work @default.
• W1152202419 sameAs 1152202419 @default.
• W1152202419 citedByCount "10" @default.
• W1152202419 countsByYear W11522024192013 @default.
• W1152202419 countsByYear W11522024192015 @default.
• W1152202419 countsByYear W11522024192017 @default.
• W1152202419 countsByYear W11522024192018 @default.
• W1152202419 countsByYear W11522024192023 @default.
• W1152202419 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1152202419 hasAuthorship W1152202419A5090589044 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C101630550 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C11171543 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C129671850 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C134362201 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C173366509 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C177599991 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C18903297 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C18918823 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C2776674806 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C2777316895 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C2778052017 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C2779625551 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C2781321835 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W1152202419 hasConcept C55958113 @default.

• next