A recent study indicates that diagnostic labels for individuals who experience what are perceived to be milder forms of mental health issues can influence how they are viewed by others, both positively and negatively. This research, conducted by Nick Haslam and his team from the University of Melbourne, Australia, was published on August 28, 2024, in the open-access journal PLOS Mental Health.
There has been a noticeable increase in the diagnoses of mental health conditions in recent years. Haslam and his colleagues explored the consequences of diagnosing individuals who exhibit mild or borderline symptoms. In their study, the public was asked to assess various examples of symptoms based on their severity, which ranged from significantly below to clearly above the diagnostic criteria established in prior research.
Participants in the study, comprised of U.S. adults recruited online, were presented with brief scenarios of individuals showing mild or borderline symptoms of different mental health disorders. In Study 1, 261 participants received three scenarios either labeled (“This person has a diagnosis of ___”) or unlabeled, concerning individuals with symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder (BD), or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). In Study 2, 684 participants were given a single labeled or unlabeled scenario depicting someone with either post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), or binge-eating disorder (BED). The participants were then asked their views on empathy towards the individual, their support for accommodations (for example, “This person’s employer should not hesitate to offer them extra time to complete work-related tasks”), their fit for mental health treatment, the likelihood of overcoming their difficulties (like “This person is likely to fully recover from their problems.”), and how closely their identity aligns with their issues (this was included only in Study 2).
In Study 1, individuals with labels prompted more empathy and were perceived as more appropriate candidates for treatment compared to those without labels, yet they were also thought to have more enduring issues. Meanwhile, in Study 2, there was no significant difference in empathy toward labeled versus unlabeled individuals; however, labeled individuals were considered less likely to overcome their difficulties. Participants’ assessments varied considerably based on the specific disorder described, with MDD and PTSD generating notably higher levels of empathy and supportive responses.
The findings suggest that broad diagnostic categories that encompass milder symptoms can foster help-seeking behavior, empathy, and support, but may also diminish perceived control and hopes for recovery. It’s vital to acknowledge that the intensity of symptoms can fluctuate over time and that “mild” is a subjective term. Additionally, the decision to pursue or adopt a diagnostic label is a personal choice that differs among individuals, conditions, and communities.
The authors note: “Labeling relatively mild forms of distress comes with advantages and disadvantages. Our research indicates that while it can foster greater empathy and support for individuals, it may also render their problems feel less manageable and suggest that recovery is more challenging to achieve.”
