Book Review: New Testament Nuances of Christology

Carey, Holly J.

doi:10.1177/0014524606067219

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, there has been some criticism of the authors of DSM-5 as being ‘secretive’ and for failing to disclose potential conflicts of interest. Similarly, over half of DSM-5 task force members had some financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry (Carey 2008; Cosgrove 2012; Welch 2013). This would give a financial incentive to encourage use of the diagnosis of bipolar II disorder rather than personality disorder and this may have influenced the manual's authors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bordering on the bipolar: a review of criteria for ICD-11 and DSM-5 persistent mood disorders

Luty

2019

BJPsych advances

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThe principal manuals for psychiatric diagnosis have recently been updated (ICD-11 was released in June 2018 and DSM-5 was published in 2013). A common diagnostic quandary is the classification of people with chronic low mood, especially those with repeated self-harm (‘emotionally unstable’ or ‘borderline’ personality disorder). There has been a great interest in use of type II bipolar affective disorder (‘bipolar II disorder’) as a less pejorative diagnostic alternative to ‘personality disorder’, despite the radically different treatment options for these disorders. DSM-5 (but not ICD-11) clearly distinguishes between borderline personality disorder and bipolar II disorder, indicating that intense emotional experiences (such as anger, panic or despair; irritability; anxiety) should persist for only a few hours in people with a personality disorder. Both manuals now use the term ‘borderline personality disorder’ rather than ‘emotionally unstable personality disorder’. The diagnostic criteria for cyclothymic disorder remain confusing.LEARNING OBJECTIVESAfter reading this article you will be able to: •appreciate the key differences in diagnostic classification between persistent mood disorders: bipolar II disorder, borderline personality disorder and dysthymia•be aware of the modest differences between ICD-10, ICD-11 and DSM-5 in diagnostic criteria for these disorders•appreciate that intense emotional experiences need persist for only a few hours to meet criteria for DSM-5 borderline personality disorder and that persistent emotional dysregulation (e.g. irritability, impulsiveness, disinhibition) for a few days meets criteria for DSM-5 bipolar II disorder.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bordering on the bipolar: a review of criteria for ICD-11 and DSM-5 persistent mood disorders

Luty

2019

BJPsych advances

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Neuroimaging has captured scientific and public attention for decades. In the eyes of the media, the use of neuroimages in research lends scientific credibility to cognitive and psychological studies (Carey, 2006). Popular media coverage of neuroimaging research has resulted in a community sentiment of neuro-realism, such that when a researcher uses a neuroimage to prove an effect, that effect is accepted without question by the public (Racine et al, 2005).…”

Section: The Impact Of Neuroimaging On Decision Makingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can neuroimaging prove pain and suffering?: The influence of pain assessment techniques on legal judgments of physical versus emotional pain.

Phalen¹,

Salerno²,

Schweitzer³

2021

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: It is difficult to “prove” pain and suffering—particularly emotional suffering. Neuroimaging technology might bolster pain claims in civil cases by making pain seem less subjective. We examined how neuroimaging of physical and emotional pain influences judgments of pain and suffering across nonlegal and legal contexts. Hypotheses: We hypothesized that participants would rate pain assessed using neuroimaging as more severe and award higher compensation than pain assessed using self-report measures. We also hypothesized that participants would rate physical (vs. emotional) pain as more severe, except when the pain claim was bolstered by a neuroimaging assessment. Method: In two experiments, we tested how pain assessment techniques influence perceptions of pain severity and monetary compensation differently for physical or emotional pain. Using a within-subjects design, participants (Experiment 1, N = 411, 59% male, 80% White) read 6 vignettes that described a person’s chronic physical or emotional pain, evaluated using a clinical assessment, neuropsychological assessment, or neuroimaging assessment. We conceptually replicated Experiment 1 in a legal context (Experiment 2, N = 353, 42% male; 80% White) and tested whether the neuroimaging effect was due to knowing that the pain was assessed by neuroimaging or also required the inclusion of a neuroimage. Results: When pain was assessed using neuroimaging (vs. non-neuroimaging assessments), participants rated the pain as more severe and gave larger monetary awards. When a person alleged physical (vs. emotional) pain, participants rated the pain as more severe and gave larger monetary awards. We conceptually replicated these findings in Experiment 2 and found that the neuroimaging effect was due to hearing about neuroimaging assessment and did not necessitate the inclusion of a neuroimage. Conclusion: Neuroimaging technology could be extremely useful for plaintiffs trying to overcome the difficult hurdle of proving their pain.

show abstract

“…The therapist determines what those are in order to provide a framework for treatment. In a commentary on the current work of revision, the DSM is described as “the guidebook that largely determines where society draws the line between normal and not normal, between eccentricity and illness, between self‐indulgence and self‐destruction—and, by extension, when and how patients should be treated” (Carey, 2010, p. 1).…”

Section: An Organizational Mapmentioning

confidence: 99%

Positioning Oneself Within an Epistemology: Refining Our Thinking About Integrative Approaches

Dickerson¹

2010

Family Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrative approaches seem to be paramount in the current climate of family therapy and other psychotherapies. However, integration between and among theories and practices can only occur within a specific epistemology. This article makes a distinction between three different epistemologies: individualizing, systems, and poststructural. It then makes the argument that one can integrate theories within epistemologies and one can adopt practices and some theoretical concepts across theories and across epistemologies, but that it is impossible to integrate theories across epistemologies. It further states that although social constructionism has influenced much of contemporary psychological thinking, because of the divergence between a structural and a poststructural approach, constructionism looks different depending upon one's epistemological stance. Examples of integration within epistemologies and of what looks like integration across epistemologies (but is not) further illustrate these important distinctions. The conclusions reached here are crucial to our philosophical considerations, our pedagogical assumptions, and implications for both research and a reflexive clinical practice.

show abstract

Book Review: New Testament Nuances of Christology

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Bordering on the bipolar: a review of criteria for ICD-11 and DSM-5 persistent mood disorders

Bordering on the bipolar: a review of criteria for ICD-11 and DSM-5 persistent mood disorders

Can neuroimaging prove pain and suffering?: The influence of pain assessment techniques on legal judgments of physical versus emotional pain.

Positioning Oneself Within an Epistemology: Refining Our Thinking About Integrative Approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About