Diagnosing DSM-IV--Part II: Eysenck (1986) and the essentialist fallacy.
In Part I (Wakefield, 1997, Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 633-649) of this two-article series, I used the harmful dysfunction analysis of the concept of disorder (Wakefield, 1992a, American Psychologist, 47, 373-388) to 'diagnose' a problem with DSM-IV. I argued that DSM-IV diagnostic criteria often violate the 'dysfunction' requirement by invalidity classifying harms not caused by dysfunctions as disorders. In Part II, I examine Eysenck's (Eysenck, 1986, Contemporary directions in psychopathology: Toward the DSM-IV) argument that DSM commits a 'categorical fallacy' and should be replaced by dimensional diagnoses based on Eysenckian personality traits. I argue that Eysenck's proposed diagnostic criteria violate the 'harm' requirement by invalidly classifying symptomless conditions as disorders. Eysenck commits an 'essentialist fallacy'; he misconstrues 'disorder' as an essentialist theoretical concept when in fact it is a hybrid theoretical-practical or 'cause-effect' concept. He thus ignores the harmful effects essential to disorder that are captured in DSM's symptom-based categories.
Wakefield
J C
JC
Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA.
D006801:Humans; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000145:classification* / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000523:psychology; D010552:Personality Assessment; D011570:Psychiatry / Q000379:methods; D011584:Psychology / Q000379:methods; D011594:Psychometrics