Rabkin J G
J Community Psychol. 1979 Jul;7(3):253-8. doi: 10.1002/1520-6629(197907)7:3<253::aid-jcop2290070309>3.0.co;2-c.
This study was designed to identify factors that influence the decision to call someone mentally ill, and to determine some attitudinal correlates of such labelling. Members of the general public and mental health professionals were queried on their views about etiologies of mental illness, circumstances in which they would call someone mentally ill, and opinions about restricting occupational choices of the formerly hospitalized. Results showed considerable agreement between lay respondents and mental health professionals. The label of mental illness was applied by both groups with considerably greater restraint than was anticipated on the basis of prior research. Across issues, two patterns of response emerged; some respondents believe that mental illness is a real entity, apply the label to a wide range of behavior, regard hospitalization as the best course of action and restrict the occupational choices of the formerly hospitalized. At the other extreme is a subset of respondents who regard hospitalization as objectionable in principle, who narrowly define mental illness and who are unlikely to restrict the career choices of the formerly hospitalized. These findings are related to previous work in the field.
本研究旨在确定影响将某人称为精神疾病患者这一决定的因素，并确定这种标签化的一些态度相关因素。向普通公众和心理健康专业人员询问了他们对精神疾病病因的看法、他们会将某人称为精神疾病患者的情况，以及对限制曾经住院者职业选择的意见。结果显示，非专业受访者和心理健康专业人员之间存在相当大的共识。两组使用精神疾病标签时的克制程度比先前研究预期的要高得多。在各个问题上，出现了两种反应模式；一些受访者认为精神疾病是一种真实的存在，将该标签应用于广泛的行为，将住院视为最佳行动方案，并限制曾经住院者的职业选择。另一个极端是一部分受访者，他们原则上反对住院，对精神疾病的定义很窄，并且不太可能限制曾经住院者的职业选择。这些发现与该领域以前的研究相关。
