Arguments For Labelling Bias
Labelling bias occurs in everyday society. For example, within mental illness (Rosenhan, 1973). Evidence show that, labelling bias is putting, or forcing a unique individual in a specific group, and the assumptions others may have of that label (Fox & Stinnett, 1996). Labels are evocative, whether they are for the better, or for the worse. This goes to show that label bias are, too narrow and very limited of a conception to really define an individual. According to Rolision and Medway (1985) there are various labels, which produce a wide range of effects. Therefore, guidelines to avoid labelling bias are appropriate, to reduce any negative effects and stigma an individual may receive from a specific label. Rosenhan (1973) suggests that, categorization
…show more content…
of mental illness was misleading and harmful. Labels are nothing more than preconceived ideas rather than a valid diagnosis. For example, the nurses in Rosenhan (1973) research assumed the patients had schizophrenia, as they were labelled ‘insane’. However, if an individual were to be labelled as schizophrenic by society, they could take offence, and feel discriminated, which could result in the individual developing a negative stigma. Fairbanks and Sinnett (1997) stated that labelling can be essential to observe and also judge behaviour, but, on the other hand can also be dangerous.
Labels should be implied sensitively at all times, and individuals should be called by their preferred name or label, (APA, 2010). Descriptive labels should be avoided and used only when needed. The American Psychological Association Manual (2010), provides essential guidance for psychologist to write a research free from language and labelling bias, and also to ensure unbiased treatment is delivered. Language bias excludes individuals according to their age, sex, gender, race, ethnic identity, social class or sexual orientations, or certain physical or mental traits. There is evidence that suggests that labelling can have a great negative effect on individuals (Rosenhan, 1973). Labelling has got its advantages, as giving a diagnosis a label could reduce the negative effect, as individual’s behaviour can then be observed and judged (Fairbanks and Sinnett, 1997). Therefore, it is important to provide guidance on avoiding labelling bias, and the guidance given is appropriate to ensure they are delivered sensitively. There are arguments as well as evidence supporting the conclusion that, using labels to label an individual has negative consequences.
Labels can deliver powerful effects on an individual’s everyday life (Fuller, 1984). Therefore, it is important to provide guidance on avoiding labelling bias, to avoid negative effects on an individual’s life. The American Psychological Association Manual, aims to reduce labelling bias within writing. The APA covers labelling within gender, participation, sexual orientation, disabilities, age, racial and ethnic identity. This guidance is appropriate as it tries to avoid labelling, and language bias, if and when possible. For example, using gender, instead of sex, when referring to women and men. Using sex could be mistaken with sexual behaviour, whereas gender has only one definition. (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 2010). Only when relevant, differences should be implied. This guideline from the APA, ensures that unbiased labelling, and language is implied when writing. When referring to a patient the APA (2010), states that the patient should be labelled to what they prefer. If an individual feels discriminated in any way by the label, or name given they could lose their unique individuality. When referring to an individual with a specific condition, whether it is depression, or schizophrenia, language or labels that objectifies a person must be avoided. The guidelines by the professional bodies, are in place to establish safety of individuals, and groups on a personal, and also emotional level, from the consequence of labelling within
society.
Another effect of labelling can be demonstrated in Rosenhan’s (1973) ‘On Being Sane In Insane Places’ paper. Evidence shows that once an individual has a label it sticks, and everything that individual does tends to link to that label. For example, in Rosenhan’s research, clinicians used pseudo patient’s normal behaviour as evidence of their disorder. Once a label is given to an individual it is very hard to erase that label. Evidence from Rosenhan’s (1973) research, strongly suggests that the effect of labelling on an individual can be a negative effect on an individual, and the way they are treated. Non-mentally ill pseudo patients faked symptoms of schizophrenia and were admitted to hospital, several things they did while admitted claimed to be a result from schizophrenia. If the hospital staff in Rosenhan’s research knew that the pseudo patients were not insane, they would have treated them better. Rosenhan’s (1973) research evidence shows that other people’s perception of an individual changes rapidly, if they have a label referring them to their mental illness. Evidence shows that labelling bias has its advantages as well as disadvantages, therefore it is important that professional bodies provide guidance on labelling, and language bias, in order to reduce negative stigma. Gleitman (2011) states, once a disorder has been specifically labelled, it very easy to think that the individual’s problems have been fully explained. A diagnostic label is an early stage of an explanation and treatments, nothing more, nothing less. Labelling bias on mental disorders are wistfully marked with great stigma. Individuals with mental disorders, and also their family are usually observed negatively, especially by society (Hinshaw 2007). Labels can have a damaging development, to what degree we identify someone, and how individuals identify themselves. (Corrigan, 2005). The media characterize mental illness by emphasizing attitudes. For example, hopeless, violent (Diefenbach, 1997). To tame the image of a mental illness, it is thought to be essential to oppose destructive and ill beliefs stereotypes. Every individual have a unique identity, value, and dignity, no matter what their medical diagnosis. For example, a patient with depression, should be reffered to as, “someone suffering from depression” (Gleitman, 2011). Psychologists give everyone a preferred identity, not an identity based on the disease. This suggests that the guidance on avoiding labelling is appropriate to avoid labelling bias. However, evidence shows that there are advantages of labelling. Undoubtedly, labels implemented by the DSM have been highly effective. Treatments for mental illness have enhanced by labels, by composing the right treatment, and right therapy for patients. Labelling implemented an orderly scheme to portray the complications a patient is obtaining, so various health care providers, engaged with the same patients are able to accommodate their treatment offers, and produce an effective treatment for a patient (Spitzer & Wilson, 1975). It is illustrated that without a definite diagnosis it would be impossible to notice that patients with schizophrenia in one hospital, had an identical illness as patients who have had the same diagnosis in other hospitals. However, strong literature within Bruce Link’s (1989) research suggests that, labelling can possess a negative effects on individuals. Intentions usually motivate individuals to disengage from society, and those labelled as mentally ill are rejected by society continually. Within society there is great stigma and discrimination, considering there is a minority group within society, labels will be consistent. Labels are the master status of society, despite the guidance provided on avoiding labelling bias. Evidence suggests that if labelled an individual’s behaviour as deviant, it might develop into a perception of marginalised and nonconformist by society. This perception could eventually lead an individual to engage with this role and that behaviour could be continuously. The negative label introduces a stigma which, transforms an individual’s self-concept and social identity. For better or worse labels are used within society. Labelling and language bias can create a negative stigma, making the life of an individual suffering from a mental illness much more unpleasant. Evidence has shown that there is a danger that labelling can cause depersonalisation (Rosenhan, 1973). A diagnosis of a mental illness should not be used to illustrate a patient to the degree that the consideration of an individual’s uniqueness is not given. However, labels are also used within medical environments, in order to define an individual. For example, when an individual is referred to as disabled by their medical diagnosis. Although, many individuals still do not understand the effects and the consequences of labelling on others, labelling still occurs. Labels deliver powerful effects on an individual’s everyday life. It is essential that patients are not illustrated by their diagnosis, and their personality should not at any time be ignored. (Gleitman, 2011). From the evidence collected, the literature illustrates that it is essential that professional bodies, provide guidance on avoiding labelling, to protect individuals and groups on a personal and emotional level within society. Ellen and Abelson’s (1974) journal supports this view within their article. Guidelines need to be put in place to ensure that therapists, practitioners, psychologist and other health bodies, are aware of how they use and imply labels. In order to ensure that individuals are not offended by a label, whether it is written or communicating the guidelines are essential. Not all diagnosis labels are reliable, therefore the guidelines provided by professional bodies are appropriate when referring to an individual.
of mental illness was misleading and harmful. Labels are nothing more than preconceived ideas rather than a valid diagnosis. For example, the nurses in Rosenhan (1973) research assumed the patients had schizophrenia, as they were labelled ‘insane’. However, if an individual were to be labelled as schizophrenic by society, they could take offence, and feel discriminated, which could result in the individual developing a negative stigma. Fairbanks and Sinnett (1997) stated that labelling can be essential to observe and also judge behaviour, but, on the other hand can also be dangerous.
Labels should be implied sensitively at all times, and individuals should be called by their preferred name or label, (APA, 2010). Descriptive labels should be avoided and used only when needed. The American Psychological Association Manual (2010), provides essential guidance for psychologist to write a research free from language and labelling bias, and also to ensure unbiased treatment is delivered. Language bias excludes individuals according to their age, sex, gender, race, ethnic identity, social class or sexual orientations, or certain physical or mental traits. There is evidence that suggests that labelling can have a great negative effect on individuals (Rosenhan, 1973). Labelling has got its advantages, as giving a diagnosis a label could reduce the negative effect, as individual’s behaviour can then be observed and judged (Fairbanks and Sinnett, 1997). Therefore, it is important to provide guidance on avoiding labelling bias, and the guidance given is appropriate to ensure they are delivered sensitively. There are arguments as well as evidence supporting the conclusion that, using labels to label an individual has negative consequences.
Labels can deliver powerful effects on an individual’s everyday life (Fuller, 1984). Therefore, it is important to provide guidance on avoiding labelling bias, to avoid negative effects on an individual’s life. The American Psychological Association Manual, aims to reduce labelling bias within writing. The APA covers labelling within gender, participation, sexual orientation, disabilities, age, racial and ethnic identity. This guidance is appropriate as it tries to avoid labelling, and language bias, if and when possible. For example, using gender, instead of sex, when referring to women and men. Using sex could be mistaken with sexual behaviour, whereas gender has only one definition. (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 2010). Only when relevant, differences should be implied. This guideline from the APA, ensures that unbiased labelling, and language is implied when writing. When referring to a patient the APA (2010), states that the patient should be labelled to what they prefer. If an individual feels discriminated in any way by the label, or name given they could lose their unique individuality. When referring to an individual with a specific condition, whether it is depression, or schizophrenia, language or labels that objectifies a person must be avoided. The guidelines by the professional bodies, are in place to establish safety of individuals, and groups on a personal, and also emotional level, from the consequence of labelling within
society.
Another effect of labelling can be demonstrated in Rosenhan’s (1973) ‘On Being Sane In Insane Places’ paper. Evidence shows that once an individual has a label it sticks, and everything that individual does tends to link to that label. For example, in Rosenhan’s research, clinicians used pseudo patient’s normal behaviour as evidence of their disorder. Once a label is given to an individual it is very hard to erase that label. Evidence from Rosenhan’s (1973) research, strongly suggests that the effect of labelling on an individual can be a negative effect on an individual, and the way they are treated. Non-mentally ill pseudo patients faked symptoms of schizophrenia and were admitted to hospital, several things they did while admitted claimed to be a result from schizophrenia. If the hospital staff in Rosenhan’s research knew that the pseudo patients were not insane, they would have treated them better. Rosenhan’s (1973) research evidence shows that other people’s perception of an individual changes rapidly, if they have a label referring them to their mental illness. Evidence shows that labelling bias has its advantages as well as disadvantages, therefore it is important that professional bodies provide guidance on labelling, and language bias, in order to reduce negative stigma. Gleitman (2011) states, once a disorder has been specifically labelled, it very easy to think that the individual’s problems have been fully explained. A diagnostic label is an early stage of an explanation and treatments, nothing more, nothing less. Labelling bias on mental disorders are wistfully marked with great stigma. Individuals with mental disorders, and also their family are usually observed negatively, especially by society (Hinshaw 2007). Labels can have a damaging development, to what degree we identify someone, and how individuals identify themselves. (Corrigan, 2005). The media characterize mental illness by emphasizing attitudes. For example, hopeless, violent (Diefenbach, 1997). To tame the image of a mental illness, it is thought to be essential to oppose destructive and ill beliefs stereotypes. Every individual have a unique identity, value, and dignity, no matter what their medical diagnosis. For example, a patient with depression, should be reffered to as, “someone suffering from depression” (Gleitman, 2011). Psychologists give everyone a preferred identity, not an identity based on the disease. This suggests that the guidance on avoiding labelling is appropriate to avoid labelling bias. However, evidence shows that there are advantages of labelling. Undoubtedly, labels implemented by the DSM have been highly effective. Treatments for mental illness have enhanced by labels, by composing the right treatment, and right therapy for patients. Labelling implemented an orderly scheme to portray the complications a patient is obtaining, so various health care providers, engaged with the same patients are able to accommodate their treatment offers, and produce an effective treatment for a patient (Spitzer & Wilson, 1975). It is illustrated that without a definite diagnosis it would be impossible to notice that patients with schizophrenia in one hospital, had an identical illness as patients who have had the same diagnosis in other hospitals. However, strong literature within Bruce Link’s (1989) research suggests that, labelling can possess a negative effects on individuals. Intentions usually motivate individuals to disengage from society, and those labelled as mentally ill are rejected by society continually. Within society there is great stigma and discrimination, considering there is a minority group within society, labels will be consistent. Labels are the master status of society, despite the guidance provided on avoiding labelling bias. Evidence suggests that if labelled an individual’s behaviour as deviant, it might develop into a perception of marginalised and nonconformist by society. This perception could eventually lead an individual to engage with this role and that behaviour could be continuously. The negative label introduces a stigma which, transforms an individual’s self-concept and social identity. For better or worse labels are used within society. Labelling and language bias can create a negative stigma, making the life of an individual suffering from a mental illness much more unpleasant. Evidence has shown that there is a danger that labelling can cause depersonalisation (Rosenhan, 1973). A diagnosis of a mental illness should not be used to illustrate a patient to the degree that the consideration of an individual’s uniqueness is not given. However, labels are also used within medical environments, in order to define an individual. For example, when an individual is referred to as disabled by their medical diagnosis. Although, many individuals still do not understand the effects and the consequences of labelling on others, labelling still occurs. Labels deliver powerful effects on an individual’s everyday life. It is essential that patients are not illustrated by their diagnosis, and their personality should not at any time be ignored. (Gleitman, 2011). From the evidence collected, the literature illustrates that it is essential that professional bodies, provide guidance on avoiding labelling, to protect individuals and groups on a personal and emotional level within society. Ellen and Abelson’s (1974) journal supports this view within their article. Guidelines need to be put in place to ensure that therapists, practitioners, psychologist and other health bodies, are aware of how they use and imply labels. In order to ensure that individuals are not offended by a label, whether it is written or communicating the guidelines are essential. Not all diagnosis labels are reliable, therefore the guidelines provided by professional bodies are appropriate when referring to an individual.