自恋型人格评估中的性别偏见:探索 ICD-11 维度模型的实用性

IF 3.8 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL British Journal of Clinical Psychology Pub Date : 2024-09-12 DOI:10.1111/bjc.12503
A. Green, N. J. S. Day, C. M. Hart, B. F. S. Grenyer, B. Bach
{"title":"自恋型人格评估中的性别偏见:探索 ICD-11 维度模型的实用性","authors":"A. Green, N. J. S. Day, C. M. Hart, B. F. S. Grenyer, B. Bach","doi":"10.1111/bjc.12503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectivesNarcissistic personality disorder as captured in categorical diagnostic systems (e.g., DSM‐5) emphasizes grandiose features more associated with masculine norms and under‐emphasizes vulnerable features more associated with femininity. This poses significant implications in diagnostic outcome and clinical treatment in women with narcissistic preoccupations. Research finds that clinicians using the DSM‐5 categorical system tend to diagnose vulnerable narcissism in women as other ‘feminized’ personality disorders (e.g., borderline), but no research has explored gender differences in narcissism using the new ICD‐11 dimensional framework for personality disorders. This study investigated the clinical utility of the ICD‐11 approach in capturing gender differences in narcissistic presentations.MethodsAdopting an online vignette‐based study, mental health clinicians (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 157; 71.3% female) completed ratings of ICD‐11 personality disorder severity and trait domains for two cases reflecting ‘grandiose’ and ‘vulnerable’ narcissism in hypothetical male or female patients.ResultsThe results showed that ratings of core impairments in personality functioning and overall severity were consistent irrespective of patient or clinician gender, contrasting prior research using categorical models.ConclusionWhile some differences were observed in trait domain (e.g., negative affectivity) between patient gender, these results suggest the clinical utility of the ICD‐11 model as emphasizing elements of personality functioning in the process of assessment and diagnosis, therefore potentially being less susceptible to influences of gender stereotype in aiding clinical conceptualization.","PeriodicalId":48211,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Clinical Psychology","volume":"388 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gender bias in assessing narcissistic personality: Exploring the utility of the ICD‐11 dimensional model\",\"authors\":\"A. Green, N. J. S. Day, C. M. Hart, B. F. S. Grenyer, B. Bach\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/bjc.12503\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ObjectivesNarcissistic personality disorder as captured in categorical diagnostic systems (e.g., DSM‐5) emphasizes grandiose features more associated with masculine norms and under‐emphasizes vulnerable features more associated with femininity. This poses significant implications in diagnostic outcome and clinical treatment in women with narcissistic preoccupations. Research finds that clinicians using the DSM‐5 categorical system tend to diagnose vulnerable narcissism in women as other ‘feminized’ personality disorders (e.g., borderline), but no research has explored gender differences in narcissism using the new ICD‐11 dimensional framework for personality disorders. This study investigated the clinical utility of the ICD‐11 approach in capturing gender differences in narcissistic presentations.MethodsAdopting an online vignette‐based study, mental health clinicians (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 157; 71.3% female) completed ratings of ICD‐11 personality disorder severity and trait domains for two cases reflecting ‘grandiose’ and ‘vulnerable’ narcissism in hypothetical male or female patients.ResultsThe results showed that ratings of core impairments in personality functioning and overall severity were consistent irrespective of patient or clinician gender, contrasting prior research using categorical models.ConclusionWhile some differences were observed in trait domain (e.g., negative affectivity) between patient gender, these results suggest the clinical utility of the ICD‐11 model as emphasizing elements of personality functioning in the process of assessment and diagnosis, therefore potentially being less susceptible to influences of gender stereotype in aiding clinical conceptualization.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Clinical Psychology\",\"volume\":\"388 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Clinical Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12503\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Clinical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12503","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的分类诊断系统(如 DSM-5)中的自恋型人格障碍更强调与男性规范相关的自大特征,而不太强调与女性气质相关的脆弱特征。这对有自恋倾向的女性的诊断结果和临床治疗产生了重大影响。研究发现,使用 DSM-5 分类系统的临床医生倾向于将女性的脆弱自恋诊断为其他 "女性化 "人格障碍(如边缘型人格障碍),但还没有研究使用新的 ICD-11 人格障碍维度框架来探讨自恋的性别差异。本研究调查了ICD-11方法在捕捉自恋表现中的性别差异方面的临床实用性。方法采用基于小故事的在线研究,心理健康临床医生(N = 157;71.3%为女性)对两个病例完成了ICD-11人格障碍严重程度和特质领域的评分,这两个病例反映了假设男性或女性患者的 "自大 "和 "脆弱 "自恋。结果结果显示,无论患者或临床医生的性别如何,对人格功能核心损伤和总体严重程度的评分都是一致的,这与之前使用分类模型的研究形成了对比、这些结果表明,ICD-11 模型在评估和诊断过程中强调了人格功能的要素,因此在帮助临床概念化时不易受到性别刻板印象的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Gender bias in assessing narcissistic personality: Exploring the utility of the ICD‐11 dimensional model
ObjectivesNarcissistic personality disorder as captured in categorical diagnostic systems (e.g., DSM‐5) emphasizes grandiose features more associated with masculine norms and under‐emphasizes vulnerable features more associated with femininity. This poses significant implications in diagnostic outcome and clinical treatment in women with narcissistic preoccupations. Research finds that clinicians using the DSM‐5 categorical system tend to diagnose vulnerable narcissism in women as other ‘feminized’ personality disorders (e.g., borderline), but no research has explored gender differences in narcissism using the new ICD‐11 dimensional framework for personality disorders. This study investigated the clinical utility of the ICD‐11 approach in capturing gender differences in narcissistic presentations.MethodsAdopting an online vignette‐based study, mental health clinicians (N = 157; 71.3% female) completed ratings of ICD‐11 personality disorder severity and trait domains for two cases reflecting ‘grandiose’ and ‘vulnerable’ narcissism in hypothetical male or female patients.ResultsThe results showed that ratings of core impairments in personality functioning and overall severity were consistent irrespective of patient or clinician gender, contrasting prior research using categorical models.ConclusionWhile some differences were observed in trait domain (e.g., negative affectivity) between patient gender, these results suggest the clinical utility of the ICD‐11 model as emphasizing elements of personality functioning in the process of assessment and diagnosis, therefore potentially being less susceptible to influences of gender stereotype in aiding clinical conceptualization.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
3.20%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Clinical Psychology publishes original research, both empirical and theoretical, on all aspects of clinical psychology: - clinical and abnormal psychology featuring descriptive or experimental studies - aetiology, assessment and treatment of the whole range of psychological disorders irrespective of age group and setting - biological influences on individual behaviour - studies of psychological interventions and treatment on individuals, dyads, families and groups
期刊最新文献
Reasons for seeking internet-delivered treatment for individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder. Patient experiences of behavioural therapy for bipolar depression: A qualitative study. Direct and indirect effects of childhood adversity on psychopathology: Investigating parallel mediation via self-concept clarity, self-esteem and intolerance of uncertainty. Experiences of imagery in obsessive-compulsive disorder: An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Heterogeneous experiences of people with bipolar disorder during euthymia: Profiles of global remission and personal recovery.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1