Cited by 42Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPsychology and Mental Health

‘Judging a book by its cover’: an experimental study of the negative impact of a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder on clinicians’ judgements of uncomplicated panic disorder.

Lam, Danny C. K., Salkovskis, Paul M., Hogg, Lorna I.·2016·British Journal of Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Diagnosis is ubiquitous in Psychiatry, and whilst it does bring benefits; adverse effects of 'labelling' may also be possible. This study aimed to evaluate experimentally whether clinicians' judgements about a patient with panic disorder were influenced by an inappropriately suggested diagnosis of comorbid borderline personality disorder (BPD). DESIGN: An experimental design was used to evaluate clinician's judgements when the nature of the information they were given was varied to imply BPD comorbidity. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty-five clinicians watched a video-recorded assessment of a woman describing her experience of uncomplicated 'panic disorder' and then rated her present problems and likely prognosis. Prior to watching the video recording, participants were randomly allocated to one of three conditions with written information including the following: (1) her personal details and general background; (2) the addition of a behavioural description consistent with BPD; and (3) the further addition of a 'label' (past BPD diagnosis). RESULTS: The BPD label was associated with more negative ratings of the woman's problems and her prognosis than both information alone and a behavioural description of BPD 'symptoms'. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of potential actuarial value of such diagnoses, it is concluded that clinicians can be overly influenced by past diagnostic labels in the context of an apparent current comorbid problem, although such biases appear to be less likely if a description of the relevant behaviours is used instead. Thus, the label, rather than the behaviour it denotes, may be stigmatizing in mental health professionals. PRACTITIONER POINTS: Diagnostic labels can have an inappropriately negative effect on clinicians' judgements not only of treatment variables such as engagement and response but also risk issues and interpersonal effectiveness. Diagnostic labels can have a greater effect on clinicians' judgements than a behavioural description or clinical presentation. Clinicians should therefore be cautious both in the use of diagnostic labels to describe patients and ensure that these are still valid, and also be mindful of the influence that such labels can have on their own clinical judgements and constantly seek to challenge these. Behavioural descriptions of difficulties are less likely to result in such negative judgements and predictions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjc.12093

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lam, D. C. K., Salkovskis, P. M., & Hogg, L. I.
Affiliations
  • St George's, University of London (GB)
  • University of Bath (GB)
Corresponding author
Hogg, Lorna I.
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-07-25
Volume
55
Issue
3
Pages
253-268
ISSN
  • 0144-6657 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8260
OpenAlex
W2150750866
Cited by
42
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychology and Mental Health
Keywords
borderline personality disorder, panic disorder, diagnostic labels, comorbidities, prognosis, stigma, diagnostic bias, behavioural description, mental health professionals
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Borderline Personality Disorder, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Judgment, Male, Personality Assessment, Personality Inventory, Stereotyping, Video Recording, Comorbidity, Panic Disorder

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review