Thread by @drlouisehansen

Inaccurate or Misleading Psychological and Psychiatric Terms to Avoid:
Personality type. The assertion that personality traits fall into distinct categories (e.g., introvert vs. extravert) has received minimal scientific support. 1/25

Studies consistently suggest personality traits, such as extraversion and impulsivity, underpin dimensions rather categories (Haslam et al., 2012). With the possible exception of schizotypal personality disorder the same holds for personality disorders (Haslam et al., 2012). 2/25

Hence, if authors elect to use the phrase “personality type,” they should qualify it by noting that the evidence for a genuine typology (i.e., a qualitative difference from normality) is in almost all cases negligible within the personality domain. 3/25

Objective personality test. Many authors refer to paper-and-pencil personality instruments that employ a standard (e.g., True–False) item response format, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), as “objective tests” (Proyer and Häusler, 2007), 4/25

ostensibly to contrast them with more “subjective” measures, such as unstructured interviews or projective techniques (e.g., the Rorschach Inkblot Test). Nevertheless, although the former measures can be scored objectively, that is, with little or no error, 5/25

they often require considerable subjective judgment on the part of respondents. For example, an item such as “I have many headaches” can be interpreted in numerous ways arising from ambiguity in the meanings of “many” and “headache’ (Meehl, 1945). 6/25

So-called “objective” personality tests are also often subjective in interpretation (Rogers, 2003). For example, even different computerized MMPI-2 interpretive programs display only moderate levels of inter-rater agreement regarding proposed diagnoses (Pant et al., 2014). 7/25

Not surprisingly, clinicians routinely disagree in interpretations of the MMPI-2 and other “objective” tests (Garb, 1998). We recommend that these measures be called “structured” tests to carry no implication they are interpreted objectively by the examinee or examiner. 8/25

Multiple personality disorder. Although the term “multiple personality disorder” was expunged from the American Psychiatric Association’s (1994) diagnostic manual over two decades ago and has since been replaced by “dissociative identity disorder” (DID), 9/25

it persists in many academic sources (e.g., Hayes, 2014). Nevertheless, even ardent proponents of the view that DID is a naturally occurring condition that stems largely from childhood trauma (e.g., Ross, 1994) acknowledge that “multiple personality disorder” 10/25

is a misnomer (Lilienfeld and Lynn, 2015), because individuals with DID do not genuinely harbor two or more fully developed personalities. 11/25

Lie detector test. Surely one of the most pernicious misnomers in psychology, the term “lie detector test” is often used synonymously with the storied polygraph test. This test is misnamed: it is an arousal detector, not a lie detector (Saxe et al., 1985). 12/25

Because it measures non-specific psychophysiological arousal rather than the fear of detection per se, it is associated with high false-positive rates, meaning that it frequently misidentifies honest individuals as dishonest (Lykken, 1998). 13/25

In addition, the test is susceptible to false-negatives from the use of physical (e.g., biting the tongue) and mental (e.g., performing complex mental arithmetic) countermeasures (Honts et al., 1994). In one survey, 45% of undergraduates agreed it is an accurate detector. 14/25

Brainwashing. This term, originated during the Korean War (Hunter, 1951), still invoked uncritically from time to time in the academic literature (e.g., Kluft, 2011), implies that powerful individuals wishing to persuade others can capitalize on a unique armamentarium of 15/25

coercive procedures to change their long-term attitudes. Nevertheless, the attitude-change techniques used by so-called “brainwashers” are no different than standard persuasive methods identified by social psychologists, such as encouraging commitment to goals, 16/25

manufacturing source credibility, forging an illusion of group consensus, and vivid testimonials (Zimbardo, 1997). Furthermore, there are ample reasons to doubt whether “brainwashing” permanently alters beliefs (Melton, 1999). For example, during the Korean War, 17/25

only a small minority of the 3500 American political prisoners subjected to intense indoctrination techniques by Chinese captors generated false confessions. Moreover, an even smaller number (probably under 1%) displayed any signs of adherence to 18/25

Communist ideologies following their return to the US, and even these were individuals who returned to Communist subcultures (Spanos, 1996). 19/25

Bystander apathy. The classic work of (e.g., Darley and Latane, 1968; Latane and Rodin, 1969) underscored the counterintuitive point that when it comes to emergencies, there is rarely “safety in numbers.” As this and subsequent research demonstrated, 20/25

the more people present at an emergency, the lower the likelihood of receiving help. In early research, this phenomenon was called “bystander apathy” (Latane and Darley, 1969) a term that endures in many academic articles (e.g., Abbate et al., 2013). 21/25

To the contrary, they are typically quite concerned about the victim, but are psychologically “frozen” by well-established psychological processes, such as pluralistic ignorance, diffusion of responsibility, and sheer fears of appearing foolish. 22/25

“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.” (Confucius, The Analects) 23/25

Source: Lilienfield, S., Sauvigne, K., Lynn, K., Cautin, R, Latzman, R., & Waldman, I. (2015). Fifty psychological and psychiatric terms to avoid: a list of inaccurate, misleading, misused, ambiguous, and logically confused words and phrases. 24/25

Adapted to be Twitter friendly. This thread does not include the whole article. To read the whole article click here. | doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.… 25/25