The detection of malingered mental illness

Clinical approaches to the detection of malingering are examined from the perspectives of both the general practitioner and forensic examiner. Specific strategies for identifying malingering patients is presented with particular attention to psychoses and post-traumatic stress disorders.     

The relationship between mental toughness and subjective mental illness recovery

Recently there has been an increasing interest in subjective mental illness recovery, and it has been recognised that there is an important role for characteristics such as self-efficacy and locus of control. Mental toughness describes a set of characteristics important for dealing with stress and pressure, and is comprised of challenge, commitment, control of emotion, control of life, confidence in abilities, and interpersonal confidence. The current study explored relationships between mental toughness and subjective mental illness recovery. Seventy-seven participants (nineteen males and fifty-eight females, the majority of which were young adults aged 18–21 years) who had previously recovered from, or were currently recovering from a mental illness (self-reported) completed questionnaire measures of mental toughness and subjective mental illness recovery. Mental toughness had a positive significant relationship to recovery, with particular roles for commitment and confidence in abilities. The findings are discussed in terms of implications for recovery-oriented practice, intervention, and measurement. Further research should examine the role of mental toughness in different aspects of subjective recovery, and also explore relationships with objective measures of recovery.     

Microaggressions: The experience of individuals with mental illness

The main objective of the study was to investigate the types of microaggressions experienced by individuals with mental illness (MI) based on this marginalized group status. This study included 4 focus groups, comprised of 18 individuals diagnosed with MI(es). The researchers qualitatively identified four themes (a) conveying stereotypes against individuals with MI (i.e. assumptions of inferiority, seeking attention or being dramatic, assumptions of coldness, bringing MI upon themselves, and using MI as an excuse), (b) invalidating the experience of having a MI (i.e. doubting existence, doubting severity, and avoiding acknowledgment of the MI), (c) defining a person by their disorder, and (d) misuse of terminology. Participants revealed the main perpetrators (i.e. family, friends, and professionals) of the microaggressions. The researchers discuss: how the identified themes compare to the three categories of microaggressions (i.e. microinsults, microinvalidations, and microassaults); similarities and differences between the current results and previously identified racial, gender, and sexual orientation microaggressions perpetrated in daily interactions and in therapeutic settings; and the perpetrators of microaggressions as they relate to prejudicial attitudes and social distance. Finally, the authors make recommendations for practitioners and researchers.     

The mental illness defense in the capital penalty hearing

Several defense strategies are available to the capital defendant who is arguing for life in the penalty phase, including a mental illness (MI) defense. An MI defense presents psychiatric testimony to the effect that the defendant was mentally disturbed at the time of the offense and, therefore, should not be held completely responsible. The few studies available suggest that an MI defense will be ineffective because (1) death-qualified jurors do not respond favorably to purely psychological explanations of criminal behavior and (2) an MI defense may erroneously mislead the jury regarding the defendant's unpredictability and dangerousness. Analagous studies of insanity acquittals suggest certain factors that may be associated with a succesful MI defense.