400. Who decides that a particular behavior pattern is a psychological problem?

This is a complicated scientific process that is made confusing by media hype and by professionals who sometimes present theories and ideas as if they are facts.  First, let's explain how a psychological problem is defined and studied, and then we can see how the media, and some professionals, distort this process. 

Defining a psychological problem begins with individual psychologists who notice some similarities in the problems, or symptoms, presented by several clients.  If these psychologists do not think that the cluster of symptoms fits any current psychological problem, they will start to collect data to try to determine if there is evidence of a new psychological problem.  Those psychologists talk about their findings to other professionals, and may write a professional paper describing their "anecdotal" evidence for a new category of psychological problem.  Anecdotal comes from the word anecdote, which is a short story. What they are reporting is not research, it is their story about how they think they have discovered something new. 

When a sufficient number of psychologists report similar findings, research begins to determine if this is a new psychological problem, or simply a new version of one that already exists.  Remember, psychology is the scientific discipline that studies the mechanisms of human thought and behavior. The practice of psychology is the application of scientific knowledge about human thought and behavior to resolve problems. Often, objective scientific research, using control groups and statistical analysis of results, does not confirm the anecdotal reports.  Instead, the researchers conclude that the problem is a variation of an existing problem, or that there were too many variations in symptoms presented by different people to group them all together in one category. When the research results support the uniqueness of the new "problem," further research is done to fully understand the causes and most appropriate treatment for the problem.  After all, the purpose of studying a problem, within the science of psychology, is to describe it, understand it, and determine how to solve it! 

The media has a tendency to make comparisons between something "newly discovered" and something long established, even if they are really quite different, because it makes a good news story, and because the comparison makes it easier for people to understand. Consider recent news releases describing sexual addiction, Internet addiction, etc.  Strictly speaking, an addiction is a biological dependence on something, that results in physical withdrawal symptoms when the addictive substance is removed.  Sexual addiction and Internet addiction are probably better explained by existing psychological problem categories, rather than by creating a "new" category.  Further, the reasons people may develop these problems can vary considerably, thus the benefit of creating the new problem category disappears.  But, the media is not alone in this rush to create new problems. Some psychologists often fuel the confusion by reporting their anecdotal evidence as if it was objective scientific research. Since we often presume that anyone with a PhD or an MD after their name is an expert in whatever they are writing about, many people accept as fact, what is really a theory or an idea. 

Maybe sexual addiction and Internet addiction are new categories of psychological problems. Maybe someday, objective scientific evidence will support the creation of new diagnostic categories for these problems. Right now, the jury is still out. There is nothing wrong with writing about theories, but news professionals and psychologists should clarify the difference between scientific evidence and a theory.  Of course, sometimes even when something is presented as a theory, it is accepted as a fact.  The result is confusion and misunderstanding.