Armchair Psychology and the Dangers of DIY Diagnoses

We use language to connect with each other. We share our thoughts and feelings, so others can understand what we're going through. Sometimes, we use simple words to represent more complex ideas, which can be a helpful shortcut. But these shortcuts can cause problems, especially when used for serious topics.

For example, think about the words “defamation” and “gossip.”

If a coworker spreads rumors about another, they're gossiping. But if you call it defamation, it sounds like a serious legal issue.  A similar problem is happening with words like gaslighting, narcissism, borderline, OCD, and more. People use these clinical terms to describe behavior, even when they're not qualified to do so. For instance, if your friend's partner lies to her, you might say he's a narcissist in solidarity. 

The use of psychological terms and clinical labels by people without the appropriate degree and training to diagnose and assess for such clinical conditions is referred to as armchair psychology. These can lead to the misuse and overuse of terminology, and even self-diagnosis. These terms carry significant clinical weight, and when used inappropriately or out of context, are problematic and counterproductive to their intended use. 

“When you self-diagnose, the feelings driving your conclusions are very valid,” says psychologist Amanda Rose, PsyD. “But the diagnosis isn’t. Not until it’s discussed and confirmed by a trained professional.”

Not only does armchair psychology serve to delegitimize the field of psychology, but it can also create defensiveness and stigma related to these conditions. These terms should be used not to judge but to qualify, understand, and appropriately treat complex mental health challenges. 

The evolution of armchair psychology

Over time, it’s understandable and even appropriate that the implications of certain terms shift to some degree in response to the context and culture of the age. Even the term ‘armchair psychology’ itself has undergone transformation over the years. The term ‘armchair psychology’ is often attributed to E.W. Scripture in 1895, a physician and psychologist, and co-founder of the American Psychological Association. Scripture used this term in response to those who seemed to oppose making psychology a fully experimental, empirical field. The implication was that Scripture considered psychological findings not derived from laboratory science to be artifacts of ‘armchair psychology’ and thus improper. 

This critique does not exclude the opinions of the greats of psychology, either. Even leading figures like Sigmund Freud faced criticism for their faith in reflection and more Socratic modalities—e.g., the ‘talking cure’—for deducing truths about the human condition and developing psychological theories. Largely, this remained a philosophical and intellectual debate amongst those in the field. That is, until the rise of pop psychology in mainstream media. 

Therapy transformed from being seen as a potential cure for extreme mental illness—often operating from a deficit-based perspective and being thought of as something necessary only for those who are deeply ‘unwell’—to being seen as a luxury only attainable for the affluent and elite, as psychoanalysis was quite time-consuming and expensive. Then, in the 1960s, influential figures in psychology such as Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers presented therapy as a means to achieve self-actualization, fulfillment, and growth, accessible to all people. 

This also signified a shift from a predominantly behaviorist approach to psychology—a cause-and-effect understanding of behavior—to a humanist approach that emphasizes the uniqueness of each individual's experiences and perspectives. This client-centered approach then permeated business strategy, publicly available literature (such as self-help books), and academia, creating a culture replete with pop psychology content. 

Now, fast forward to the present moment, where we are inundated with mental health content via reels, TikToks, and various other posts that attempt to deduce complex psychological concepts into palatable soundbites. Which begs the question: why? Why do we find ourselves swimming in oversimplified strategies to diagnose our friends, family, colleagues, and even strangers?

The spread of misinformation and stigma via armchair psychology

While the intention may, for some, be benevolent—to help people find acceptable reasons and explanations for the seemingly intolerable situations we all must endure at times—it seldom has that effect. Rather, armchair psychology lends itself to the rapid spread of misinformation, giving people the false impression that they are equipped with the information and discernment to execute precarious diagnostic procedures. 

Additionally, it contributes to the stigma surrounding mental health conditions, ascribing diagnoses to individuals who might be exhibiting unfavorable behaviors and poor decision-making, not as a result of mental illness, but perhaps as a result of misguided action, lapses in judgment, character flaws, or even sober-minded conclusions they’ve come to that others just may not agree with. 

Seemingly, it has become increasingly difficult in modern society for the layperson to accept that humans are capable of harmful actions without an underlying, diagnosable ‘reason’ for them. Perhaps it is our perpetual striving for conclusive answers in a world that provides us so few that makes us so susceptible to absorbing, receiving, and ultimately accepting and spreading these erroneous explanations for others’ behavior. Perhaps it is a result of an increasingly divided society. Regardless, this increase in stigma and misinformation surrounding mental health conditions is likely to lead to interpersonal harm, strained relationships, and missed care opportunities. 

How social media perpetuates armchair psychology

Social media has persuaded us to be more concise and bold in our virtual communication to effectively convey our thoughts, ideas, and feelings to a distracted and fickle audience. This becomes a bit of a causality dilemma. It’s estimated that the average American attention span has decreased by 68%, to an estimated 47 seconds. Is this rapid decline in our attention span a result of the pithy social media format we’ve all grown so accustomed to, or is social media a subsequent reaction to a societal evolution towards a baseline distractedness catalyzed by other unknown forces? Many researchers and psychologists seem to believe it’s the former: that social media is rewiring our brains to reward “distraction, empathy deficits, depression, narcissism, and ultimately loneliness.” 

Anyone who uses social media is consuming content delivered via quick, enticing mediums like reels, TikToks, and tweets, rather than more lengthy, traditional narrative formats. Complex topics such as mental health are unlikely to be accurately and thoroughly conveyed in such a brief manner. However, using social media to discuss important, well-researched topics may not be an inherently bad idea. Many of us have likely learned an interesting new exercise theory, dietary suggestion, or historical fact from an online video. However, we do not then walk away from that experience as honorary personal trainers, dieticians, or historians. 

Using social media to destigmatize mental illness or raise awareness about mental health topics—such as potential warning signs for suicidality or depression—can be an incredible way to educate and even save lives. However, there’s an important distinction between sharing information and being licensed to provide mental health care. Raising awareness is not the same as delivering therapy, assessing for mental illness, or determining diagnoses.

We must be responsible consumers of information. It’s on each of us to fact-check what we hear, read, and watch—by turning to legitimate academic sources or consulting with professionals—and to remind ourselves of the difference between being informed and being licensed to practice in the field.

The rigor and reality of mental health expertise

To ensure the legitimacy of the counseling field, mental health providers must undergo a minimum of 6 years of postsecondary education. Some professionals complete multi-year internships and accrue 10-12 years of education to pass licensure exams. Plus, mental health professionals must engage in ongoing, documented learning each year to ensure they’re current with the evolving field of psychology. Additionally, mental health providers need to be trained to administer and score evidence-based assessments and screeners to determine the presence and severity of various symptoms. 

However, this is only one piece of the work that may ultimately contribute to a diagnostic determination. To determine the presence of a mental illness, many mental health providers at the Master’s level collaborate with their peers (e.g., psychiatrists or psychologists) to help administer additional diagnostic assessments and to run physical examinations that can rule out other causes for behavioral patterns or symptomology that may otherwise imply the presence of a mental health condition. 

Knowing this, it becomes clearer why watching a 30-second clip on ‘signs you have OCD’ is not clinically sound or psychologically approved, even though the content may be intriguing, relatable, and emotionally-affirming. 

Where do we go from here?

This increased interest in discussing mental health could illustrate society’s desire to close the loneliness gap and find a way to more openly converse about the shrouded and condemned layers of our human experience. In the not-so-distant past, people were often secretive about having a therapist or possessing a diagnosis. It generated a feeling of deep shame or brokenness in many due to the historical stigma surrounding mental illness. 

Perhaps something is compelling about our inclination to apply mental health language to our relationships, experiences, and ourselves. The ability to convey intricate ideas in concise phrases, thereby bringing otherwise untapped depths of the psyche to the surface of our interpersonal relationships, is a profound and noble intention. However, we must remain cautious about how we do so.