Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T02:36:57.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ICD–11 and DSM–V: time to revisit the introversion/ extroversion debate?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Philip Steadman
Philip Steadman*
Affiliation:
Recovery East Team, 68 The Heights, Charlton, London SE7 8JH, email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
The columns
Information
Psychiatric Bulletin , Volume 32 , Issue 6 , June 2008 , pp. 233
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2008

Given the volume of work which now exists on this, it is striking how extroversion/introversion plays no real part in either ICD–10 or DSM–IV. These are well-used and well-understood terms which are easily measured using the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator. With the development of ICD–11 and DSM–V, is it now time for this to be reviewed and perhaps included in a more substantial way?

There is also a wider issue here apart from diagnosis. Should introverts have different treatment approaches from extroverts? Are different types of drugs likely to be more successful? How does being an introvert compared with an extrovert change the way an individual perceives and deals with mental illness?

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.