& Tuma, 1988; Scott, 1990). Given recent claims for significant increases in the incidence of autism in the United States, an example for how social construction influences the process of legitimatization in autism and how this very process creates the perception of an “autism epidemic” is especially illustrative (Baker, 2008; Gernsbacher et al., 2005).
Gernsbacher et al. (2005) convincingly argue that the “autism epidemic” does not really exist. Rather they discuss the role that the DSM and societal influences play in the increased incidence of autism, owing to the labeling process and the changes in the DSM diagnostic criteria due to various socially oriented factors in different editions of this major diagnostic manual. For example, in the DSM‐III a diagnosis of autism required satisfying six mandatory criteria (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1980), but in DSM‐IV (APA, 1994) the diagnosis is fulfilled by meeting only 50% of 16 optional criteria. Further, the criteria themselves were made more subjective and inclusive by changes in the phrasing employed. In the DSM‐III one of the criteria was manifestation of “a pervasive lack of responsiveness to other people” (1980, p. 89) while the closest criterion to this in the DSM‐IV is that an individual must demonstrate “a lack of spontaneous seeking to share … achievements with other people (1994, p. 70). Similarly, the 1980 mandatory criteria of “gross deficits in language development” and “bizarre responses to various aspects of the environment” were changed to “difficulty sustaining a conversation” and “persistent preoccupation with parts of objects” respectively. Finally, the numbers of diagnostic categories for autism were changed from two in DSM‐III (infantile autism and childhood onset pervasive developmental disorders) to five in DSM‐IV‐R (autistic disorder, pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified, childhood disintegrative disorder, Rhett syndrome, Asperger’s disorder). In the DSM‐5 (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), the category of Asperger’s disorder, always a bit controversial given its subclinical nature, was even modified and taken out of the Pervasive Developmental Disorder category (e.g., Matson, Kozlowski, Hattier, Horovitz, & Sipes, 2012; Waterhouse, 2013; Waterhouse & Gillberg, 2014).
Given these changes to the diagnostic criteria between DSM‐III and DSM‐IV‐R, it is not surprising that there appear to be many more diagnoses of autism over the time span discussed. Indeed, the new and milder categories or variants of autism appear to account for 75% of the new diagnoses (Chakrabarti & Fombonne, 2001), and when other socially driven changes (e.g., establishment of threshold and sub‐threshold symptoms, a decision to co‐diagnose, attempts to identify children at progressively younger ages) are also considered, it is no wonder there appear to be significant increases in incidence that necessitated the change in categories in DSM‐5. The point, however, is that led by advocacy groups championing more relaxed and inclusive criteria, the reality of autism has changed according to social considerations. Discussions on the role of social variables in reconceptualizing autism, its causes, and its incidence may be found in the work of various researchers in the history and epidemiology of autism (e.g., Baker, 2008; Fombonne, 2003; Gernsbacher et al., 2005; Silverman, 2004; Waterhouse, 2013; Worley & Matson, 2012).
Based upon such mechanisms of influence and the actual individuals with sufficient societal power to both label and make the consequences of the label operational, the diagnostic process nearly always produces a label that is attached as an indication of some deviant facet of communication. Since evaluation is a formal process with recognized professionals sanctioned within our society, the label becomes a powerful designation used to identify and to categorize the labeled individual. For purposes of this chapter, there are two basic types of labels: a generalized positive or negative descriptor (e.g., gifted, disorder, deficit, disability, handicap), and more specific identifying terms that provide more descriptive and explanatory power (e.g., specific language impairment, autistic, speech‐sound disordered, stutterer, aphasic, learning disabled). Both label types are employed depending on who is discussing them and the objectives of one’s discussion regarding how to address these identified deviancies. This process of diagnosis is an accepted and even necessary practice when dealing with exceptionalities like communicative disorders. In order to provide services, to access fiscal resources, to obtain accommodations, or even to come to an understanding of how to address disabilities in a remedial process, an official diagnosis, an objective label assigned to an individual and his or her difficulty is often necessary. While it is commonplace to obtain these diagnostic labels and to employ them as if they are discrete, concrete and fixed, the work of Becker and many others demonstrate that this process is actually much more subjective and fluid than many professionals and the general public realize (e.g., Aspel et al., 1998; Augustine & Damico, 1995; Carroll, 1997; Conrad, 2009; Conrad & Potter, 2000; Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014; Fraser & Christopher, 2007; Wilson, 2000). This is because the assignment of labels based upon clinical and psychiatric diagnoses is historically and culturally situated. That is, they may appear, expand or contract over time depending on how the society and the involved professions form and hold particular beliefs and ideologies (Conrad, 2009; Cooksey & Brown, 1998).
1.4 The Impact of Labeling
The use of diagnostic terms like language disorder, childhood apraxia, dementia, learning disability, specific language impairment (now usually referred to as developmental language disorder), autism, ADHD, auditory processing disorder, and many others, as labels for individuals and their impairments is not always objective or valid and, as a result, there are many possible consequences inherent in the diagnostic process that can have an impact on the diagnosed individual. If the label or diagnostic category appears valid and is correctly attached to an individual, positive consequences may accrue. However, there may also be problems. For example, some diagnostic categories themselves are suspect and merely function as mechanisms of current societal values, power or control (e.g., Abberley, 1987; Conrad, 1992; Mehan, 1996; O’Connor & Fernandez, 2006). If the label or category is invalid or if the individual is misdiagnosed, the resulting consequences are frequently negative.
1.4.1 Positive Consequences
Receiving a diagnosis in the form of a disability label may start a cascade of constructive consequences if the diagnosis is an accurate one. The first constructive consequence is that the diagnosis may transform an unorganized and unclear set of complaints and symptoms into a more organized and comprehensible disorder (Balint, 1957). Once framed with a label, the disorder becomes easier to conceptualize, discuss, and act upon. It is often the case that organized categories help all involved parties achieve greater understanding and communication about complex behavioral entities that are generalized by the labels (Damico, 2019; Darley, 1975; Leyens, Yzerbyt, & Schadron, 1994). In a study of children with ADHD, for example, one of the authors (Damico & Augustine, 1995) found that parents of many children eventually diagnosed as exhibiting ADHD often had nagging feelings that something was wrong but they could not put their finger on the problem. Indeed, based upon an interviewee’s comment, the researchers in the study explained this phase of confusion as a period of “undefined malaise” (Damico & Augustine, 1995, p. 261) in which the parents did not know how to characterize their children’s problems or where to turn for assistance. Once a diagnosis was provided, however, the parents felt that they had a better understanding and could proceed in a positive direction.
In line with the first consequence, once a valid and accurate label is obtained it can also lead to opportunities and extra resources that are not available without a diagnostic label (Gillman, Heyman, & Swain, 2000; Sutcliffe & Simons, 1993). As previously stated, many governmental regulatory bodies, educational remedial guidelines, and insurance providers require a standard diagnosis before treatment is provided. Federal and state special education regulations, for example, require official diagnoses before intervention is even planned. In the ADHD study just reported (Damico & Augustine, 1995), school systems did not tend to orient to the needs of the students studied until a formal diagnosis was obtained. When the formal label was delivered to the schools, however, it acted as a catalyst. Various accommodations and services not previously offered to the child and parents now were provided. The label, therefore, had a reactive power over the schools, the parents, and even the children. This need to employ diagnostic labels to achieve such ends is not