Given that validity is the baseline of psychological assessments, there is a need to provide evidence-based data for construct validity of such scales to advance the clinicians for evaluating psychiatric morbidity in psychiatric and psychosomatic setting.
This study questions the widely held assumption that the phenomenon known as mass psychogenic illness (MPI) exists per se in nature as a psychiatric disorder. Most MPI studies are problematical, being descriptive, retrospective investigations of specific incidents which conform to a set of pre-existing symptom criteria that are used to determine the presence of collective psychosomatic illness. Diagnoses are based upon subjective, ambiguous categories that reflect stereotypes of female normality which assume the presence of a transcultural disease or disorder entity, underemphasizing or ignoring the significance of episodes as culturally conditioned roles of social action. Examples of this bias include the mislabelling of dancing manias, tarantism and demonopathy in Europe since the Middle Ages as culture-specific variants of MPI. While 'victims' are typified as mentally disturbed females possessing abnormal personality characteristics who are exhibiting cathartic reactions to stress, it is argued that episodes may involve normal, rational people who possess unfamiliar conduct codes, world-views and political agendas that differ significantly from those of Western-trained investigators who often judge these illness behaviours independent of their local context and meanings.
This discussion of an episode of mass hysteria in a Malay college in West Malaysia examines stress and conflict in relation to the interpretive process within a specific social setting. Unlike previous studies, which conceptualize mass hysteria as a cathartic response to accumulated stress, the present study treats stress as a matter of definition in a specific sociocultural context rather than as an objective given from which predictions can be made. Objections are raised to the logic of explanations that attribute mass hysteria to environmental stress. What is of concern is how meanings are assigned to events that are experienced as stressful, how participants and observers explain these events, and the consequences that follow from their interpretations.