An ambiguity in the notion of a “biomedical” approach to mental health

Abstract Over the past 50 years, psychological research has examined the stigma associated with “biomedical” models of mental illness. Credited with reducing blameworthiness, such models are also linked to negative outcomes such as prognostic pessimism and the desire for social distance. We argue that this research is hindered by an ambiguity in the notion of a “biomedical” framing, which conflates two ideas: a dysfunction-centered framing and a biogenic framing. We disentangle these concepts and highlight evidence that the dysfunction component of the biomedical framing, rather than the biogenic component, drives the observed negative outcomes. We discuss implications for research and practice.