Culture as a modulator of pathologization: the “brazilian jeitinho” and the inflated prevalence hypothesis in psychodiagnosis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25118/2763-9037.2025.v15.1532Keywords:
brazilian jeitinho, psychodiagnosis, inflated prevalence, culture and mental health, non-WEIRDAbstract
The aim of this paper is to propose a theoretical model in which the Brazilian jeitinho operates as a modulator of the increase in the prevalence of mental disorders (Inflated Prevalence Hypothesis), highlighting implications for psychodiagnosis in Brazil. Based on a narrative literature review, it is argued that the malandragem and sympathetic dimensions of the Brazilian jeitinho contribute to the flexibilization of norms and favor over-pathologizing interpretations of everyday behaviors, thereby respectively increasing the number of psychological diagnoses sought and issued. In addition, the study shows that the rise in mental health literacy and in access to social benefits linked to diagnoses may encourage the undue appropriation of such labels, undermining both the credibility of mental health practice and equity-oriented public policies. Finally, the paper emphasizes the urgency of culturally sensitive diagnostic approaches that take into account the specificities of non-WEIRD nations, such as Brazil, in order to prevent injustices and strengthen the legitimacy of mental health care in the country.
Downloads
Metrics
References
1. Prado AM. O jeitinho brasileiro: uma revisão bibliográfica. Horiz Cient. 2016;10(1):1-22. https://seer.ufu.br/index.php/horizontecientifico/article/view/33308
2. Wachelke J, Prado AM. A ideologia do jeitinho brasileiro. Psicol Saber Soc. 2017;6(2):146-62. https://doi.org/10.12957/psi.saber.soc.2017.31400
3. Fischer R, Ferreira MC, Milfont T, Pilati R. Culture of corruption? J Cross Cult Psychol. 2014;45(10):1594-605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114548874
4. Haslam N. Concept creep: psychology's expanding concepts of harm and pathology. Psychol Inq. 2016;27(1):1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2016.1082418
5. Haslam N, Tse JS, De Deyne S. Concept creep and psychiatrization. Front Sociol. 2021;6:806147. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.806147 PMid:34977230 PMCid:PMC8716590
6. Foulkes L, Andrews JL. Are mental health awareness efforts contributing to the rise in reported mental health problems? New Ideas Psychol. 2023;69:101010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2023.101010
7. Ferreira MC, Fischer R, Porto JB, Pilati R, Milfont TL. Unraveling the mystery of Brazilian jeitinho. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2012;38(3):331-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211427148 PMid:22143307
8. Barbieri V. Psicodiagnóstico tradicional e interventivo: confronto de paradigmas? Psicol Teor Pesqui. 2010;26:505-13. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-37722010000300013
9. Gomes IC. A formação em psicodiagnóstico e os testes psicológicos. Psicol Teor Prat. 2000;2(2):60-9.
10. Conselho Federal de Psicologia. Resolução CFP n. 09/2018: regras para a elaboração de documentos escritos produzidos pela(o) psicóloga(o). Brasília: CFP; 2018.
11. Conselho Federal de Psicologia. Resolução CFP n. 06/2022: regulamenta a avaliação psicológica e o uso de testes. Brasília: CFP; 2022.
12. Smith D, Dumont F. Eliminating overconfidence in psychodiagnosis: Strategies for training and practice. Clinical Psychology: Sci Pract. 1997;4(4),335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2850.1997.tb00125.x
13. Foulkes L, Stringaris A. Do no harm: can school mental health interventions cause iatrogenic harm? BJPsych Bull. 2023;47(5):267-69. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjb.2023.22 https://doi.org/10.1192/bjb.2023.9 PMid:36843444 PMCid:PMC10764817
14. Foulkes L, Holst CG, Andrews JL. Potential harm from universal school-based mental health interventions. Curr Opin Psychol. 2025:102196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2025.102196 PMid:41145015
15. Marcotulli D, Foulkes L, Stringaris A. Editorial perspective: how spreading mental health information can be (un-)helpful. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2025:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.70055 PMid:41088568
16. Ahuvia IL. Refining the prevalence inflation hypothesis: disentangling overinterpretation from self-fulfilling prophecies. New Ideas Psychol. 2024;75:101106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2024.101106
17. Haslam N, Tse JSY. Public awareness of mental illness: mental health literacy or concept creep? Australas Psychiatry. 2025;33(1):18-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/10398562241292202 PMid:39402888 PMCid:PMC11804130
18. O'Connor C, Armour C, Joffe H. Lay concepts of trauma in the United Kingdom. Psychol Trauma. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001620
19. Almagro M, Isern-Mas C. Blunting concepts: the double-edged effect of popularizing psychotherapy language. Philos Psychol. 2025:1-28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2025.2573763
20. Pisl V. Psychiatrization in Czech lexical data. New Ideas Psychol. 2025;78:101148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2025.101148
21. Clarkin J, Heywood C, Robinson LJ. Are younger people more accurate at identifying mental health disorders and recommending help appropriately? Ment Health Prev. 2024;36:200361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2024.200361
22. Levinovitz A, Aftab A. The Rumpelstiltskin effect: therapeutic repercussions of clinical diagnosis. BJPsych Bull. 2025:1-5. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjb.2025.10137 PMid:40841186
23. Bell V, White R, Foulkes L. Understanding the countermovement to online presentations of psychiatric disorder that are perceived as faked. J Ment Health. 2025:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638237.2025.2558503 PMid:40938792
24. Cosma A, Black M, Vuckovic S, Pavic I, Fonseca H, Lazzerini M. The changing epidemiology of child and adolescent mental health requires an immediate policy response. Public Health Pract. 2025;10:100655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhip.2025.100655 PMid:41113959 PMCid:PMC12528862
25. Nielsen TH. Disorder or distress? Synthese. 2025;205(2):65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-024-04902-7
26. Qiu J, Hania A. Red flags in global autism data. Front Psychiatry. 2025;16:1575940. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2025.1575940 PMid:41169491 PMCid:PMC12569649
27. Reavley N, Jorm A, Carbone S, Tsiamis E, Morgan AJ. Testing the diagnostic expansion hypothesis. BMJ Public Health. 2025;3(2). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjph-2025-003040 PMid:40937426 PMCid:PMC12421594
28. Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci. 2010;33(2-3):61-83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X PMid:20550733
29. Shiah YJ. We are not WEIRD. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1384290. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1384290 PMid:38533224 PMCid:PMC10964720
30. Reyna C, Vazquez MA, Vazquez KJ, Harris K. Moving beyond a WEIRD psychology. Psychol Inq. 2023;34(1):27-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2023.2192647
31. Muthukrishna M, Henrich J, Slingerland E. Psychology as a historical science. Annu Rev Psychol. 2021;72(1):717-49. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-082820-111436 PMid:33049160
32. Atari M, Henrich J. Historical psychology. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2023;32(2):176-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214221149737
33. Csajbók Z, Štěrbová Z, Brewer G, Cândea CA, De Backer CJS, Fernández AM, Fisher ML, Garcia JR, Kruger DJ, Massar K, Oberzaucher E, Quintelier KJP, van Geffen RE, Valentova JV, Varella MAC, Jonason PK. Individual differences in how desirable people think they are as a mate. Arch Sex Behav. 2023;52(6):2475-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-023-02601-x PMid:37154879 PMCid:PMC10501943
34. Adjei SB, Nejat P, Thalmayer AG, Adler JM. Highlighting personality and social psychological theories from majority world contexts: introduction to the special issue. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2025;29(4):319-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251364486 PMid:40853049 PMCid:PMC12460914
35. Rodrigues RP, Milfont TL, Ferreira MC, Porto JB, Fischer R. Brazilian jeitinho: Understanding and explaining an indigenous psychological construct. Rev Interam Psicol. 2011;45(1):29-38. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/284/28421134005.pdf
36. Pilati R, Fischer R. Contextualizing social psychology through cultural syndromes. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2025;29(4):326-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251346521 PMid:41017248
37. Akira Miura M, Pilati R, Milfont TL, Ferreira MC, Fischer R. Between simpatia and malandragem: Brazilian jeitinho as an individual difference variable. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0214929. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214929 PMid:30986242 PMCid:PMC6464182
38. Lee Park C, Nunes MF, Muratbekova-Touron M, Moatti V. The duality of the Brazilian jeitinho. Crit Perspect Int Bus. 2018;14(4):404-25. https://doi.org/10.1108/cpoib-04-2017-0022
39. Sousa M, Santos WS, Gusmão EES, Sousa SLH. Questionário sobre o Jeitinho Brasileiro - versão infantil. Estud Pesqui Psicol. 2023;23(3):936-52. https://doi.org/10.12957/epp.2023.79270
40. Souza GHS, Coelho JAPM, Esteves GGL, Lima NC, Queiroz FCBP. Evidências de Validade baseada na Estrutura Interna do Inventário de Comportamentos do Jeitinho (ICJ). Aval Psicol. 2025;24:1-10. https://doi.org/10.15689/ap.2025.24.e24212
41. Pilati R, Fischer R. An exploration of within-cultural differences of Brazilian jeitinho. Cross-Cult Res. 2022;56(5):423-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971221086818
42. De Campos IF, Godoy DFS, Dutra IS. Reflexão sobre o jeitinho brasileiro como reação à organização burocrática. Rev Ciênc Juríd Empres. 2014;15(1):51-9. https://revistajuridicas.pgsscogna.com.br/juridicas/article/view/354
43. Resende MM, Porto JB. Brazilian jeitinho and moral identity. Trends Psychol. 2020;28(1):148-64. https://doi.org/10.9788/s43076-019-00006-1
44. Porto JB, Pilati R. Trust in Brazil: the interplay of jeitinho and trust conception. In: Kwantes CT, Kuo BCH, editors. Trust and trustworthiness across cultures. Cham: Springer; 2021. p. 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56718-7_2
45. Fernandes DM, Perallis CG, Pezzato FA. Creativity, Brazilian jeitinho, and cultural practices. Behav Anal Res Pract. 2015;15(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101067
46. Lilienfeld SO. Public skepticism of psychology. Am Psychol. 2012;67(2):111. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023963 PMid:21668088
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Caio Fernandes Santos, Thales Vianna Coutinho
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Debates em Psiquiatria allows the author (s) to keep their copyrights unrestricted. Allows the author (s) to retain their publication rights without restriction. Authors should ensure that the article is an original work without fabrication, fraud or plagiarism; does not infringe any copyright or right of ownership of any third party. Authors should also ensure that each one complies with the authorship requirements as recommended by the ICMJE and understand that if the article or part of it is flawed or fraudulent, each author shares responsibility.
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) - Debates em Psiquiatria is governed by the licencse CC-By-NC
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
