Das Ziel dieser Arbeit ist die Darstellung und Analyse der soziologischen Bedingungen und Auswirkungen der vielfältigen komplexen Globalisierungsprozesse, die zunehmend den (welt-) gesellschaftlichen Wandel bestimmen. Dabei wird sie zu klären haben, warum die klassische Globalisierungsinterpretation diese Aspekte nicht angemessen zu erfassen vermag und welche spezifischen Merkmale der Wandel in verschiedenen gesellschaftlichenTeilbereichen aufweist. Die Lösung dieser Aufgabe verlangt nach einem komplexen Globalisierungsbegriff, der neben den ökonomischen, technologischen und politischen Voraussetzungen sowie Dynamiken ebenfalls individuelle, kulturelle, politische und ökologische Aspekte der Entwicklung mit einschließt. Als Kontrastrahmen zur Interpretation der Verdichtung internationaler oder gar globaler Zusammenhänge dient ihre zunehmende Inkongruenz mit dem territorial definierten Nationalstaat, da dieser auch heute noch nahezu allen nicht-ökonomischen gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhängen einen zentralen Bezugsrahmen liefert. Genau hier erwarten wir die folgenreichsten Veränderungen und Umbrüche, so das die vielfältigen Faktoren und Effekte sich grob danach beurteilen lassen, inwieweit sie grenz- und damit staatsüberschreitende Beziehungen und Wirkungen ermöglichen, begünstigen oder sogar erzwingen.

„Comorbidity“ among mental disorders is commonly observed in both clinical and epidemiological samples. The robustness of this observation is rarely questioned; however, what is at issue is its meaning. Is comorbidity „noise“ – nuisance covariance that researchers should eliminate by seeking „pure“ cases for their studies – or a „signal“ – an indication that current diagnostic systems are lacking in parsimony and are not „carving nature at its joints?“ (Krueger, p. 921). With these words, Krueger started a discussion on the structure of mental disorders, which suggested that a 3-factor model of common mental disorders existed in the community. These common factors were labeled „anxious-misery,“ „fear“ (constituting facets of a higher-order internalizing factor), and „externalizing.“ Along with similar evidence from personality research and psychometric explorations and selective evidence from genetic and psychopharmacologic studies, Krueger suggested that this model might not only be phenotypically relevant, but might actually improve our understanding of core processes underlying psychopathology. Since then, this suggestion has become an influential, yet also controversial topic in the scientific community, and has received attention particularly in the context of the current revision process of the Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-V) and the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11). Focusing on anxiety disorders, this article critically discusses the methods and findings of this work, calls into question the model’s developmental stability and utility for clinical use and clinical research, and challenges the wide-ranging implications that have been linked to the findings of this type of exploration. This critical appraisal is intended to flag several significant concerns about the method. In particular, the concerns center around the tendency to attach wide-ranging implications (eg, in terms of clinical research, clinical practice, public health, diagnostic nomenclature) to the undoubtedly interesting statistical explorations.

Background: Whereas the role of externalizing disorders is relatively well established in predicting the onset of cannabis use (CU) or cannabis use disorder (CUD), the status of anxiety and mood disorders in predicting CU and CUD remains controversial. Objective: (1) To examine cross-sectional and prospective associations of CU and CUD with a range of mental disorders and whether anxiety and mood disorders are associated with CU/CUD after adjusting for externalizing disorders. Methods: N = 1395 community subjects aged 14–17 at baseline were followed-up at three waves prospectively over 10 years. Substance use, substance disorders and mental disorders were assessed using the DSM-IV/M-CIDI. Results: (1) The baseline prevalence rates where 19.3% at t0 for CU and 2.6% for CUD. Cumulative incidence rates at t3 were 54.3% for CU and 13.7% for CUD. (2) In cross-sectional and prospective analyses other substance use disorders, mood and anxiety disorders were associated with CU and CUD. (3) Associations of panic-anxiety with CU and of depressive and bipolar disorders with CU and CUD were significant after controlling for externalizing disorders. Conclusion: A range of psychopathological conditions, including depressive, bipolar and less consistently anxiety disorders as well as the degree of their comorbidity are significantly associated with incident CU and progression to CUD, even when controlling for externalising disorders. A better understanding of this complex interplay may result in better aetiological models and intervention strategies.

Background: Whereas the role of externalizing disorders is relatively well established in predicting the onset of cannabis use (CU) or cannabis use disorder (CUD), the status of anxiety and mood disorders in predicting CU and CUD remains controversial. Objective: (1) To examine cross-sectional and prospective associations of CU and CUD with a range of mental disorders and whether anxiety and mood disorders are associated with CU/CUD after adjusting for externalizing disorders. Methods: N = 1395 community subjects aged 14–17 at baseline were followed-up at three waves prospectively over 10 years. Substance use, substance disorders and mental disorders were assessed using the DSM-IV/M-CIDI. Results: (1) The baseline prevalence rates where 19.3% at t0 for CU and 2.6% for CUD. Cumulative incidence rates at t3 were 54.3% for CU and 13.7% for CUD. (2) In cross-sectional and prospective analyses other substance use disorders, mood and anxiety disorders were associated with CU and CUD. (3) Associations of panic-anxiety with CU and of depressive and bipolar disorders with CU and CUD were significant after controlling for externalizing disorders. Conclusion: A range of psychopathological conditions, including depressive, bipolar and less consistently anxiety disorders as well as the degree of their comorbidity are significantly associated with incident CU and progression to CUD, even when controlling for externalising disorders. A better understanding of this complex interplay may result in better aetiological models and intervention strategies.

„Comorbidity“ among mental disorders is commonly observed in both clinical and epidemiological samples. The robustness of this observation is rarely questioned; however, what is at issue is its meaning. Is comorbidity „noise“ – nuisance covariance that researchers should eliminate by seeking „pure“ cases for their studies – or a „signal“ – an indication that current diagnostic systems are lacking in parsimony and are not „carving nature at its joints?“ (Krueger, p. 921). With these words, Krueger started a discussion on the structure of mental disorders, which suggested that a 3-factor model of common mental disorders existed in the community. These common factors were labeled „anxious-misery,“ „fear“ (constituting facets of a higher-order internalizing factor), and „externalizing.“ Along with similar evidence from personality research and psychometric explorations and selective evidence from genetic and psychopharmacologic studies, Krueger suggested that this model might not only be phenotypically relevant, but might actually improve our understanding of core processes underlying psychopathology. Since then, this suggestion has become an influential, yet also controversial topic in the scientific community, and has received attention particularly in the context of the current revision process of the Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth Edition) (DSM-V) and the International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision (ICD-11). Focusing on anxiety disorders, this article critically discusses the methods and findings of this work, calls into question the model’s developmental stability and utility for clinical use and clinical research, and challenges the wide-ranging implications that have been linked to the findings of this type of exploration. This critical appraisal is intended to flag several significant concerns about the method. In particular, the concerns center around the tendency to attach wide-ranging implications (eg, in terms of clinical research, clinical practice, public health, diagnostic nomenclature) to the undoubtedly interesting statistical explorations.