It is argued that researchers' reliance on ''objective'' mental health
scales and disregard for clinical judgment has led to many mistaken c
onclusions. Specifically, standard mental health scales appear unable
to distinguish between genuine mental health and the facade or illusio
n of mental health created by psychological defenses. Evidence is pres
ented indicating that (a) many people who look healthy on standard men
tal health scales are not psychologically healthy, and (b) illusory me
ntal health (based on defensive denial of distress) has physiological
costs and may be a risk factor for medical illness. Clinical judges co
uld distinguish genuine from illusory mental health, whereas ''objecti
ve'' mental health scales could not. The findings call into question t
he conclusions of many previous studies that rest on standard mental h
ealth scales. They suggest new ways of understanding how psychological
factors may influence health. Finally, they suggest that clinical met
hods (which researchers often malign) may have an important role to pl
ay in meaningful mental health research.