1.3: The Stigma of Mental Illness

Learning Objectives

• Clarify the importance of social cognition theory in understanding why people do not seek care.
• Define categories and schemas.
• Define stereotypes and heuristics.
• Describe social identity theory and its consequences.
• Differentiate between prejudice and discrimination.
• Contrast implicit and explicit attitudes.
• Explain the concept of stigma and its three forms.
• Define courtesy stigma.
• Describe what the literature shows about stigma.

In the previous section, we discussed the fact that care can be sought out in a variety of ways. The problem is that many people who need care never seek it out. Why is that? We already know that society dictates what is considered abnormal behavior through culture and social norms, and you can likely think of a few implications of that. But to fully understand society’s role in why people do not seek care, we need to determine the psychological processes underlying this phenomenon in the individual.

Social cognition is the process through which we collect information from the world around us and then interpret it. The collection process occurs through what we know as sensation – or detecting physical energy emitted or reflected by physical objects. Detection occurs courtesy of our eyes, ears, nose, skin and mouth; or via vision, hearing, smell, touch, and taste, respectfully. Once collected, the information is relayed to the brain through the neural impulse where it is processed and interpreted, or meaning is added to this raw sensory data which we call perception.

One way meaning is added is by taking the information we just detected and using it to assign people to categories, or groups. For each category, we have a schema, or a set of beliefs and expectations about a group of people, believed to apply to all members of the group, and based on experience. You might think of them as organized ways of making sense of experience. So, it is during our initial interaction with someone that we collect information about them, assign the person to a category for which we have a schema, and then use that to affect how we interact with them. First impressions, called the primacy effect, are important because even if we obtain new information that should override an incorrect initial assessment, the initial impression is unlikely to change. We call this the perseverance effect, or belief perseverance.

Stereotypes are special types of schemas that are very simplistic, very strongly held, and not based on firsthand experience. They are heuristics, or mental shortcuts, that allow us to assess this collected information very quickly. One piece of information, such as skin color, can be used to assign the person to a schema for which we have a stereotype. This can affect how we think or feel about the person and behave toward them. Again, human beings tend to imply things about an individual solely due to a distinguishing feature and disregard anything inconsistent with the stereotype.

Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982; Turner, 1987) states that people categorize their social world into meaningfully simplistic representations of groups of people. These representations are then organized as prototypes, or “fuzzy sets of a relatively limited number of category-defining features that not only define one category but serve to distinguish it from other categories” (Foddy and Hogg, as cited in Foddy et al., 1999). We construct in-groups and out-groups and categorize the self as an in-group member. The self is assimilated into the salient in-group prototype, which indicates what cognitions, affect, and behavior we may exhibit. Stereotyping, out-group homogeneity, in-group/out-group bias, normative behavior, and conformity are all based on self-categorization.

How so? Out-group homogeneity occurs when we see all members of an outside group as the same. This leads to a tendency to show favoritism to, and exclude or hold a negative view of, members outside of, one’s immediate group, called the in-group/out-group bias. The negative view or set of beliefs about a group of people is what we call prejudice, and this can result in acting in a way that is negative against a group of people, called discrimination. It should be noted that a person can be prejudicial without being discriminatory since most people do not act on their attitudes toward others due to social norms against such behavior. Likewise, a person or institution can be discriminatory without being prejudicial. For example, when a company requires that an applicant have a certain education level or be able to lift 80 pounds as part of typical job responsibilities. Individuals without a degree or ability to lift will be removed from consideration for the job, but this discriminatory act does not mean that the company has negative views of people without degrees or the inability to lift heavy weight. You might even hold a negative view of a specific group of people and not be aware of it. An attitude we are unaware of is called an implicit attitude, which stands in contrast to explicit attitudes, which are the views within our conscious awareness.

We have spent quite a lot of space and time understanding how people gather information about the world and people around them, process this information, use it to make snap judgements about others, form groups for which stereotypes may exist, and then potentially hold negative views of this group and behave negatively toward them as a result. Just one piece of information can be used to set this series of mental events into motion. Outside of skin color, the label associated with having a mental disorder can be used. Stereotypes about people with a mental disorder can quickly and easily transform into prejudice when people in a society determine the schema to be correct and form negative emotions and evaluations of this group (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). This, in turn, can lead to discriminatory practices such as an employer refusing to hire, a landlord refusing to rent an apartment, or avoiding a romantic relationship, all due to the person having a mental illness.

Overlapping with prejudice and discrimination in terms of how people with mental disorders are treated is stigma, or when negative stereotyping, labeling, rejection, and loss of status occur. Stigma takes on three forms as described below:

• Public stigma – When members of a society endorse negative stereotypes of people with a mental disorder and discriminate against them. They might avoid them altogether, resulting in social isolation. An example is when an employer intentionally does not hire a person because their mental illness is discovered.
• Label avoidance –To avoid being labeled as “crazy” or “nuts” people needing care may avoid seeking it altogether or stop care once started. Due to these labels, funding for mental health services could be restricted and instead, physical health services funded.
• Self-stigma – When people with mental illnesses internalize the negative stereotypes and prejudice, and in turn, discriminate against themselves. They may experience shame, reduced self-esteem, hopelessness, low self-efficacy, and a reduction in coping mechanisms. An obvious consequence of these potential outcomes is the why try effect, or the person saying ‘Why should I try and get that job? I am not worthy of it’ (Corrigan, Larson, & Rusch, 2009; Corrigan, et al., 2016).

Another form of stigma that is worth noting is that of courtesy stigma or when stigma affects people associated with a person who has a mental disorder. Karnieli-Miller et al. (2013) found that families of the afflicted were often blamed, rejected, or devalued when others learned that a family member had a serious mental illness (SMI). Due to this, they felt hurt and betrayed, and an important source of social support during a difficult time had disappeared, resulting in greater levels of stress. To cope, some families concealed their relative’s illness, and some parents struggled to decide whether it was their place to disclose their child’s condition. Others fought with the issue of confronting the stigma through attempts at education versus just ignoring it due to not having enough energy or desiring to maintain personal boundaries. There was also a need to understand the responses of others and to attribute it to a lack of knowledge, experience, and/or media coverage. In some cases, the reappraisal allowed family members to feel compassion for others rather than feeling put down or blamed. The authors concluded that each family “develops its own coping strategies which vary according to its personal experiences, values, and extent of other commitments” and that “coping strategies families employ change over-time.”

Other effects of stigma include experiencing work-related discrimination resulting in higher levels of self-stigma and stress (Rusch et al., 2014), higher rates of suicide especially when treatment is not available (Rusch, Zlati, Black, and Thornicroft, 2014; Rihmer & Kiss, 2002), and a decreased likelihood of future help-seeking intention (Lally et al., 2013). The results of the latter study also showed that personal contact with someone with a history of mental illness led to a decreased likelihood of seeking help. This is important because 48% of the university sample stated that they needed help for an emotional or mental health issue during the past year but did not seek help. Similar results have been reported in other studies (Eisenberg, Downs, Golberstein, & Zivin, 2009). It is also important to point out that social distance, a result of stigma, has also been shown to increase throughout the life span, suggesting that anti-stigma campaigns should focus on older people primarily (Schomerus, et al., 2015).

One potentially disturbing trend is that mental health professionals have been shown to hold negative attitudes toward the people they serve. Hansson et al. (2011) found that staff members at an outpatient clinic in the southern part of Sweden held the most negative attitudes about whether an employer would accept an applicant for work, willingness to date a person who had been hospitalized, and hiring a patient to care for children. Attitudes were stronger when staff treated patients with a psychosis or in inpatient settings. In a similar study,

Martensson, Jacobsson, and Engstrom (2014) found that staff had more positive attitudes towards persons with mental illness if their knowledge of such disorders was less stigmatized; their workplaces were in the county council where they were more likely to encounter patients who recover and return to normal life in society, rather than in municipalities where patients have long-term and recurrent mental illness; and they have or had one close friend with mental health issues.

To help deal with stigma in the mental health community, Papish et al. (2013) investigated the effect of a one-time contact-based educational intervention compared to a four-week mandatory psychiatry course on the stigma of mental illness among medical students at the University of Calgary. The curriculum included two methods requiring contact with people diagnosed with a mental disorder: patient presentations, or two one-hour oral presentations in which patients shared their story of having a mental illness, and “clinical correlations” in which a psychiatrist mentored students while they interacted with patients in either inpatient or outpatient settings. Results showed that medical students held a stigma towards mental illness and that comprehensive medical education reduced this stigma. As the authors stated, “These results suggest that it is possible to create an environment in which medical student attitudes towards mental illness can be shifted in a positive direction.” That said, the level of stigma was still higher for mental illness than it was for the stigmatized physical illness, type 2 diabetes mellitus.

What might happen if mental illness is presented as a treatable condition? McGinty, Goldman, Pescosolido, and Barry (2015) found that portraying schizophrenia, depression, and heroin addiction as untreated and symptomatic increased negative public attitudes towards people with these conditions. Conversely, when the same people were portrayed as successfully treated, the desire for social distance was reduced, there was less willingness to discriminate against them, and belief in treatment effectiveness increased among the public.

Self-stigma has also been shown to affect self-esteem, which then affects hope, which then affects the quality of life among people with severe mental illness. As such, hope should play a central role in recovery (Mashiach-Eizenberg et al., 2013). Narrative Enhancement and Cognitive Therapy (NECT) is an intervention designed to reduce internalized stigma and targets both hope and self-esteem (Yanos et al., 2011). The intervention replaces stigmatizing myths with facts about illness and recovery, which leads to hopefulness and higher levels of self-esteem in clients. This may then reduce susceptibility to internalized stigma.

Stigma leads to health inequities (Hatzenbuehler, Phelan, & Link, 2013), prompting calls for stigma change. Targeting stigma involves two different agendas: The services agenda attempts to remove stigma so people can seek mental health services, and the rights agenda tries to replace discrimination that “robs people of rightful opportunities with affirming attitudes and behavior” (Corrigan, 2016). The former is successful when there is evidence that people with mental illness are seeking services more or becoming better engaged. The latter is successful when there is an increase in the number of people with mental illnesses in the workforce who are receiving reasonable accommodations. The federal government has tackled this issue with landmark legislation such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. However, protections are not uniform across all subgroups due to “1) explicit language about inclusion and exclusion criteria in the statute or implementation rule, 2) vague statutory language that yields variation in the interpretation about which groups qualify for protection, and 3) incentives created by the legislation that affect specific groups differently” (Cummings, Lucas, and Druss, 2013). More on this in Module 15.

Key Takeaways

You should have learned the following in this section:

• Stigma is when negative stereotyping, labeling, rejection, and loss of status occur and take the form of public or self-stigma, and label avoidance.

Review Questions

1. How does social cognition help us to understand why stigmatization occurs?
2. Define stigma and describe its three forms. What is courtesy stigma?
3. What are the effects of stigma on the afflicted?
4. Is stigmatization prevalent in the mental health community? If so, what can be done about it?
5. How can we reduce stigmatization?