Information vs. inspiration: Evaluating the effectiveness of mental illness stigma-reduction messages.

Numerous countries, communities, and organizations have conducted campaigns aimed at reducing the stigma of mental illness. Using an online experiment, we evaluate the relative effectiveness of three types of campaign messages (information about the biological origins of an illness, information about the psycho-social origins of an illness, and inspirational information about the competence of those with an illness) for reducing the perceived stigma (how I think others feel) and personal stigma (how I personally feel) tied to two illnesses (depression and schizophrenia). Drawing on expectation states theories (EST), affect control theories (ACT), and past research, we expected all three messages to reduce both types of stigma, with their relative effectiveness following this order: competence > psycho-social > biology. We find that the messages are more effective at reducing personal stigma than perceived stigma and that the competence message reduces both types of stigma more effectively than the other messages. More specifically, we find that (1) none of the messages reduce the perceived stigma of depression, (2) only the competence message consistently reduces the perceived stigma of schizophrenia, (3) only the competence message reduces personal stigma toward individuals with depression, and (4) all three messages reduce personal stigma toward individuals with schizophrenia and do so equally well. The findings provide support for propositions in EST and ACT and suggest that stigma-reduction campaigns that focus on the competence and capabilities of individuals with a mental illness will be more effective than those that focus on information about the origins of mental illness.

Gender, status, and psychiatric labels.

We examine a key modified labeling theory proposition-that a psychiatric label increases vulnerability to competence-based criticism and rejection-within task- and collectively oriented dyads comprised of same-sex individuals with equivalent education. Drawing on empirical work that approximates these conditions, we expect the proposition to hold only among men. We also expect education, operationalized with college class standing, to moderate the effects of gender by reducing men's and increasing women's criticism and rejection. But, we also expect the effect of education to weaken when men work with a psychiatric patient. As predicted, men reject suggestions from teammates with a psychiatric history more frequently than they reject suggestions from other teammates, while women's resistance to influence is unaffected by their teammate's psychiatric status. Men also rate psychiatric patient teammates as less powerful but no lower in status than other teammates, while women's teammate assessments are unaffected by their teammate's psychiatric status. Also as predicted, education reduces men's resistance to influence when their teammate has no psychiatric history. Education also increases men's ratings of their teammate's power, as predicted, but has no effect on women's resistance to influence or teammate ratings. We discuss the implications of these findings for the modified labeling theory of mental illness and status characteristics theory.

Change in attitudes about employed mothers: exposure, interests, and gender ideology discrepancies.

Using a sample of continuously-married individuals (793 women and 847 men) and their spouses drawn from the first two waves of the NSFH, we examine change in individuals' attitudes about mothers' employment. We investigate hypotheses derived from three models of attitude change: the exposure model, the interest-based model, and the control model. We find support for hypotheses derived from all three. Consistent with exposure hypotheses, the adoption of fundamentalist beliefs reduces egalitarianism, while spouses' egalitarianism and spouses' education are positively related to individuals' own egalitarianism. As predicted in both exposure and interest hypotheses, women's entry into employment is positively related to women's egalitarianism, while wives' occupational prestige is positively related to men's egalitarianism. Congruent with the interest model, the presence of a young child is positively associated with women's egalitarianism. Consistent with the exposure model, the number of children in the home reduces men's egalitarianism, and a traditional division of housework decreases women's egalitarianism. Finally, consistent with the gender ideology discrepancy hypothesis, derived from the control model, individuals whose background, work, and family life are inconsistent with their gender ideology at wave 1 shift their gender ideology at wave 2 in a direction that is more compatible with their background, work, and family life: egalitarians with traditional life patterns at wave 1 are more traditional in their gender ideology at wave 2, and traditionals with egalitarian life patterns at wave 1 are more egalitarian at wave 2. We discuss the implications of these patterns for larger scale change in gender ideology.

Social status determinants of control in individuals' accounts of their mental illness.

We examine the determinants of patients' accounts of their own mental illness. In particular, we examine the factors that affect the likelihood of attributing one's own mental illness to controllable factors rather than non-controllable factors. Our quantitative measure of attributional control is derived from the coding of in-depth interviews with people with severe mental illness seeking treatment for the first time (N = 144). We find that those who occupy positions of social disadvantage (particularly African-American males and those who receive public assistance) are less likely to attribute their illness to controllable sources, suggesting that personal mental illness attributions are systematically related to a person's social location. We outline the significance of these findings for research on the psychological consequences of mental illness attributions.