Search

Background: This experimental study in a population-based sample aimed to compare attitudes towards obesity following three different causal explanations for obesity (individual behavior, environmental factors, genetic factors).Methods: The data were derived from an online representative sample. A random subsample of n = 407 participants was included. Two independent variables were investigated: cause of obesity as described in the vignette and cause of obesity as perceived by the participant regardless of vignette. Quality features of the vignettes (accuracy and bias of the vignette) were introduced as moderators to regression models. Three stigma-related outcomes (negative attitudes, blame and social distance) served as dependent variables.Results: Inaccuracy and bias was ascribed to the social environmental and genetic vignettes more often than to the individual cause vignette. Overall, participants preferred individual causes (72.6%). While personal beliefs did not differ between the genetic and environmental cause conditions (Chi2 = 4.36, p = 0.113), both were different from the distribution seen in the individual cause vignette. Negative attitudes as well as blame were associated with the belief that individuals are responsible for obesity (b = 0.374, p = 0.003; 0.597, p < 0.001), but were not associated with vignette-manipulated causal explanation. The vignette presenting individual responsibility was associated with lower levels of social distance (b = -0.183, p = 0.043). After including perceived inaccuracy and bias as moderators, the individual responsibility vignette was associated with higher levels of blame (emphasis: b = 0.980, p = 0.010; bias: b = 0.778, p = 0.001) and the effect on social distance vanished.Conclusions: This study shows that media and public health campaigns may solidify beliefs that obesity is due to individual causes and consequently increase stigma when presenting individual behavior as a cause of obesity. Public health messages that emphasize the role of social environmental or genetic causes may be ineffective because of entrenched beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A core component of stigma is being set apart as a distinct, dichotomously different kind of person. We examine whether information on a continuum from mental health to mental illness reduces stigma., Method: Online survey experiment in a quota sample matching the German population for age, gender and region (n=1679). Participants randomly received information on either (1) a continuum, (2) a strict dichotomy of mental health and mental illness, or (3) no information. We elicited continuity beliefs and stigma toward a person with schizophrenia or depression., Results: The continuum intervention decreased perceived difference by 0.19 standard deviations (SD, P<0.001) and increased social acceptance by 0.18 SD (P=0.003) compared to the no-text condition. These effects were partially mediated by continuity beliefs (proportion mediated, 25% and 26%), which increased by 0.19 SD (P<0.001). The dichotomy intervention, in turn, decreased continuity beliefs and increased notions of difference, but did not affect social acceptance., Conclusion: Attitudes towards a person with mental illness can be improved by providing information on a mental health-mental illness continuum., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine whether stigma affects the self-esteem of persons who have serious mental illnesses or whether stigma has few, if any, effects on self-esteem., Methods: Self-esteem and two aspects of stigma, namely, perceptions of devaluation-discrimination and social withdrawal because of perceived rejection, were assessed among 70 members of a clubhouse program for people with mental illness at baseline and at follow-up six and 24 months later., Results: The two measures of perceptions of stigma strongly predicted self-esteem at follow-up when baseline self-esteem, depressive symptoms, demographic characteristics, and diagnosis were controlled for. Participants whose scores on the measures of stigma were at the 90th percentile were seven to nine times as likely as those with scores at the 10th percentile to have low self-esteem at follow-up., Conclusions: The stigma associated with mental illness harms the self-esteem of many people who have serious mental illnesses. An important consequence of reducing stigma would be to improve the self-esteem of people who have mental illnesses.

Objectives: This study assessed the extent to which the use of point-prevalence samples biases conclusions drawn about homeless people., Methods: Three data sets and published research were used to examine the degree to which conditions leading to point-prevalence bias (turnover in the homeless population, variability in the persistence of homelessness, and associations between personal characteristics and persistence) characterize the homeless population. Results were compared from point-prevalence studies concerning persistence of homelessness and characteristics of homeless people with those from a study of formerly homeless people., Results: Conditions leading to point-prevalence bias strongly characterize the homeless population. Moreover, profiles of homeless people differed dramatically between point-prevalence studies and the study of formerly homeless people. In the former, average duration of homelessness was longer, and samples included higher proportions of men, minorities, non-high school graduates, and people with histories of psychiatric hospitalization, incarceration, and detoxification., Conclusions: Reliance on point-prevalence samples, when such samples are generalized beyond the currently homeless population, leads to overestimations of the persistence of homelessness, the demographic distinctiveness of the homeless population, and the prevalence of personal disabilities and deviant lifestyles among homeless people.

Objectives: The authors used nationwide survey data to characterize current public conceptions related to recognition of mental illness and perceived causes, dangerousness, and desired social distance., Methods: Data were derived from a vignette experiment included in the 1996 General Social Survey. Respondents (n = 1444) were randomly assigned to 1 of 5 vignette conditions. Four vignettes described psychiatric disorders meeting diagnostic criteria, and the fifth depicted a "troubled person" with subclinical problems and worries., Results: Results indicate that the majority of the public identifies schizophrenia (88%) and major depression (69%) as mental illnesses and that most report multicausal explanations combining stressful circumstances with biologic and genetic factors. Results also show, however, that smaller proportions associate alcohol (49%) or drug (44%) abuse with mental illness and that symptoms of mental illness remain strongly connected with public fears about potential violence and with a desire for limited social interaction., Conclusions: While there is reason for optimism in the public's recognition of mental illness and causal attributions, a strong stereotype of dangerousness and desire for social distance persist. These latter conceptions are likely to negatively affect people with mental illness.

Considerable research has documented the stigmatization of people with mental illnesses and its negative consequences. Recently it has been shown that stigma may also seriously affect families of psychiatric patients, but little empirical research has addressed this problem. We examine perceptions of and reactions to stigma among 156 parents and spouses of a population-based sample of first-admission psychiatric patients. While most family members did not perceive themselves as being avoided by others because of their relative's hospitalization, half reported concealing the hospitalization at least to some degree. Both the characteristics of the mental illness (the stigmatizing mark) and the social characteristics of the family were significantly related to levels of family stigma. Family members were more likely to conceal the mental illness if they did not live with their ill relative, if the relative was female, and if the relative had less severe positive symptoms. Family members with more education and whose relative had experienced an episode of illness within the past 6 months reported greater avoidance by others.

Since the early 1800s, studies have consistently demonstrated that people higher in the socioeconomic hierarchy live longer than people of lower rank. One hypothesis for the persistence of this association is that people who are relatively better off are more able to avoid risks by adopting currently available protective strategies. In a partial test of this idea, the social distributions of two cancer screening tests--Pap smears and mammography--were examined. A review of the literature and an analysis of Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data showed a consistent association between indicators of socioeconomic status and recent screening. These findings support the theory that societies create and shape patterns of disease. Innovations beneficial to health are carried out within the context of inequalities that shape the distribution of the health benefit, thereby affecting patterns of morality.

Numerous studies have demonstrated a strong connection between the experience of stigma and the well-being of the stigmatized. But in the area of mental illness there has been controversy surrounding the magnitude and duration of the effects of labeling and stigma. One of the arguments that has been used to downplay the importance of these factors is the substantial body of evidence suggesting that labeling leads to positive effects through mental health treatment. However, as Rosenfield (1997) points out, labeling can simultaneously induce both positive consequences through treatment and negative consequences through stigma. In this study we test whether stigma has enduring effects on well-being by interviewing 84 men with dual diagnoses of mental disorder and substance abuse at two points in time--at entry into treatment, when they were addicted to drugs and had many psychiatric symptoms and then again after a year of treatment, when they were far less symptomatic and largely drug- and alcohol-free. We found a relatively strong and enduring effect of stigma on well-being. This finding indicates that stigma continues to complicate the lives of the stigmatized even as treatment improves their symptoms and functioning. It follows that if health professionals want to maximize the well-being of the people they treat, they must address stigma as a separate and important factor in its own right.