The different faces of mental illness stigma: Systematic variation of stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination by type of illness

5Citations
Citations of this article
54Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Mental illness (MI) stigma has been characterized as multi-dimensional including problems of knowledge (stereotypes), attitudes (prejudice) and behavior (discrimination); however, most research practice is predominantly applying unidimensional behavioral measures such as social distance scales. Moreover, specific types of MIs and different forms of discriminatory behaviors are not being differentiated. The Stereotype Content Model predicts that group stereotypes (warmth, competence) are linked with different forms of discriminatory behaviors (harm or facilitation) via emotional prejudices (pity, envy, contempt). The present study sought to establish how differential stereotypic perceptions of MI subgroups elicit distinct forms of behavioral discrimination via emotional prejudices. A community sample (N = 60) was randomly assigned to one of three conditions representing MIs across the warmth-competence stereotype space. Patterns of self-completed measures for stereotypes, emotions and behaviors differed significantly between conditions. The association between stereotypes and behaviors were largely mediated by emotions. Systematic patterns of stereotypic perceptions, emotional prejudices and behavioral discrimination are present for individuals with different types of MIs. Hence, generic measures of discrimination, such as social distance scales, may be misleading. Intervention strategies should consider the systematic variation of the factors involved in stigma, differentiating by type of MI and discriminatory behaviors.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Görzig, A., & Ryan, L. N. (2022). The different faces of mental illness stigma: Systematic variation of stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination by type of illness. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 63(5), 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12833

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free