Choosing is losing? An experimental study of the tension between text judgment and stigma in communication about substance dependence

Abstract

The way in which people with addiction are referred to can influence how they are perceived. Communication professionals who write about the topic of addiction therefore need to be careful in choosing their words. Recommendations for communication often assume that people-first terminology (e.g. someone with a drug addiction) is less stigmatising than problem-first terminology (e.g. drug addict). Interestingly, the stigma-reducing approach tends to be linguistically more cumbersome and therefore possibly affects the appreciation of texts about substance dependence. For communication professionals this creates a tension between avoiding stigmatising language and developing clear and attractive communication. This study investigates that tension by examining whether people-first terminology actually has a stigma-reducing effect, and whether that terminology has an impact on text appreciation. Three versions of a text about someone with a substance use disorder were presented to 137 schoolchildren, still an important target audience for substance use campaigns, by means of a between-subject design. Participants were asked about their assessment of the person who uses drugs in a problematic way, about their appreciation of the text, and about their direct estimation of the perceived valence and degree of offence of a range of people-first and problem-first designations. The findings indicate that the terminology choice has no bearing on stigma, nor on the appreciation of the texts. However, the study did establish that participants found isolated people-first labels to be less negative and less offensive than problem-first equivalents. Therefore, the latter finding suggests that stigma-reducing terminology that puts the person first, rather than the problem, is the most appropriate option for government and prevention communication.