No abstract

Participants recognized changes in themselves but tended not to understand the observed changes as part of a mental illness. Individuals avoided professional help because of stigma concerns and identified domains of recovery beyond the management of symptoms and medication. Qualitative methods offer a promising strategy for understanding subjective illness experience and suggesting psychosocial treatment approaches.

This article will discuss the phenomenon of "sexting" (i.e., the exchange of sexually explicit images between adolescents via cell phone) in the United States, with a particular focus on clinical and legal implications. Although sexting is frequently discussed in the popular press, there is virtually no scientific literature available on this topic. In contrast, the legal literature has discussed sexting more comprehensively due to the implications of child pornography statutes for the social response to involved youth. This article will consider sexting from a clinical and legal perspective, and recommend ways to understand and address this practice clinically with adolescent patients.

Recent scholarship suggests that virtual environments can serve as effective proxies in battling implicit stereotypes. However, existing experimental research has rarely examined the effectiveness of virtual simulations of mental illnesses in inducing empathy to combat stereotypical responses. We report results from a 4-condition, between subjects experiment (N = 112), wherein participants were exposed to either a virtual simulation of schizophrenia, a written empathy-set induction of schizophrenia, a combination of both the simulation and written empathy conditions, or a control condition. The results indicated that the virtual simulation + empathy condition induced greater empathy and more positive perceptions toward people suffering from schizophrenia than the control or written empathy-set condition. Interestingly, the simulation-only condition resulted in the greatest desire for social distance whereas not significantly differing on empathy and attitude measures from either the written empathy or simulation + empathy conditions. We discuss the implications of the findings and recommend directions for future research.