While the "high-risk state" for psychosis (or "prodrome") has demonstrated good reliability and predictive validity for conversion to psychotic disorders, over 50% of identified subjects may not progress to psychosis. Despite the benefits that early detection and treatment might offer, debate concerning the official inclusion of a "psychosis risk syndrome" in the upcoming DSM-V frequently involves the threat of stigma's impacts to patients, families, and institutions. We advance this debate by providing a focal analysis of the extensive theoretical and empirical stigma literature to better articulate stigma's potential effects upon 'prodromal' individuals. Theorists' conceptualizations of how stigma exerts its negative effects emphasize internalization of pejorative societal stereotypes ('self-stigma'), negative emotional reactions, harmful behavioral coping strategies, and structural discrimination as key mechanisms. Studies assessing the comparative effects of symptomatic behavior when compared with a psychiatric label in predicting rejecting social attitudes indicate that treating symptomatic behaviors is likely to diminish overall stigma. However, any publically-held 'preexisting conceptions' about what a psychosis risk syndrome means are still likely to exert negative effects. Additionally, particular features of this syndrome-that it occurs during adolescence when identity formation is in flux--further shape manifestations of stigma. Utilizing other well-established 'at-risk' conditions (e.g., genetic susceptibility) to model potential discrimination for this syndrome, we suggest that future discrimination may likely occur in insurance and family domains. We conclude by proposing stigma measurement strategies, including recommending that field trials prior to DSM-V adopt systematic measures to assess any stigma that this psychosis risk syndrome might confer via future community use.

No abstract

Objectives This study compared stigma associated with the psychosis risk label and diagnostic labels for nonpsychotic and psychotic mental disorders among young adult peers. Methods Urban college respondents (N=153) read an experimental vignette describing a young adult experiencing prodromal symptoms who was randomly assigned a diagnostic label (major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, schizophrenia, or psychosis risk with and without accurate information about the psychosis risk label) and answered questions about stigma toward the individual in the vignette. Results Compared with labels for non-psychotic disorders, schizophrenia elicited more negative stereotyping and the at-risk label invoked greater social distance and less willingness to help. Any increased social distance appeared to be reduced by accurate information about the at-risk state. No differences in stigma were found for the psychosis risk and schizophrenia labels. Conclusions The psychosis risk label alone appeared to evoke greater status loss and discrimination. Accurate information may minimize some stigmatizing attitudes among college peers.

Purpose As mental illness stigma contributes to poor outcomes for schizophrenia in China, locating strategies to reduce public stigma is imperative. It is currently unknown whether diagnostic labeling and contact with different help-seeking sources increase or decrease public stigma in China. Further, it remains unresolved whether prior personal contact acts to reduce stigma in this context. Advancing understanding of these processes may facilitate stigma-reduction strategies. Methods We administered an experimental vignette randomly assigning one of four labeling conditions to respondents to assess social distance towards a psychotic vignette individual in a sample of 160 Northern, urban Chinese community respondents. Results As expected, respondents given a “non-psychiatric, indigenous label” + “lay help-seeking” condition endorsed the least social distance. Unexpectedly, the labeling condition with a “psychiatric diagnostic label” + “lay help-seeking” condition elicited the greatest social distance. Unlike Western studies, personal contact did not independently decrease community stigma. However, prior contact reduced social distance to a greater extent in the labeling condition with a “non-psychiatric, indigenous label” + “lay help-seeking” condition when compared with all other labeling conditions. Conclusion The results indicate that cultural idioms do provide some protection from stigma, but only among respondents who are already familiar with what mental illness is. Our finding that the condition that depicted untreated psychosis elicited the greatest amount of stigma, while the “treated psychosis” condition was viewed relatively benignly in China, suggests that improved access to mental health services in urban China has the potential to decrease public stigma via labeling mechanisms.

Background The increasing interest in the genetic causes of mental disorders may exacerbate existing stigma if negative beliefs about a genetic illness are generally accepted. China’s history of policy-level eugenics and genetic discrimination in the workplace suggests that Chinese communities will view genetic mental illness less favorably than mental illness with non-genetic causes. The aim of this study is to identify differences between Chinese Americans and European Americans in eugenic beliefs and stigma toward people with genetic mental illness. Methods We utilized data from a 2003 national telephone survey designed to measure how public perceptions of mental illness differ if the illness is described as genetic. The Chinese American (n = 42) and European American (n = 428) subsamples were analyzed to compare their support of eugenic belief items and measures of stigma. Results Chinese Americans endorsed all four eugenic statements more strongly than European Americans. Ethnicity significantly moderated the relationship between genetic attribution and three out of five stigma outcomes; however, genetic attribution actually appeared to be de-stigmatizing for Chinese Americans while it increased stigma or made no difference for European Americans. Conclusions Our findings show that while Chinese Americans hold more eugenic beliefs than European Americans, these attributions do not have the same effect on stigma as they do in Western cultures. These results suggest that future anti-stigma efforts must focus on eugenic attitudes as well as cultural beliefs for Chinese Americans, and that the effects of genetic attributions for mental illness should be examined relative to other social, moral, and religious attributions common in Chinese culture.