Stigma and discrimination: A socio-cultural etiology of mental illness.

Abstract

Stigma and discrimination against mental illness represent chronic social stressors that can inflame psychiatric symptoms and limit functional adjustment. The implication is that the prevalence and severity of mental illness is determined, at least to a certain extent, by aversive socio-cultural factors. In a hostile social environment, these factors may seriously limit the effectiveness of professional interventions; whereas, removing social barriers to functioning often results in a favorable clinical outcome. For example, studies show that inclusive settings with supportive employment decrease psychiatric symptoms and the use of mental health services. By extrapolation, these results point to the possibility that a society-wide reduction in the prevalence and severity of mental illness may come from benevolent changes in the social climate, not just from innovative treatments. Public health policies rarely take this possibility into consideration in resource allocation decisions.

Self-stigma among criminal offenders: Risk and protective factors.

“…In short, people who internalize stigma are thought to perceive a great deal of stigma from community members (i.e., perceived stigma), agree with negative stereotypes about their group as a whole (i.e., stereotype agreement), and believe that stereotypes accurately reflect the self (Corrigan et al, 2006). Internalized stigma is considered detrimental to functioning because it is associated with low self-esteem (Corrigan et al, 2006), poor mental health/well-being (Levy, Celen-Demirtas, Surguladze, & Sweeney, 2014; Fuster-Ruizdeapodaca, Molero, Holgado, & Mayordomo, 2014), anticipated stigma (Earnshaw & Quinn, 2012), and risky behavior (Earnshaw, Bogart, Dovidio, & Williams, 2015). Compared to the other self-stigma components (i.e., perceived stigma, stereotype agreement), internalized stigma correlates most strongly with poor psychological well-being (Boyle, 2015; Corrigan et al, 2006; Schomerus et al, 2011), highlighting the importance of identifying risk and protective factors for this particular component of the self-stigma process.…”

The role of stigma during the course of inpatient psychotherapeutic treatment in a German sample

“…There is a broad body of research indicating that individuals suffering from psychological problems or being labelled as mentally ill are stigmatized (e.g., Corrigan & Watson, ; Levy, Celen‐Demirtas, Surguladze, & Sweeney, ; Sarkin et al, ). Stigma can be discussed in terms of self‐stigma and perceived public stigma (Gaudiano & Miller, ).…”

Institutional corruption in psychiatric research and practice: Implications for humanistic psychology.

“…Individual corruption is typically understood as a quid pro quo exchange that is clearly illegal or unethical. In contrast, institutional corruption arises from systematic practices (both within and outside of organizations or institutions) that are typically legal and normative but that nonetheless undermine the institution's integrity and public trust (Lessig, 2011). Over time, the core values and the mission of an organization may become compromised.…”

“…facilitates the development of social practices that support community and public health. That is, the problem is best characterized as a "bad barrel" rather than a "bad apple" problem (Lessig, 2011;Thompson, 2018). This characterization is intended to highlight the fact that institutional corruption does not result from the ethical failings of individuals, but rather from the degradation and distortion of institutional mores and practices (see e.g., the Safra Research Lab Working Paper Series, 2013).…”