essay on mental health and hygiene overcoming stigmas and misconceptions

Appointments at Mayo Clinic

Mental health: overcoming the stigma of mental illness.

False beliefs about mental illness can cause significant problems. Learn what you can do about stigma.

Stigma is when someone views you in a negative way because you have a distinguishing characteristic or personal trait that's thought to be, or actually is, a disadvantage (a negative stereotype). Unfortunately, negative attitudes and beliefs toward people who have a mental health condition are common.

Stigma can lead to discrimination. Discrimination may be obvious and direct, such as someone making a negative remark about your mental illness or your treatment. Or it may be unintentional or subtle, such as someone avoiding you because the person assumes you could be unstable, violent or dangerous due to your mental illness. You may even judge yourself.

Some of the harmful effects of stigma can include:

• Reluctance to seek help or treatment
• Lack of understanding by family, friends, co-workers or others
• Fewer opportunities for work, school or social activities or trouble finding housing
• Bullying, physical violence or harassment
• Health insurance that doesn't adequately cover your mental illness treatment
• The belief that you'll never succeed at certain challenges or that you can't improve your situation

Steps to cope with stigma

Here are some ways you can deal with stigma:

• Get treatment. You may be reluctant to admit you need treatment. Don't let the fear of being labeled with a mental illness prevent you from seeking help. Treatment can provide relief by identifying what's wrong and reducing symptoms that interfere with your work and personal life.
• Don't let stigma create self-doubt and shame. Stigma doesn't just come from others. You may mistakenly believe that your condition is a sign of personal weakness or that you should be able to control it without help. Seeking counseling, educating yourself about your condition and connecting with others who have mental illness can help you gain self-esteem and overcome destructive self-judgment.
• Don't isolate yourself. If you have a mental illness, you may be reluctant to tell anyone about it. Your family, friends, clergy or members of your community can offer you support if they know about your mental illness. Reach out to people you trust for the compassion, support and understanding you need.
• Don't equate yourself with your illness. You are not an illness. So instead of saying "I'm bipolar," say "I have bipolar disorder." Instead of calling yourself "a schizophrenic," say "I have schizophrenia."
• Join a support group. Some local and national groups, such as the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), offer local programs and internet resources that help reduce stigma by educating people who have mental illness, their families and the general public. Some state and federal agencies and programs, such as those that focus on vocational rehabilitation and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), offer support for people with mental illness.
• Get help at school. If you or your child has a mental illness that affects learning, find out what plans and programs might help. Discrimination against students because of a mental illness is against the law, and educators at primary, secondary and college levels are required to accommodate students as best they can. Talk to teachers, professors or administrators about the best approach and resources. If a teacher doesn't know about a student's disability, it can lead to discrimination, barriers to learning and poor grades.
• Speak out against stigma. Consider expressing your opinions at events, in letters to the editor or on the internet. It can help instill courage in others facing similar challenges and educate the public about mental illness.

Others' judgments almost always stem from a lack of understanding rather than information based on facts. Learning to accept your condition and recognize what you need to do to treat it, seeking support, and helping educate others can make a big difference.

There is a problem with information submitted for this request. Review/update the information highlighted below and resubmit the form.

From Mayo Clinic to your inbox

Sign up for free and stay up to date on research advancements, health tips, current health topics, and expertise on managing health. Click here for an email preview.

Error Email field is required

Error Include a valid email address

To provide you with the most relevant and helpful information, and understand which information is beneficial, we may combine your email and website usage information with other information we have about you. If you are a Mayo Clinic patient, this could include protected health information. If we combine this information with your protected health information, we will treat all of that information as protected health information and will only use or disclose that information as set forth in our notice of privacy practices. You may opt-out of email communications at any time by clicking on the unsubscribe link in the e-mail.

Thank you for subscribing!

You'll soon start receiving the latest Mayo Clinic health information you requested in your inbox.

Sorry something went wrong with your subscription

Please, try again in a couple of minutes

• StigmaFree me. National Alliance on Mental Illness. https://www.nami.org/Get-Involved/Take-the-stigmafree-Pledge/StigmaFree-Me. Accessed April 25, 2017.
• What is stigma? Why is it a problem? National Alliance on Mental Illness. https://www.nami.org/stigmafree. Accessed April 25, 2017.
• Stigma and mental illness. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/basics/stigma-illness.htm. Accessed April 25, 2017.
• Sickel AE, et al. Mental health stigma: Impact on mental health treatment attitudes and physical health. Journal of Health Psychology. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1359105316681430. Accessed April 25, 2017.
• Americans with Disabilities Act and mental illness. Womenshealth.gov. https://www.womenshealth.gov/mental-health/your-rights/americans-disability-act.html. Accessed April 25, 2017.
• Picco L, et al. Internalized stigma among psychiatric outpatients: Associations with quality of life, functioning, hope and self-esteem. Psychiatric Research. 2016;246:500.
• The civil rights of students with hidden disabilities under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/hq5269.html. Accessed May 2, 2017.
• Wong EC, et al. Effects of stigma and discrimination reduction trainings conducted under the California Mental Health Services Authority. Rand Health Quarterly. 2016;5:9.

Products and Services

• Newsletter: Mayo Clinic Health Letter — Digital Edition
• A Book: Mayo Clinic Family Health Book, 5th Edition
• Abdominal pain
• Alcohol use disorder
• Antidepressant withdrawal: Is there such a thing?
• Antidepressants and alcohol: What's the concern?
• Antidepressants and weight gain: What causes it?
• Antidepressants: Can they stop working?
• Antidepressants: Side effects
• Antidepressants: Selecting one that's right for you
• Antidepressants: Which cause the fewest sexual side effects?
• Are you thinking about suicide? How to stay safe and find treatment
• Atypical antidepressants
• Clinical depression: What does that mean?
• DBS for Tremor
• Deep brain stimulation
• Depression and anxiety: Can I have both?
• Depression, anxiety and exercise
• What is depression? A Mayo Clinic expert explains.
• Depression in women: Understanding the gender gap
• Depression (major depressive disorder)
• Depression: Supporting a family member or friend
• Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT)
• How opioid use disorder occurs
• How to tell if a loved one is abusing opioids
• Intervention: Help a loved one overcome addiction
• Kratom for opioid withdrawal
• Male depression: Understanding the issues
• MAOIs and diet: Is it necessary to restrict tyramine?
• Marijuana and depression
• Mental health providers: Tips on finding one
• Mental health
• Mental illness
• Mental illness in children: Know the signs
• Monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)
• Natural remedies for depression: Are they effective?
• Nervous breakdown: What does it mean?
• Opioid stewardship: What is it?
• Pain and depression: Is there a link?
• Passive-aggressive behavior
• Prescription drug abuse
• Psychotherapy
• Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)
• Serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs)
• Suicide: What to do when someone is thinking about suicide
• Suicide and suicidal thoughts
• Tapering off opioids: When and how
• Integrative approaches to treating pain
• Nutrition and pain
• Pain rehabilitation
• Self-care approaches to treating pain
• Thyroid scan
• Transcranial magnetic stimulation
• Treatment-resistant depression
• Tricyclic antidepressants and tetracyclic antidepressants
• Vagus nerve stimulation
• Video: Vagus nerve stimulation
• Violinist Still Making Music After DBS Surgery
• Vitamin B-12 and depression
• What are opioids and why are they dangerous?
• Mayo Clinic neurosurgeon Kendall H. Lee, M.D., Ph.D., describes deep brain stimulation research
• Mayo Clinic Minute: Do not share pain medication
• Mayo Clinic Minute: Avoid opioids for chronic pain
• Mayo Clinic Minute: Be careful not to pop pain pills

Mayo Clinic does not endorse companies or products. Advertising revenue supports our not-for-profit mission.

• Opportunities

Mayo Clinic Press

Check out these best-sellers and special offers on books and newsletters from Mayo Clinic Press .

• Mayo Clinic on Incontinence - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic on Incontinence
• The Essential Diabetes Book - Mayo Clinic Press The Essential Diabetes Book
• Mayo Clinic on Hearing and Balance - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic on Hearing and Balance
• FREE Mayo Clinic Diet Assessment - Mayo Clinic Press FREE Mayo Clinic Diet Assessment
• Mayo Clinic Health Letter - FREE book - Mayo Clinic Press Mayo Clinic Health Letter - FREE book
• Mental health Overcoming the stigma of mental illness

Your gift holds great power – donate today!

Make your tax-deductible gift and be a part of the cutting-edge research and care that's changing medicine.

Home — Essay Samples — Nursing & Health — Mental Health — Breaking the Stigma of Mental Health: Awareness and Acceptance

Breaking The Stigma of Mental Health: Awareness and Acceptance

• Categories: Mental Health

About this sample

Words: 761 |

Published: Sep 12, 2023

Words: 761 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

The complex nature of mental health stigma, the role of awareness in dismantling stigma, the transformative power of acceptance, impact on prevention, treatment, and recovery.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Nursing & Health

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

7 pages / 3006 words

5 pages / 2449 words

2 pages / 906 words

2 pages / 834 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Mental Health

The COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented global crisis, has left an indelible mark on individuals' lives, including its profound effects on mental health. This essay, titled "How Did the Pandemic Affect My Mental Health," [...]

Mental health stigma is a pervasive issue that hinders individuals from seeking help, perpetuates myths, and marginalizes those who experience mental health challenges. This essay explores the nature of mental health stigma in [...]

The relationship between mental illness and homelessness is a deeply intertwined and complex issue that affects individuals and communities across the globe. This essay delves into the multifaceted connection between mental [...]

The COVID-19 pandemic, a global crisis of unprecedented magnitude, has not only posed threats to physical health but has also had profound implications for mental well-being. This essay, titled "Impact of COVID-19 on Mental [...]

“Eat your vegetables! Exercise! Get a good night's sleep!” We’ve all known to take care of our bodies since grade school P. E. class. But what about our mental health, isn’t mental health just as important as physical health? [...]

Vincent Willem Van Gogh was one of the most influential post-impressionist artists of his time. He created a variety of painting in his life, mostly in his last years before he committed suicide following years of mental illness [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

• Compare ( )
• Create an Account

• Wellness Institute Blog
• Therapist Tips

Mental Health Awareness: Breaking the Stigma and Promoting Well-Being

Mental health is an integral part of our overall well-being, yet it has long been shrouded in stigma and misunderstanding. In recent years, however, there has been a significant shift in attitudes towards mental health, with growing awareness of its importance. In this blog post, we'll delve into the significance of raising awareness about mental health issues and explore the pivotal role mental health professionals play in reducing stigma and promoting well-being.

The Importance of Mental Health Awareness

Normalizing the Conversation

One of the primary reasons for promoting mental health awareness is to normalize the conversation around it. Just as we discuss physical health without hesitation, it's essential to talk about mental health openly. This normalization helps individuals feel more comfortable seeking help and support when they need it, reducing the stigma associated with mental health challenges.

Reducing Stigma

Stigma is one of the most significant barriers preventing individuals from seeking mental health care. Many people are afraid of being judged or ostracized if they admit to having mental health issues. By raising awareness and fostering understanding, we can break down these barriers and create an environment where individuals feel safe and supported in seeking help.

Early Intervention

Mental health awareness can lead to early intervention, which is crucial for better outcomes. When individuals recognize the signs of mental health issues in themselves or others, they can take proactive steps to seek professional help or offer support to their loved ones. Early intervention can prevent conditions from worsening and improve the chances of recovery.

Preventing Suicides

Tragically, suicide is a leading cause of death worldwide, often linked to untreated mental health conditions. Raising awareness can help identify individuals at risk and connect them with appropriate resources and support networks. It can also promote suicide prevention strategies and save lives.

The Role of Mental Health Professionals

Mental health professionals, including therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and counselors, play a critical role in reducing the stigma surrounding mental health. Here's how they contribute:

Providing Education

Mental health professionals educate the public about various mental health conditions, their symptoms, and available treatments. By dispelling myths and providing accurate information, they contribute to a better understanding of mental health issues.

Offering Support

Mental health professionals offer a safe and confidential space for individuals to discuss their concerns and struggles. Through therapy and counseling, they help people manage their conditions, develop coping strategies, and regain control of their lives.

Many mental health professionals are passionate advocates for their clients and the broader mental health community. They actively work to reduce stigma by speaking out against discrimination and promoting policies that support mental health.

Collaboration

Mental health professionals often collaborate with other healthcare providers, schools, workplaces, and community organizations to create a network of support for individuals experiencing mental health challenges. This collaboration helps ensure that people receive comprehensive care and support.

Raising awareness about mental health issues is a crucial step in breaking down the stigma that has long surrounded this important aspect of well-being. Mental health professionals play an indispensable role in this process, offering support, education, advocacy, and collaboration to create a more compassionate and understanding society. As we continue to promote mental health awareness, we move closer to a world where everyone can seek help without fear and enjoy the well-being they deserve. It's a journey worth undertaking for the benefit of individuals, families, and communities alike.

Curious about hypnosis?  Start with our Introduction to Hypnosis Training (2-Day Course)

• hypnotherapy
• relationship therapy
• Heart-Centered Hypnotherapy
• hypnotherapy certification and training
• hypnotherapy best practices
• anxiety therapy
• hypnotherapy practice
• recovery therapy
• eating disorder therapy
• depression therapy
• pain management
• PTSD therapy
• Overcoming Shock
• Sustance Addiction
• pregnancy and fertility
• sleep management
• complex PTSD therapy
• weight loss therapy
• cancer therapy
• Shadow Parts
• Hypnotherapy and Stress
• Personal Transformation
• All issues that hypnotherapy helps treat
• Hypnotherapy for ___
• Life Coaching
• Life Coaching Certification
• does hypnotherapy work?
• course guides
• transpersonal psychology
• wellness graduate school of psychology
• Therapist Advice
• Private Practice Tips
• Marketing Your Therapy Services
• working through the Pandemic
• Continuing Education
• Teletherapy
• Mindfulness
• Transactional Analysis
• Dissociation
• Transpersonal Coaching
• Mentors Program

• Frontiers in Psychology
• Psychopathology
• Research Topics

Stigma's Impact on People With Mental Illness: Advances in Understanding, Management, and Prevention

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

The understanding of stigma, its origins and its persistence among members of society has been a multidisciplinary scientific effort from Social and Human Sciences, and Health Sciences fields. In Psychiatry, stigma is an important cause of the patient suffering, discrimination and of avoiding ...

Keywords : Psychiatric Disorders, Stigma in Psychopathology, Psychoeducation, Misconception, Mental Health

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, recent articles, submission deadlines.

Submission closed.

Participating Journals

Total views.

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

• Appointments

Promoting Mental Health Awareness: Breaking the Stigma

• September 1, 2023

Awareness campaigns and forms of media about mental health have been instrumental in sparking conversations and changing attitudes in recent years. Despite the progress made, the stigma surrounding mental health issues continues to persist, often preventing individuals from seeking help or discussing their struggles openly. And the thing is, mental health problems are getting more common as we navigate the challenges of the modern world. From the pressures of a fast-paced lifestyle to the impacts of a global pandemic, more and more people are finding themselves grappling with various aspects of mental well-being. In fact, here in the US alone, about 1 in every 5 adults is living with a mental illness.

Now, let’s delve into how exactly we, as individuals and as a community, can play a pivotal role in breaking down these barriers and fostering an environment of understanding, empathy, and support for mental health.

Unlearning Stigmas, Misconceptions, and Toxic Beliefs

When it comes to mental health, it’s important to acknowledge that even well-intentioned individuals can harbor misconceptions or stigmas. These might stem from cultural, societal, or personal beliefs that have been ingrained over time.

Recognizing that the journey to unlearning that these stigmas are ongoing helps create an atmosphere of continuous growth and understanding. By being open to new information and challenging preconceived notions, we can actively work to break down the barriers that perpetuate mental health stigma.

People Can’t Just “Snap Out Of It”

One of the most harmful misconceptions surrounding mental health is the notion that individuals dealing with mental health challenges can simply “snap out of it” or “get over it.” This oversimplification undermines the complexity of mental health issues, which often require professional intervention, therapy, and support. As individuals, acknowledging that mental health struggles are not a matter of willpower but rather a complex interplay of biological, psychological, and environmental factors can already make a difference.

You Can’t Always Say It’s All “Part of God’s Plan”

While faith and spirituality can be sources of comfort for many, attributing mental health struggles solely to “God’s plan” can be dismissive of the real pain and challenges that individuals are facing. This perspective might discourage seeking professional help and hinder open conversations about mental well-being.

It’s also worth noting that not everyone may share your religious beliefs, and imposing a singular interpretation on matters as personal as mental health can alienate those who are seeking understanding and support. Instead, fostering an environment where faith and mental health can coexist is essential. This involves recognizing that seeking help and practicing self-care align with religious teachings that value well-being and compassion.

Starting the Change in Your Home

Unlearning toxic mindsets on mental health and educating yourself about its intricacies should be an ongoing process. But as you embark on this journey, remember that the impact can start right at your home.

Foster open conversations by initiating non-judgmental talks, share credible resources, and encourage self-care practices with the people you live with. By doing so, you create an environment where mental health is openly discussed, stigma is challenged, and understanding is nurtured, making a positive impact not only within your household but also in the broader community.

Getting Involved in the Community

Engaging with your community is a powerful way to break the stigma surrounding mental health. Participate in local events, workshops, or support groups dedicated to mental well-being. By showing up and sharing your insights, you contribute to creating an atmosphere of acceptance and understanding. Collaborating with community organizations focused on mental health advocacy can amplify your impact and promote positive change on a larger scale.

Using Your Voice 

If you’re someone who has influence, whether it’s as small as having a hundred followers on social media or as extensive as a large platform, recognize the impact your voice can have.

Share accurate information, personal stories, and messages of support related to mental health. Your advocacy can contribute to a more informed and empathetic society, where mental health is prioritized and support is readily available.

Being a Companion to Those Close to You

Supporting friends and family members who may be struggling is another meaningful way to break down barriers around mental health.

Listen actively and without judgment when they want to talk.

Offer a shoulder to lean on and encourage them to seek professional help if needed.

Your presence and understanding can make a world of difference in their journey toward healing.

Remember, sometimes the simple act of being there for someone can be a powerful form of support.

Positive Change Starts With You Today

Navigating the landscape of mental health stigma requires collective effort, and it begins with you.

By unlearning misconceptions, fostering understanding at home, engaging in the community, and using your voice, you become an agent of change.

Each step, no matter how small, contributes to a more compassionate world where mental well-being is embraced and supported.

Your actions today pave the way for a brighter, stigma-free future!

For more insightful discussions and tips on all things related to health, visit our website !

• Back to School
• Cardiovascular Health
• CoolSculpting
• Family Medicine
• Internal Medicine
• Medical Skin Care
• Mental Health
• Orthopedics
• PDF Download
• Uncategorized

Urgent Care

• Women's Health

Primary Care

Specialty care, women's health, care coordination.

• E-newsletters
• Podcasts & Blogs

Health Insurance

Online forms, virtual care.

• Holiday Hours
• Review a location

©2024 Stellis Health

Site designed by voila media group.

Albertville-St. Michael

Schedule appointment, virtual appointment.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Public Stigma of Mental Illness in the United States: A Systematic Literature Review

Angela m. parcesepe.

Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Leopoldo J. Cabassa

School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. New York State Center of Excellence for Cultural Competence, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA

Public stigma is a pervasive barrier that prevents many individuals in the U.S. from engaging in mental health care. This systematic literature review aims to: (1) evaluate methods used to study the public’s stigma toward mental disorders, (2) summarize stigma findings focused on the public’s stigmatizing beliefs and actions and attitudes toward mental health treatment for children and adults with mental illness, and (3) draw recommendations for reducing stigma towards individuals with mental disorders and advance research in this area. Public stigma of mental illness in the U.S. was widespread. Findings can inform interventions to reduce the public’s stigma of mental illness.

Introduction

Public stigma refers to a set of negative attitudes and beliefs that motivate individuals to fear, reject, avoid, and discriminate against people with mental illness ( Corrigan and Penn 1999 ). This type of stigma is associated with lack of engagement in mental health care and worse treatment outcomes (e.g., retention, adherence; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1999 ; New Freedom Commission on Mental Health 2003 ). Public stigma also results in discrimination, reduced autonomy and self-efficacy, and segregation ( Corrigan and Shapiro 2010 ; Pescosolido et al. 2007a ). For instance, individuals with mental illness are more likely to experience housing and employment discrimination and homelessness compared to people without mental illness ( Corbiere et al. 2011 ; Corrigan et al. 2006 ; Corrigan and Shapiro 2010 ). Furthermore, stigmatizing beliefs about the competency of individuals with mental illness compromise individuals’ financial autonomy, restrict opportunities, and may lead to coercive treatment and reduced independence (e.g., through institutionalization; Corrigan and Shapiro 2010 ; Pescosolido et al. 2007a ). In all, public stigma toward mental illness matters as it “sets the context in which individuals in the community respond to the onset of mental health problems, clinicians respond to individuals who come for treatment, and public policy is crafted” ( Pescosolido et al. 2010 , p. 1324).

Over the past 25 years, numerous population-based studies have documented the levels of public stigma toward common mental disorders in the United States (U.S.). The Etiology and Effects of Stigma (EES) Model, developed by Martin et al. (2007) , grows out of this emerging public stigma literature and presents a framework for understanding the factors that shape public stigma towards people with mental illness. The EES model posits that sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race, age, socioeconomic status) of both the individual with a mental disorder and the public influence the public’s recognition, causal attributions, and assessment of individuals with mental illness ( Martin et al. 2007 ). These attributions and assessments encompass individuals’ beliefs about the causes, nature, and severity of the mental disorder, their expected outcomes, and their views about the usefulness and perceived effectiveness of treatments. In turn, these attributions and assessments are hypothesized to shape the public’s stigmatizing beliefs and actions which can lead to stereotypes, discriminatory behaviors, and negative attitudes toward treatments.

Despite the growing number of population-based studies, to our knowledge, no systematic literature review currently exists that examines public stigma toward mental illness in the U.S. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic literature review to: (1) evaluate methods used to study the public’s stigma toward mental disorders; (2) summarize stigma findings focused on the public’s stigmatizing beliefs and actions and attitudes toward mental health treatments for children and adults with mental illness; and (3) draw recommendations for reducing public stigma towards individuals with mental disorders and advance research in this area. We use the EES as an organizing framework to present the results of our review, summarize common factors that shape the public’s stigma toward children and adults with mental disorders, and identify targets for anti-stigma interventions.

Literature Search Strategy

Electronic bibliographic databases (i.e., PubMed, Medline, PsychInfo, Social Science Abstract) and manual searches were used to identify relevant publications. The following combinations of keywords were used to guide our search: mental illness, mental health, mental disorders, attitudes, beliefs, stigma, public opinion, and United States. Through these search terms 3,286 articles were initially identified. Abstracts of articles were then reviewed for relevance. Published articles in peer review journals were chosen if they met the following criteria: (1) used community probability samples of non-institutionalized adults or children residing in the U.S. and (2) reported findings relevant to stigma towards mental illness, such as attitudes toward mental health treatments, stigmatizing beliefs, and stigmatizing actions. Of the 3,286 articles initially identified 3,250 were rejected for one or more of the following reasons: not including a nationally representative sample, not focusing on the U. S., focusing on mental health interventions, analyzing mental health related measures, or being a conceptual or review piece. Thirty-six articles met our inclusion criteria and are the focus of our review.

Analytical Strategy

An abstraction form based on Lipsey and Wilson’s (2001) recommendations was used to code study aims, research questions and/or hypotheses, study designs, sampling strategies, measurements for independent and dependent variables, data analysis strategies, findings, main conclusions, and implications. Two reviewers working independently completed a review form for each article. Reviewers then met to compare and discuss their respective abstractions and reach consensus in instances where differences were found. This analytical approach enabled us to systematically review the existing evidence, identify patterns in research methodology and findings, and provide a comprehensive evaluation of the literature.

Study Characteristics

Thirty-six articles covering 18 population-based studies were included in this review (see Table 1 ). Twenty of these articles included secondary data analysis of the 1996, 1998, 2002, or 2006 versions of the General Social Survey (GSS). The 1996, 1998, 2002, and 2006 surveys included special modules (e.g., MacArthur Mental Health Module, Pressing Issues in Health and Medical Care) designed to document the public’s views of common mental disorders and mental health treatments. The 1998 and 2002 surveys included questions about children’s mental health. The 2002 GSS included the National Stigma Study-Children module which asked respondents about their assessment, recognition, help-seeking preferences, causal attributions, and stigma related to children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or major depression. The GSS has been conducted since 1972 by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago and is considered one of the top U.S. public opinion surveys ( Kuppin and Carpiano 2006 ). This survey uses a full probability sample of non-institutionalized adults in the U.S. and is conducted biennially ( Schnittker et al. 2000 ).

Study characteristics

GSS General Social Survey, HI Harris Interactive, NCS National Comorbidity Survey, NCS-R National Comorbidity Survey Replication, ECA Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study, GDS Genes, Disease, and Stigma Study, AVTM Americans View Their Mental Health Survey, KNP Knowledge Networks Panel Survey, Y yes, N no, W White, NW non-White, AA African American/Black, AI American Indian, API Asian or Pacific Islander, H Hispanic/Latino, O Other, ADHD Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, ODD Oppositional Defiant Disorder, A Adults, C Children

Six articles used data from the National Comorbidity Survey and/or the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Two articles examined a study administered by Harris Interactive (HI) which has a membership of over six million individuals who participate in online surveys. HI is a member of the Council of American Survey Research Organizations and acts in accordance with the Standards and Ethics for Survey Research ( Walker et al. 2008 ). Child respondents aged 8 and older were children of adult members of HI and were randomly selected from HI’s membership base. Age and sex of respondents were weighted to represent the U.S. population. Weighted samples from HI have been shown to be comparable to random samples of the U.S. population ( Coleman et al. 2009 ; Walker et al. 2008 ). Two articles analyzed data from the Human Genome Project. One article analyzed data from a national probability sample of individuals surveyed about their attitudes towards homeless and homeless mentally ill people. One article analyzed primary data. Seven articles used data from the Family Stigma Survey, Mental Illness Stigma Study, Yale Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study, the Star 1950 Survey, the Genes Disease and Stigma Study, the 1957 and 1976 Americans View Their Mental Health Surveys, or the Knowledge Networks Panel Survey.

Twenty-eight articles conducted cross-sectional analysis. Eight articles conducted cohort longitudinal analysis comparing two or more panels of data. Vignette methodologies in which respondents were randomly assigned to hear descriptions of individuals with common mental disorders (e.g., major depression, ADHD) were used in 23 articles to assess different dimensions of stigma (e.g., recognition, causes). Twenty-six articles ( Anglin et al. 2006 , 2008 ; Blumner and Marcus 2009 ; Boyd et al. 2010 ; Corrigan and Watson 2007 ; Corrigan et al. 2009 ; Croghan et al. 2003 ; Diala et al. 2000 ; Diala et al. 2001 ; Gonzalez et al. 2005 , 2009 ; Kuppin and Carpiano 2006 ; Leaf et al. 1987 ; Link et al. 1999 ; Martin et al. 2000 ; Mojtabai 2007 , 2009 ; Pescosolido et al. 1999 , 2010 ; Phelan et al. 2000 , 2006 ; Schnittker et al. 2000 ; Shim et al. 2009 ; Swindle et al. 2000 ; Whaley 1997 ; Wirth and Bodenhausen 2009 ) surveyed adults about perceptions of mental illness among adults, seven ( Martin et al. 2007 ; McLeod et al. 2004 , 2007 ; Mukolo and Heflinger 2011 ; Pescosolido et al. 2007a , b , 2008 ) surveyed adults about perceptions of mental illness among children, two ( Coleman et al. 2009 ; Walker et al. 2008 ) surveyed children about perceptions of mental illness among children, and one ( Perry et al. 2007 ) compared adults’ perceptions of mental illness among adults and children.

Study sample sizes ranged from 172 to 5,877. All the articles included in this review were published within the past 25 years, with the majority (94 %) published since 2000. Thirty articles included racial and ethnic comparisons. Table 1 illustrates outcomes examined for each article which included: stigmatizing beliefs, stigmatizing actions, and attitudes toward mental health treatments. Articles in this review examined public stigma towards descriptions of adults with depression, schizophrenia, alcohol dependency, and/or drug dependency and children with depression, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). In the following sections, we summarize study results organized by study outcomes. We present the general results of all studies and prioritize, when available, multivariate results.

Stigma Findings

As previously mentioned, the EES Model was used to organize our results (see Fig. 1 ). Overall, analysis of the 36 articles included in this review found that sociodemographic characteristics of the respondent and the target individual, personal contact with individuals with mental illness, and causal attributions were associated with stigmatizing beliefs, stigmatizing actions, and attitudes towards mental health treatments. Stigmatizing beliefs were associated with stigmatizing actions and attitudes toward mental health treatment. Assessment of mental illness and treatment was associated with attitudes towards mental health treatment.

Summary of literature review findings. Note . The EES Model ( Martin et al. 2007 ) was used as an organizing framework for this figure

Stigmatizing Beliefs

Four articles examined the public’s stigmatizing beliefs of children with mental illness ( Perry et al. 2007 ; Pescosolido et al. 2007a , b ; Walker et al. 2008 ) and eleven examined the public’s stigmatizing beliefs of adults with mental illness ( Anglin et al. 2006 ; Boyd et al. 2010 ; Corrigan and Watson 2007 ; Corrigan et al. 2009 ; Link et al. 1999 ; Martin et al. 2000 ; Pescosolido et al. 1999 , 2010 ; Phelan et al. 2000 ; Whaley 1997 ; Wirth and Bodenhausen 2009 ). Articles explored perceptions of dangerousness, criminality, shame, and blame of children with mental illness and perceptions of incompetency, dangerousness, blame, and punishment of adults with mental illness.

Perceptions of individuals with mental illness as dangerous to themselves and others are widespread among the general public ( Link et al. 1999 ; Martin et al. 2000 ; Perry et al. 2007 ; Pescosolido et al. 1999 , 2007a ; Walker et al. 2008 ). Among adults, children with depression or ADHD were viewed as significantly more dangerous to others and themselves as compared to children with daily troubles or children with asthma ( Pescosolido et al. 2007a ). Similarly, children viewed peers with ADHD or depression as significantly more likely to be violent than peers with asthma ( Walker et al. 2008 ). Adult respondents viewed adults with schizophrenia, depression, alcohol dependence, or drug dependence as more likely to be violent to others, compared to a person with ‘normal’ troubles ( Martin et al. 2000 ; Pescosolido et al. 1999 ). Adult respondents were also significantly more likely to report a person with mental illness or a person addicted to drugs as dangerous, as compared to a person in a wheelchair ( Corrigan et al. 2009 ).

Perceptions of individuals with mental illness as dangerous have increased over time. Among adults who associated mental illness with psychosis, the odds of describing a person with mental illness as violent in 1996 were 2.3 times the odds of describing a person with mental illness as violent in 1950 ( Phelan et al. 2000 ). More recently, however, perceptions of dangerousness appear to have stabilized. Between 1996 and 2006, no significant differences were found in the public’s perceptions of dangerousness of adults with schizophrenia or depression ( Pescosolido et al. 2010 ).

Perceptions of dangerousness varied by mental disorder. Adults with drug dependence disorders were consistently viewed as the most likely of mental disorders investigated to be dangerous to themselves and others ( Corrigan et al. 2009 ; Link et al. 1999 ; Martin et al. 2000 ). Adults with schizophrenia and alcohol abuse were also perceived as likely to be dangerous to themselves and others and more likely to be dangerous to others compared to those with depression ( Anglin et al. 2006 ; Link et al. 1999 ; Martin et al. 2000 ). Adults with depression were perceived as likely to be dangerous to themselves ( Pescosolido et al. 1999 ). Similarly, adult respondents viewed children with depression as likely to be dangerous to themselves, with the overwhelming majority of respondents viewing a child with depression as dangerous to him/herself ( Pescosolido et al. 2007a ). Children with depression were viewed as more dangerous to themselves than children with ADHD ( Pescosolido et al. 2007a ).

Perceptions of dangerousness were associated with causal attributions of mental illness. Causal attributions of genetics or chemical imbalance increased the odds of perceiving a person with schizophrenia as dangerous to themselves and others and a person with depression as dangerous toward themself ( Pescosolido et al. 2010 ). These associations persisted from 1996 to 2006. In 2006, causal attributions of genetics or chemical imbalance also increased the odds of perceiving a person with depression as dangerous toward others ( Pescosolido et al. 2010 ).

Perceptions of dangerousness also varied by sociodemographic characteristics. Children with depression were seen as more likely to be violent toward others than adults with depression ( Perry et al. 2007 ). Compared to boys, girls were viewed as less dangerous both to self and others. Older children (14 years as compared to 8 years old) were viewed as less dangerous to others. Among adults, race was associated with perception of dangerousness. African American, Asian or Pacific Islander (API), and Hispanic individuals were more likely than White individuals to believe that individuals with mental illness are dangerous ( Anglin et al. 2006 ; Corrigan and Watson 2007 ; Whaley 1997 ). Education was negatively associated with dangerousness with higher levels of education related to perceiving people with mental illness as less dangerous to themselves and others ( Corrigan and Watson 2007 ; Pescosolido et al. 1999 ). Personal contact with someone with mental illness was associated with decreased perceptions of dangerousness ( Whaley 1997 ). However, the relationship between contact and perceptions of dangerousness varied by race. Among White individuals, increased contact was associated with decreased levels of perceived dangerousness. This relationship was not observed for Black, API, or Hispanic individuals ( Whaley 1997 ).

Studies also explored individuals’ beliefs about shame, blame, and punishment of individuals with mental illness. Child respondents believed that having a mental illness (i.e. depression or ADHD) was more shameful than having asthma, with depression more shameful than ADHD ( Walker et al. 2008 ). Similarly, child respondents were more likely to blame the parents if a child has a mental illness (i.e. ADHD, depression) than if a child has asthma, and more likely to blame the parents if the child has depression than ADHD ( Walker et al. 2008 ). Adult respondents were less likely to believe that individuals with schizophrenia should be blamed or punished for violent behavior, as compared to those with depression ( Anglin et al. 2006 ).

Beliefs about blame and punishment varied by sociodemographic characteristics. African American adults were less likely than White adults to believe that such individuals should be blamed or punished for violent behavior ( Anglin et al. 2006 ). Age and political orientation were associated with perceptions of blame and punishment. Respondents who were younger and those who were more conservative were more likely to believe that individuals should be blamed and punished for violent behavior, compared to those who were older and less conservative ( Anglin et al. 2006 ). Women and those who were Protestant were less likely to believe that those with mental illness should be blamed for their behavior, compared to men and those who were not Protestant ( Anglin et al. 2006 ). Income was positively associated with believing that individuals with mental illness should be punished for violent behavior ( Anglin et al. 2006 ).

The public also endorsed stigmatizing beliefs of the competency of individuals with mental illness. Children with mental illness were more likely to be viewed as lazy than children with asthma, with children with depression viewed as lazier than child with ADHD ( Walker et al. 2008 ). Adults with mental illness were viewed as less competent to make treatment-related and financial decisions as compared to ‘troubled’ individuals ( Pescosolido et al. 1999 ). Perceived competency varied by mental disorder. Adults with schizophrenia and drug abuse disorders were perceived to be less competent to make treatment-related and financial decisions compared to individuals with depression, with the overwhelming majority of respondents viewing individuals with drug dependence as not competent to make financial decisions ( Pescosolido et al. 1999 ). Age of respondents influenced views of treatment-related and financial competency with older individuals viewing people with mental illness as less competent ( Pescosolido et al. 1999 ).

Lastly, the public endorsed stigmatizing beliefs of the criminality of individuals with mental illness. For example, children viewed peers with mental illness as more likely to “get into trouble” than peers with asthma, with peers with depression more likely to “get into trouble” than peers with ADHD ( Walker et al. 2008 ).

Stigmatizing Actions

Four articles examined stigmatizing actions towards children with mental illness ( Coleman et al. 2009 ; Martin et al. 2007 ; Mukolo and Heflinger 2011 ; Walker et al. 2008 ) and six examined stigmatizing actions towards adults with mental illness ( Boyd et al. 2010 ; Corrigan and Watson 2007 ; Corrigan et al. 2009 ; Link et al. 1999 ; Martin et al. 2000 ; Pescosolido et al. 2010 ). In all of these articles, stigmatizing actions were assessed through questions about preferences for social distance from individuals with mental illness. Social distance is a measure of exclusion of individuals in a variety of social situations (e.g., unwilling to work closely with someone, to have someone as a neighbor, to have someone marry into your family) because of their mental illness ( Boyd et al. 2010 ). Social distance was the primary mechanism for researching and measuring stigmatizing actions in these articles.

Social distance from adults and children with mental illness was widespread among the general population. The preferences for social distance from children were significantly higher for ADHD and depression, compared to asthma and normal or daily troubles ( Martin et al. 2007 ; Mukolo and Heflinger 2011 ). Adult respondents endorsed a greater desire for social distance from individuals with schizophrenia, depression, alcohol dependence, or drug dependence than from a person with ‘normal’ troubles ( Link et al. 1999 ; Martin et al. 2000 ). Adult respondents were also significantly more likely to report avoiding a person with mental illness or a person addicted to drugs than a person in a wheelchair ( Corrigan et al. 2009 ).

Social distance varied by mental illness. Among adults, social distance was greatest for those with drug abuse disorders, followed by alcohol abuse, schizophrenia and depression ( Link et al. 1999 ; Martin et al. 2000 ). In the same studies, the overwhelming majority of respondents (72–90 %) endorsed desire for social distance from an adult with cocaine dependence; over one-third (38–47 %) also endorsed a desire for social distance from individuals with depression ( Link et al. 1999 ; Martin et al. 2000 ). Respondents were more likely to report avoiding a person with drug addiction compared to those with another mental illness ( Corrigan et al. 2009 ). Overall, stigma towards adults with mental illness appears relatively stable over time. Between 1996 and 2006, there was no significant decrease in preference for social distance towards individuals with schizophrenia, alcohol dependence, or depression ( Pescosolido et al. 2010 ). However, significantly more individuals were unwilling to have an individual with schizophrenia as a neighbor and to have a person with alcohol dependence marry into their family in 2006 as compared to 1996 ( Pescosolido et al. 2010 ).

Among children, no significant difference was found in preference for social distance from peers with ADHD compared to peers with depression ( Walker et al. 2008 ). Among adults, there was a trend towards greater preference for social distance from children with ADHD compared to children with depression ( Martin et al. 2007 ).

Social distance varied by perceived causal attributions of mental disorders and perceptions of dangerousness. Among children, causal attributions of parenting, low effort, substance abuse, and stress were correlated with social distance while causal attributions of brain differences, genetics and God’s will were not ( Coleman et al. 2009 ). Among adults, child- and family-blaming attributions of bad character and lack of discipline in the home were associated with increased social distance from children with mental illness ( Martin et al. 2007 ; Mukolo and Heflinger 2011 ). However, a composite measure of parental blaming attributions (i.e., way child was raised, lack of discipline in the home and/or watching violent TV) was not associated with social distance from children with mental illness ( Mukolo and Heflinger 2011 ). Preference for social distance from adults with mental illness was reduced when causes were viewed as stress-related ( Martin et al. 2000 ). Findings regarding the association between genetic or biological causal attributions and social distance from adults with mental illness were equivocal. When examined individually, Martin et al. (2000) found that genetic causal attributions decreased social distance from individuals with mental illness. However, a composite measure of neurobiological causal attribution (i.e., genetics and/or chemical imbalance) was either unrelated or increased preference for social distance from individuals with schizophrenia, depression, and alcohol dependence ( Pescosolido et al. 2010 ). Perception of dangerousness to self and others was positively associated with preferences for social distance from adults and children with mental illness ( Martin et al. 2000 , 2007 ). Positive contact with someone with mental illness reduced desire for social distance from individuals with mental illness ( Boyd et al. 2010 ).

Several sociodemographic characteristics were associated with social distance. Adult respondents preferred greater social distance from children who are older (14 years old as compared to 8 years old; Martin et al. 2007 ). In addition, there was a positive association between adult respondents’ age and social distance in that as age increased preference for social distance from the vignette child’s family increased. Overall, women expressed less preference for social distance than men ( Martin et al. 2007 ). Findings are equivocal as to whether race influences preferences for social distance. Martin et al. (2007) did not find a significant relationship between race and preference for social distance. However, Mukolo and Heflinger (2011) found that compared to White respondents, Black respondents preferred greater social distance from children with mental illness, but not from the child’s family. There was a negative relationship between education and social distance from both the child and the child’s family in that as years of education increased preference for social distance from the child and the family decreased ( Mukolo and Heflinger 2011 ). People with higher incomes endorsed greater social distance ( Mukolo and Heflinger 2011 ). Among children, however, there was no significant relationship between social distance and school location, region, grade level, or sex ( Walker et al. 2008 ).

Attitudes Toward Mental Health Treatments

Twenty-three articles examined the public’s attitudes toward mental health treatments in the following three areas: (1) global attitudes towards mental health treatment seeking, (2) treatment recommendations and preferences, and (3) attitudes toward psychiatric medications. Results for each of these areas are summarized below.

Seven articles ( Anglin et al. 2008 ; Diala et al. 2000 , 2001 ; Gonzalez et al. 2005 , 2009 ; Mojtabai 2007 ; Shim et al. 2009 ) examined attitudes toward seeking professional mental health treatments using the following global indicators: willingness to seek professional help, comfort talking to a professional about emotional problems, perceived effectiveness of professional treatments, and perceived stigma associated with seeking professional care (e.g., feeling embarrassed if friends knew you were getting professional help for an emotional problem).

In general, the American public seems to hold positive attitudes toward seeking professional help for mental health problems and these attitudes seem to be improving over time. Mojtabai (2007) found that between 1990 and 2003 there were modest improvements in individuals reporting been willing, comfortable, and less embarrassed seeking professional help for a mental health problem. However, no significant changes in this time period were observed regarding the public’s perceptions of the effectiveness of mental health treatments or the likelihood of recovering from a mental illness without formal treatments. In both years, the public estimated that more than half of people with an emotional problem who see a professional are helped and that less than half of those who do not obtain professional help recover ( Mojtabai 2007 ).

Studies also revealed that global attitudes towards seeking mental health treatment vary by sociodemographic characteristics and past exposure to mental health treatments. Older age and being female have been found to be associated with endorsing positive attitudes toward mental health treatments ( Gonzalez et al. 2005 ). In fact, younger males (i.e., 15–17, 18–24) tend to report more negative attitudes toward mental health treatments than younger females ( Gonzalez et al. 2005 ). In terms of racial and ethnic differences, no differences in global attitudes were reported between Latinos and Whites after adjusting for socioeconomic status ( Gonzalez et al. 2005 ; Shim et al. 2009 ). African Americans, however, consistently reported more positive attitudes toward mental health treatment in willingness and comfort in talking with a professional, believing that mental health professionals can help people with schizophrenia and major depression, and feeling less embarrassed if friends knew they were seeking professional help compared to non-Hispanic whites, after adjusting for socioeconomic variables ( Anglin et al. 2008 ; Diala et al. 2000 , 2001 ; Gonzalez et al. 2005 , 2009 ; Shim et al. 2009 ). However, African Americans were also more likely than Whites to believe that mental health problems would improve on their own. This belief was not found to be related to their positive predisposition toward the effectiveness of professional mental health care. Interestingly, among African Americans with and without a need for mental health care (e.g., those who experienced a major depressive episode) these positive attitudes seemed to turn negative once they were exposed to mental health services ( Diala et al. 2000 ).

Lastly, the interactions of these global attitudes with age, race/ethnicity, gender, and education are associated with past use of mental health care in both specialty and general medical care settings ( Gonzalez et al. 2009 ). For the use of specialty care, increased use was related to: African Americans endorsing more positive beliefs of treatment effectiveness, non-Latino whites and Latinos endorsing greater comfort levels talking to a professional, males endorsing greater willingness to seek help, and people with higher educational levels (e.g., college degree) reporting greater willingness to seek help. For the use of general medical care for mental health issues, increased use was associated with: African Americans endorsing greater willingness to seek help, non-Latino Whites and Latinos endorsing strong beliefs in treatment effectiveness, people with high school education endorsing greater willingness to seek help, and people with some college endorsing greater comfort level and more positive beliefs in treatment effectiveness.

Twelve articles reported the public’s opinions regarding treatment recommendations and preferences. Eight studies examined the public’s treatment recommendations for adults ( Blumner and Marcus 2009 ; Kuppin and Carpiano 2006 ; Leaf et al. 1987 ; Pescosolido et al. 1999 , 2010 ; Phelan et al. 2006 ; Schnittker et al. 2000 ; Swindle et al. 2000 ), three examined the public’s treatment recommendations for children ( McLeod et al. 2007 ; Pescosolido et al. 2007a , b , 2008 ), and one compared treatment recommendations for adults and children ( Perry et al. 2007 ).

Studies that focused on treatment recommendations for adults with mental illness consistently reported that the public endorses both informal and formal sources of treatment as viable approaches to cope with emotional distress (e.g., “nervous breakdown”) and common mental disorders (e.g., depression). For example, two studies that examined changes over time in the public’s attitudes toward mental health treatments found that informal sources of care, such as talking to family members, friends, spiritual leaders or clergy, were commonly endorsed options for depression ( Blumner and Marcus 2009 ) and for a “nervous breakdown” ( Swindle et al. 2000 ). Kuppin and Carpiano (2006) also found that all non-biological based treatments (e.g., therapist, self-help groups, talking to a friend, talking to clergy) were endorsed more frequently than biological-based ones (e.g., visiting a psychiatrist, prescription medications) for depression, schizophrenia, alcohol and substance abuse.

These general preferences for informal sources of help and for non-biologically based treatments do not preclude the American public from also endorsing more formal sources of mental health care. In fact, longitudinal studies that track changes in the public’s attitudes toward mental health care have found that the public has become more receptive towards more formal, biological-based treatments over time, particularly for more serious mental illnesses ( Blumner and Marcus 2009 ; Pescosolido et al. 2010 ; Swindle et al. 2000 ). Pescosolido et al. (2010) reported that between 1996 and 2006 there were significant increases in the public’s endorsement of formal mental health treatments from both general and specialty care settings and for the use of prescription medications. Blumner and Marcus (2009) also found that during the same ten-year period the public’s endorsement of biological-based treatments (e.g., visiting a psychiatrist, taking prescription medications) increased significantly for depression, particularly among respondents that were White, had a high school education, and lived in urban areas.

Treatment preferences, however, vary by mental disorder. For example, hospitalization was not a commonly supported treatment option for depression and alcohol dependence, but was commonly supported for schizophrenia ( Pescosolido et al. 2010 ). Moreover, support for hospitalization of individuals with schizophrenia increased significantly between 1996 and 2006 ( Pescosolido et al. 2010 ). In general, the public endorsed biologically-based treatments for depression and schizophrenia but was reluctant to endorse such treatments for substance abuse disorders ( Kuppin and Carpiano 2006 ). Other forms of treatments, like self-help groups and counseling, were viewed as more appropriate for treatment of substance use disorders ( Kuppin and Carpiano 2006 ).

Moreover, the public’s support for coercive mental health treatment (e.g., forced hospitalization and medication) varied by disorder and perceptions of danger, competence, and violence. Coercive mental health treatments were more readily endorsed for schizophrenia and drug dependence, as compared to depression and alcohol dependence ( Pescosolido et al. 1999 ). Recommendations for coercive mental health treatment, particularly forced hospitalization, increased when the person was viewed as less competent to make treatment decisions and to be a danger to self or others ( Pescosolido et al. 1999 ).

The public’s causal attributions of mental disorders also influenced preferences for treatment. Endorsing neurobiological (e.g., chemical imbalance) or genetic causal attributions of common mental disorders (e.g., depression, schizophrenia) significantly increased the odds of endorsing biological-based treatments, particularly more extreme forms, such as use of prescription medications and hospitalization ( Pescosolido et al. 2010 ; Phelan et al. 2006 ; Schnittker et al. 2000 ). Phelan et al. (2006) also found that endorsing genetic attributions for schizophrenia and depression did not increase the public’s belief in the effectiveness of mental health treatments and in some cases led to greater pessimism about the effectiveness of mental health treatments.

Treatment recommendations for children focused mostly on ADHD and depression. The most popular treatment recommendations for ADHD were a combination of medication and counseling followed by counseling alone, no treatment, and medication alone ( McLeod et al. 2007 ). The most popular sources of help for ADHD were teachers, doctors, and mental health professionals (e.g., psychologists), followed by family/friends, psychiatrists, and taking the child to a hospital ( Pescosolido et al. 2008 ). For depression, the most popular sources of help were mental health professionals, doctors, teachers and psychiatrists, followed by family/friends, and taking the child to the hospital ( Pescosolido et al. 2008 ). Across studies, the most consistent variables associated with recommending formal mental health treatments for children with ADHD and depression were identifying the conditions as ‘real’ mental illnesses and perceptions of illness severity and dangerousness ( McLeod et al. 2007 ; Pescosolido et al. 2008 ).

Sociodemographic characteristics were modestly and inconsistently associated with treatment recommendations for children with ADHD and depression. For example, African Americans were more likely than whites to prefer counseling or a combination of counseling and medication over no treatment for treating ADHD in children ( McLeod et al. 2007 ), but also reported being less willing than whites to seek advice for depression and ADHD from teachers and parents and less likely to consult both teachers and mental health professionals ( Pescosolido et al. 2008 ).

The public was most willing to support coercive treatments (e.g. forced outpatient visits, medications or hospitalizations) for children with asthma as compared to children with ADHD and depression and reported slight differences in their recommendations of forced treatments for these two mental disorders ( Pescosolido et al. 2007a ). Compared to a child with “daily troubles,” respondents were more likely to support forced treatments for the child with depression across all three treatment types (i.e., out-patient visits, medications and hospitalization). For children with ADHD, however, respondents were only more likely to support forced outpatient visits as compared to the child with “daily troubles”, but not willing to force children with ADHD to take medications or be admitted to a hospital ( Pescosolido et al. 2007a ).

Several sociodemographic and attitudinal factors influenced the public’s endorsement of forced treatments for children with ADHD and depression ( Pescosolido et al. 2007a ). The public was less supportive of clinical or hospital-based treatments for fourteen-year olds compared to eight-year-olds with mental disorders. African Americans, those from “other” races, and older respondents were more supportive of coerced clinical visits, medications, and hospitalizations. Using the label of mental illness and perceptions of dangerousness were consistently related to supporting coercive treatments for children with ADHD and depression ( Pescosolido et al. 2007a ). Similarly, the public was more likely to endorse forcing children with depression to receive formal mental health treatments (e.g., visiting a physician or psychiatrist, going to a mental health clinic) than forcing adults with depression, particularly if they endorsed the belief that children with depression are more likely than adults with depression to be violent toward others ( Perry et al. 2007 ).

Four articles ( Croghan et al. 2003 ; McLeod et al. 2004 ; Mojtabai 2009 ; Pescosolido et al. 2007b ) examined the public’s attitudes toward psychiatric medications. The following attitudinal dimensions were studied: willingness to take medications for different circumstances (e.g., personal troubles, feeling depressed, intense fear, going crazy), willingness to give medications to children for different conditions (e.g., oppositional defiant disorder, ADHD, depression), perceived effectiveness of psychiatric medications, and opinions about concerns and risks of psychiatric medications for children and adults.

The two studies ( Croghan et al. 2003 ; Mojtabai 2009 ) that examined the public’s attitudes towards psychiatric medications for adults present a complex picture. The American public tends to endorse positive attitudes toward the effectiveness of psychiatric medications in relieving symptoms of emotional problems for adults, but also expresses serious concerns about the use of these medications, particularly that they may be harmful. Many respondents were unwilling to use psychiatric medications for most situations presented. These attitudes, however, seemed to have become more favorable over time (from 1998 to 2006) in terms of the public’s opinions regarding the benefits of psychiatric medications and their willingness to use them, particularly for panic attacks and depression ( Mojtabai 2009 ). However, the public’s concerns about the use of these medications (e.g., harmful to the body) did not show significant changes during this same time period (1996–2006). Factors associated with the public’s willingness to use psychiatric medications for adults included: endorsing the effectiveness of medications, not having concerns about side effects, being female, having fewer than 12 years of education, being divorced or separated, having familiarity with the mental health system, and being in poor or fair health ( Croghan et al. 2003 ). Moreover, racial/ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans, were less willing to take psychiatric medications compared to Whites ( Mojtabai 2009 ).

The two studies ( McLeod et al. 2004 ; Pescosolido et al. 2007b ) that examined the public’s attitudes and use of psychiatric medications for children showed that there still exists substantial stigma associated with the use of these medications for children. For example, McLeod et al. (2004) reported that the public does not endorse the use of these medications for oppositional defiant disorders and ADHD; the public remains cautious about the use of medications, particularly Prozac, even for a case that described suicidal statements. Similarly, Pescosolido et al. (2007b) found that the majority of their sample endorsed negative attitudes toward psychiatric medications for children including beliefs that the use of medications: has negative developmental effects, blunts children’s personalities, and prevents families from working out problems, among others. Factors associated with the public’s willingness to use psychiatric medications in children include: trust in one’s personal physician, perceived efficacy of these medications, and the respondents own willingness to take psychiatric medications. In addition, individuals who reported negative experiences with someone with mental illness were significantly less likely to endorse the use of psychiatric medications for children ( Pescosolido et al. 2007b ).

Our literature review was conducted to summarize findings from population-based studies in the U.S. in order to inform future research and interventions to reduce public stigma of individuals with mental illness. Children and adults endorsed stigmatizing beliefs of people with mental illness, especially the belief that such individuals are prone to violent behaviors, and stigmatizing actions, in the form of social distance. Stigmatizing beliefs about the dangerousness of people with mental illness have increased over time. Beliefs of shame, blame, incompetency, punishment, and criminality of people with mental illness are common. Stigmatizing beliefs and stigmatizing actions varied by mental disorder and sociodemographic characteristics. Children with depression and adults with drug dependence were consistently the most stigmatized of groups investigated. Perceptions of dangerousness and causal attributions were significantly associated with social distance.

In general, the American public seems to hold positive attitudes toward seeking professional help for mental health problems. These attitudes vary by sociodemographic characteristics and past exposure to mental health treatments and seem to be improving over time. Support for coercive mental health treatment (e.g., forced hospitalization and medication) varied by the severity of the disorder and perceptions of dangerousness and competence. The public endorses both informal and formal sources of treatment to cope with common mental disorders in adults and reports a preference for formal treatments, particularly a combination of medication and counseling, over informal care for children with mental disorders. In general, the U.S. public expressed conflicting views toward the use of psychiatric medications in adults—endorsing their effectiveness at the same time as they expressed serious concerns about their use and strong reservations toward the use of these medications among children. Causal attributions and assessment of mental illness were associated with attitudes towards mental health treatments. For example, endorsing a neurobiological causal attribution of mental illness was associated with increased support for biologically-based treatments. Perceived severity of mental illness was associated with greater support for formal treatment for children with depression or ADHD. Lastly, sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age, race/ethnicity) and personal contact with individuals with mental illness were associated with stigmatizing beliefs, stigmatizing actions, and attitudes towards mental health treatments.

Methodological Issues

In order to understand the current knowledge regarding public stigma of mental illness, the methods used to create this evidence must be examined. Methodological issues relate to sampling, design, and outcomes warrant attention. The majority (n = 34) of articles in this review assessed adults’ perceptions of mental illness in either children or adults. Fewer (n = 2) assessed children’s views of mental illness. More research is needed that explores children’s perceptions of childhood mental illness, especially as the existing evidence suggests differences between adults’ and children’s perceptions of childhood mental illness and related stigma. For example, the influence of race/ethnicity on stigmatization of childhood mental illness appears to operate differently for children and adults. Among adults, the relationship between race/ethnicity and stigmatizing beliefs of childhood mental illness was not significant while among children, stigmatizing beliefs differed significantly by race/ethnicity.

While most (n = 30) articles included racial and ethnic comparisons, no study included analysis of other cultural indicators. Cultural indicators, such as acculturation or English language proficiency, should be explored given that stigma seems to vary by these indicators. For example, levels of acculturation have been found to be associated with individuals’ assessment of and treatment preferences for depression ( Cabassa et al. 2007 ; Kumar and Nevid 2010 ; Wong et al. 2010 ). The influence of cultural variations on stigma should be explored further as such knowledge can inform the tailoring of anti-stigma interventions. In addition, only one study ( Whaley, 1997 ) assessed stigma among Native Americans. More studies are needed to explore stigma in this diverse population.

The designs of studies reviewed presented several limitations. Most (n = 28) articles included in our review conducted cross-sectional analysis of data; thus, causal inferences are not possible. While some (n = 8) studies analyzed two or more panels of data, more longitudinal studies are needed to understand causal relationships in the stigma of mental illness between assessment, causal attribution, and stigmatizing behavior as well as changes in these variables over time.

The majority of articles (n = 23) utilized vignette methodology. The use of vignettes may reduce bias related to social desirability by capturing the public’s reaction to a hypothetical situation rather than reports of past or present behaviors and facilitates the examination of the public’s understanding, evaluation, attitudes, and beliefs related to a specific scenario without having to wait for that situation to arise ( Gilner et al. 1999 ; Lau and Takeuchi 2001 ). However, more studies are needed that examine reports of respondents’ past behaviors, especially as differences may exist between reports of past behavior and reports of one’s response to hypothetical situations ( Link et al. 2004 ). Studies included in this review also explored a limited number of diagnostic categories (e.g. ADHD, depression, schizophrenia). More information is needed about a wider range of mental disorders as public stigma seems to operate differently across diagnoses. Lastly, articles examined a limited number of outcomes. Most assessed respondents’ attitudes toward treatment. Fewer explored respondents’ stigmatizing actions which limit opportunities for people with mental illness, especially in relation to employment and housing ( Corrigan and Shapiro 2010 ; Hogan 2003 ; Link et al. 1997 ). Increased knowledge of the public’s stigmatizing actions is essential to inform the development of effective anti-stigma interventions ( Link et al. 2004 ).

Research and Practice Implications to Reduce Public Stigma

Our review points to several areas that can help inform research and interventions to reduce public stigma toward mental illness and treatments. Given that the conception of individuals with mental illness as dangerous was consistently associated with social distance and has not decreased over time, the media should resist portraying individuals with mental illness as violent and should promote a more balanced portrayal of mental illness. A study of the coverage of mental health issues in large U.S. newspapers found that dangerousness was the most common theme of mental health-related articles, with 39 % of articles about mental health focused on dangerousness and violence ( Corrigan et al. 2005 ). Advocacy groups, such as the National Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health America, should continue to challenge stigmatizing images in the media when they appear and work with journalists to disseminate alternative, normalizing images of mental illness. Government agencies (e.g., National Institute of Mental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and professional organizations (e.g., National Association of Social Workers, American Psychiatric Association) should also work closely with the media to provide more factual information about mental illness and how to best communicate to the public mental health issues and treatments.

Anti-stigma interventions should normalize the experience of mental illness and target perceptions that people with mental illness are dangerous. Such interventions can be integrated into school-based curriculum and target sociodemographic groups (e.g., men, those with fewer years of education) that consistently endorse negative views of people with mental illness. While research remains limited, anti-stigma interventions in U.S. high schools have been shown to improve attitudes towards mental health treatment and increase mental health literacy ( Jorm and Griffiths 2008 ). Media (e.g., TV, radio, internet, video games, smart phones) play a central role in the lives of many individuals and have the potential to perpetuate stigmatizing beliefs toward mental illness ( Klin 2008 ). However, media can also serve as a powerful tool to deliver anti-stigma messages and promote help-seeking behaviors ( Ritterfield and Jin 2006 ). For example, internet-based interventions to increase mental health literacy have shown some impact ( Jorm and Griffiths 2008 ). More research is needed regarding how media can most effectively decrease public stigma of individuals with mental illness.

Given that sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., gender, age) influenced respondents’ stigmatizing beliefs and actions, anti-stigma interventions should consider tailoring to the sociodemographics of the intended audience to increase audience involvement and engagement, two important pre-requisites for attitudinal and behavioral changes ( Sood 2002 ). Entertainment-education (EE) strategies that incorporate educational messages into popular entertainment content (e.g., soap operas, radio shows, sitcoms) to educate the public about health and social issues ( Singhal and Rogers 1999 ) can be used to reduce stigma in the general public. These strategies use narrative-based approaches to tailor the delivery of health information to different audiences and provide a promising approach to increase knowledge of mental illness, model appropriate help-seeking behaviors, and reduce mental health stigma (see Cabassa et al. 2010 ; Ritterfeld and Jin 2006 ; Unger et al. 2012 for examples of using EE to reduce stigma).

Positive personal contact with a person with mental illness was significantly associated with lower levels of endorsing stigmatizing beliefs and actions. Given these consistent findings, anti-stigma interventions should focus on increasing positive personal contact with people living with mental illness ( Thornicroft et al. 2008 ), target key groups in positions of power (e.g., landlords, employers), and should incorporate messages about the ways in which stigma and discrimination impede life goals and opportunities ( Corrigan 2011 ). In addition, interventions should be tailored to the concerns, resources, and social location of a well-defined locale or group ( Corrigan 2011 ). Such tailoring can increase the relevancy and effectiveness of the intervention. Furthermore, multiple, continuous contacts with individuals with mental illness should be encouraged as multiple positive contacts more effectively reduce stigma than a single encounter ( Corrigan 2011 ). The Mental Health Commission of Canada’s Opening Minds Initiative uses direct, positive contact with people with mental illness and provides an example of a systematic, population-level intervention to end public stigma of mental illness ( Stuart 2009 ).

While assessment of mental illness was associated with attitudes towards mental health treatment, the nature of the association between assessment of mental illness and stigmatizing actions and beliefs remains unclear. Some anti-stigma interventions have been based on the assumption that increased awareness and recognition of mental illness will lead to reductions in stigma ( Thornicroft et al. 2008 ). However, increased mental health literacy has been associated with unchanged or even increased levels of stigma ( Angermeyer et al. 2009 ). More research is needed to examine the pathways through which assessment of mental illness influences stigmatizing actions and beliefs in order to develop more effective anti-stigma messages and interventions.

Findings related to the relationship between social distance and causal attributions remain equivocal. Among children, causal attributions of parenting, low effort, substance abuse, and stress were associated with increased social distance. Among adult respondents, one article found that genetic causal attributions reduced social distance while another found that neurobiological causal attributions were either unrelated or increased social distance. These findings indicate that interventions that focus on biological and genetic causal attributions may be ineffective at reducing social distance ( Jorm and Griffiths 2008 ). Research is needed on alternate approaches to reduce stigma. In addition, anti-stigma messages need to be congruent with the public’s perceptions of the causes of mental illness by focusing on specific disorders instead of a catch all category like ‘mental illness’, and should incorporate the multiple causal attributions that people endorse about specific mental disorders. Further research is needed to identify strategies that can effectively reduce social distance by targeting causal attributions and stigmatizing beliefs.

A fertile area for future work is to develop strategies to reduce stigmatizing beliefs associated with mental health care, including the use of psychiatric medications. Mental health clinicians should openly engage clients in a dialogue about the social impacts of mental health care and use psychoeducational and motivational approaches to discuss treatment options and address common concerns about treatments (e.g., medication side effects). Primary care providers are uniquely positioned to engage in such conversations as trust in one’s personal physician was found to be significantly related to decreased apprehension and increased willingness to take psychiatric medications. In addition, fear of the stigmatizing effects of treatment can be reduced by providing care in less stigmatizing settings like primary care offices, community centers, and schools.

Our literature review has several limitations. While a thorough review of electronic bibliographic databases and manual searches was conducted, it is possible that we have missed articles that met our eligibility criteria. In addition, the coding of articles in this review was subjective. To address this, two reviewers independently coded each article. Reviewers compared their individual coding and reached consensus when differences existed. Notwithstanding these limitations, our findings have meaningful implications for future research and the development of anti-stigma interventions.

Public stigma of mental illness in the U.S. continues to be widespread among children and adults. Our literature review summarizes population-based studies’ findings on the public’s stigmatizing beliefs and actions and attitudes toward mental health treatments for children and adults with mental illness, highlights avenues for future research in this area, and can serve as a point of departure to inform future anti-stigma interventions.

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Society for Social Work and Research Annual Conference, January 2010, Tampa, FL. This work was supported in part by the New York State Office of Mental Health, New York State Center of Excellence for Cultural Competence at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, National Institutes of Health Grant K01 MH09118 (PI: Cabassa) and the Implementation Research Institute (IRI) at the George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis through an award from the National Institute of Mental Health (R25 MH080916-01A2) and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Services Research and Development, Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI). The authors would like to acknowledge the support of our research assistant, Rebeca Aragón, and the helpful comments of the journal reviewers.

Contributor Information

Angela M. Parcesepe, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Leopoldo J. Cabassa, School of Social Work, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. New York State Center of Excellence for Cultural Competence, New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA.

• Angermeyer MC, Holzinger A, Matschinger H. Mental health literacy and attitude towards people with mental illness: A trend analysis based on population surveys in eastern part of Germany. European Psychiatry. 2009; 24 :225–232. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anglin DM, Alberti PM, Link BG, Phelan JC. Racial differences in beliefs about the effectiveness and necessity of mental health treatment. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2008; 42 (1–2):17–24. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9189-5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anglin DM, Link BG, Phelan JC. Racial differences in stigmatizing attitudes toward people with mental illness. Psychiatric Services. 2006; 57 (6):857–862. 10.1176/appi.ps.57.6. 857. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blumner KH, Marcus SC. Changing perceptions of depression: Ten-year trends from the general social survey. Psychiatric Services. 2009; 60 (3):306–312. 10.1176/appi.ps.60. 3.306. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boyd JE, Katz EP, Link BG, Phelan JC. The relationship of multiple aspects of stigma and personal contact with someone hospitalized for mental illness, in a nationally representative sample. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2010; 45 (11):1063–1070. doi: 10.1007/s00127-009-0147-9. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cabassa LJ, Lester R, Zayas LH. “It’s like being in a labyrinth:” Hispanic immigrants’ perceptions of depression and attitudes toward treatments. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. 2007; 9 (1):1–16. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cabassa LJ, Molina G, Baron M. Depression Fotonovela : Development of a depression literacy tool for Latinos with limited English proficiency. Health Promotion Practice. 2010 doi: 10.1177/1524839910367578. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coleman D, Walker JS, Lee J, Friesen BJ, Squire PN. Children’s beliefs about causes of childhood depression and ADHD: A study of stigmatization. Psychiatric Services. 2009; 60 (7):950–957. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corbiere M, Zaniboni S, Lecomte T, Bond G, Gilles PY, Lesage A, et al. Job acquisition for people with severe mental illness enrolled in supported employment programs: A theoretically grounded empirical study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation. 2011; 21 (3):342–354. doi: 10.1007/s10926-011-9315-3. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corrigan PW. Best practices: Strategic stigma change (SSC): Five principles for social marketing campaigns to reduce stigma. Psychiatric Services. 2011; 62 (8):824–826. 10.1176/ appi.ps.62.8.824. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corrigan PW, Kuwabara SA, O’Shaughnessy J. Public stigma of mental illness and drug addiction. Journal of Social Work. 2009; 9 (2):139–147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corrigan PW, Larson JE, Watson AC, Boyle M, Barr L. Solutions to discrimination in work and housing identified by people with mental illness. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 2006; 194 (9):716–718. 10.1097/01.nmd. 0000235782.18977.de. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corrigan PW, Penn DL. Lessons from social psychology on discrediting psychiatric stigma. American Psychologist. 1999; 54 (9):765–776. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corrigan PW, Shapiro JR. Measuring the impact of programs that challenge the public stigma of mental illness. Clinical Psychology Review. 2010; 30 (8):907–922. 10.1016/j.cpr. 2010.06.004. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corrigan PW, Watson AC. The stigma of psychiatric disorders and the gender, ethnicity, and education of the perceiver. Community Mental Health Journal. 2007; 43 (5):439–458. doi: 10.1007/s10597-007-9084-9. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corrigan PW, Watson AC, Gracia G, Slopen N, Rasinski K, Hall LL. Newspaper stories as measures of structural stigma. Psychiatric Services. 2005; 56 (5):551–556. 10.1176/appi. ps.56.5.551. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Croghan TW, Tomlin M, Pescosolido BA, Schnittker J, Martin J, Lubell K, et al. American attitudes toward and willingness to use psychiatric medications. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease. 2003; 191 (3):166–174. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diala CC, Muntaner C, Walrath C, Nickerson KJ, LaVeist TA, Leaf PJ. Racial differences in attitudes toward professional mental health care and in the use of services. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2000; 70 (4):455–464. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Diala CC, Muntaner C, Walrath C, Nickerson K, LaVeist T, Leaf P. Racial/ethnic differences in attitudes toward seeking professional mental health services. American Journal of Public Health. 2001; 91 (5):805–807. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gilner JA, Haber E, Weise J. Use of controlled vignettes in evaluation: Does type of response method make a difference? Evaluation & Program Planning. 1999; 22 :313–322. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonzalez JM, Alegria M, Prihoda TJ. How do attitudes toward mental health treatment vary by age, gender, and ethnicity/ race in young adults. Journal of Community Psychology. 2005; 33 (5):611–629. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gonzalez JM, Alegria M, Prihoda TJ, Copeland LA, Zeber JE. How the relationship of attitudes toward mental health treatment and service use differs by age, gender, ethnicity/race, and education. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2009 doi: 10.1007/s00127-009-0168-4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hogan MF. The President’s New Freedom Commission: recommendations to transform mental health care in America. Psychiatric Services. 2003; 54 (11):1467–1474. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jorm AF, Griffiths KM. The public’s stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental disorders: How important are biomedical conceptualizations? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 2008; 118 (4):315–321. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klin A, Lemish D. Mental disorders stigma in the media: Review of studies on production, content, and influences. Journal of Health Communication. 2008; 13 (5):434–449. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar A, Nevid JS. Acculturation, enculturation and perceptions of mental disorders in Asian Indian immigrants. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. 2010; 16 (2):274–283. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuppin S, Carpiano RM. Public conceptions of serious mental illness and substance abuse, their causes and treatments: Findings from the 1996 general social survey. American Journal of Public Health. 2006; 96 (10):1766–1771. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lau A, Takeuchi DT. Help-seeking for child behavior problems: Value orientation, affective responding, and severity appraisals among chinese-american parents. Journal of Community Psychology. 2001; 29 (6):675–692. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leaf PJ, Bruce ML, Tischler GL, Holzer CE., III The relationship between demographic factors and attitudes toward mental health services. Journal of Community Psychology. 1987; 15 (2):275–284. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Link BG, Phelan JC, Bresnahan M, Stueve A, Pescosolido BA. Public conceptions of mental illness: Labels, causes, dangerousness, and social distance. American Journal of Public Health. 1999; 89 (9):1328–1333. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Link BG, Struening EL, Rahav M, Phelan JC, Nuttbrock L. On stigma and its consequences: Evidence from a longitudinal study of men with dual diagnoses of mental illness and substance abuse. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1997; 38 (2):177–190. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Link BG, Yang LH, Phelan JC, Collins PY. Measuring mental illness stigma. Schizophrenia Bulletin. 2004; 30 (3):511–541. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lipsey MW, Wilson DB. Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin JK, Pescosolido BA, Olafsdottir S, McLeod JD. The construction of fear: Americans’ preferences for social distance from children and adolescents with mental health problems. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2007; 48 (1):50–67. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martin J, Pescosolido B, Tuch S. Of fear and loathing: The role of ‘disturbing behavior’, labels, and causal attributions in shaping public attitudes toward people with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2000; 41 (2):208–223. [ Google Scholar ]
• McLeod JD, Fettes DL, Jensen PS, Pescosolido BA, Martin JK. Public knowledge, beliefs, and treatment preferences concerning attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Psychiatric Services. 2007; 58 (5):626–631. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McLeod JD, Pescosolido BA, Takeuchi DT, White TF. Public attitudes toward the use of psychiatric medications for children. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2004; 45 (1):53–67. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mojtabai R. Americans’ attitudes toward mental health treatment seeking: 1990–2003. Psychiatric Services. 2007; 58 (5):642–651. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.58.5.642. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mojtabai R. Americans’ attitudes toward psychiatric medications: 1998–2006. Psychiatric Services. 2009; 60 (8):1015–1023. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.60.8.1015. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mukolo A, Heflinger CA. Factors associated with attributions about child health conditions and social distance preference. Community Mental Health Journal. 2011; 47 :286–299. doi: 10.1007/s10597-010-9325-1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Achieving the Promise: Transforming Mental Health Care in America. Final Report. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Service; 2003. DHHS publication SMA-03-3832. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perry BL, Pescosolido BA, Martin JK, McLeod JD, Jensen PS. Comparison of public attributions, attitudes, and stigma in regard to depression among children and adults. Psychiatric Services. 2007; 58 (5):632–635. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pescosolido BA, Fettes DL, Martin JK, Monahan J, McLeod JD. Perceived dangerousness of children with mental health problems and support for coerced treatment. Psychiatric Services. 2007a; 58 (5):619–625. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pescosolido BA, Jensen PS, Martin JK, Perry BL, Olafsdottir S, Fettes D. Public knowledge and assessment of child mental health problems: Findings from the national stigma study-children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2008; 47 (3):339–349. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pescosolido BA, Martin JK, Long JS, Medina TR, Phelan JC, Link BG. “A disease like any other”? A decade of change in public reactions to schizophrenia, depression, and alcohol dependence. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 2010; 167 (11):1321–1330. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09121743. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pescosolido BA, Monahan J, Link BG, Stueve A, Kikuzawa S. The public’s view of the competence, dangerousness, and need for legal coercion of persons with mental health problems. American Journal of Public Health. 1999; 89 (9):1339–1345. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pescosolido BA, Perry BL, Martin JK, McLeod JD, Jensen PS. Stigmatizing attitudes and beliefs about treatment and psychiatric medications for children with mental illness. Psychiatric Services. 2007b; 58 (5):613–618. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Phelan JC, Link BG, Stueve A, Pescosolido B. Public conceptions of mental illness in 1950 and 1996: What is mental illness and is it to be feared? Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2000; 41 (2):188–207. [ Google Scholar ]
• Phelan JC, Yang LH, Cruz-Rojas R. Effects of attributing serious mental illnesses to genetic causes on orientations to treatment. Psychiatric Services. 2006; 57 (3):382–387. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.57.3.382. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritterfeld U, Jin S. Addressing media stigma for people experiencing mental illness using an entertainment-education strategy. Journal of Health Psychology. 2006; 11 (12):247–267. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schnittker J, Freese J, Powell B. Nature, nurture, neither, nor: Black-white differences in beliefs about the causes and appropriate treatment of mental illness. Social Forces. 2000; 78 (3):1101. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shim RS, Compton MT, Rust G, Druss BG, Kaslow NJ. Race-ethnicity as a predictor of attitudes toward mental health treatment seeking. Psychiatric Services. 2009; 60 (10):1336–1341. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.60.10.1336. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Singhal A, Rogers E. Entertainment-education: A communication strategy for social change. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sood S. Audience involvement and entertainment-education. Communication Theory. 2002; 12 :153–172. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stuart H. Opening minds, an initiative of the Mental Health Commission of Canada: Selection of anti-stigma programs, summary and results. Mental Health Commission of Canada; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Swindle R, Jr, Heller K, Pescosolido B, Kikuzawa S. Responses to nervous breakdowns in America over a 40-year period. Mental health policy implications. The American Psychologist. 2000; 55 (7):740–749. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thornicroft G, Brohan E, Kassam A, Lewis-Holmes E. Reducing stigma and discrimination: Candidate interventions. International Journal of Mental Health Systems. 2008; 2 (1):3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Unger JB, Cabassa LJ, Molina GB, Contreras S, Baron M. Evaluation of a fotonovela to increase depression knowledge and reduce stigma among Hispanic adults. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. 2012 doi: 10.1007/s10903-012-9623-5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Mental health: A report of the surgeon general. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Mental Health; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Walker JS, Coleman D, Lee J, Squire PN, Friesen BJ. Children’s stigmatization of childhood depression and ADHD: Magnitude and demographic variation in a national sample. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2008; 47 (8):912–920. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Whaley AL. Ethnic and racial differences in perceptions of dangerousness of persons with mental illness. Psychiatric Services. 1997; 48 (10):1328–1330. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wirth JH, Bodenhausen GV. The role of gender in mental-illness stigma: A national experiment. Psychological Science. 2009; 20 (2):169–173. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02282.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wong YJ, Tran KK, Kim S, Kerne VV, Calfa NA. Asian Americans’ lay beliefs about depression and professional help seeking. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2010; 66 (3):317–332. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

It’s easy to see why talking about our mental health may not be easy. Research shows that public stigma, or society’s negative attitudes and behaviors surrounding mental health, and self-stigma, the internalization of those attitudes, prevent many from reaching out and getting the support they need. Stigma can also lead to exclusion from jobs, housing, social activities and relationships.

But the truth is, mental health challenges are so common that you probably know someone who is experiencing or has experienced a mental health challenge. According to the Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) curriculum, nearly half of all U.S. adults will experience a mental illness at some point in their life. Each year, that’s about one in five U.S. adults and one in six youth aged 6-17.

MHFA can help you dismantle the stigma that keeps people from speaking up and getting help. It teaches you to understand, identify and respond to signs and symptoms of mental health and substance use challenges with compassion and facts.

With that knowledge, MHFA also helps dispel common myths and misconceptions about mental health. By filling knowledge gaps and increasing our understanding of mental illness, we can bring greater awareness to the reality of the challenges people may be facing. Statements like, “People can use willpower to pull themselves out of a mental health or substance challenge,” or “A mental health or substance use challenge is a weakness,” can be harmful and prevent people from seeking treatment.

As a First Aider, you can be the first line of support for someone experiencing a mental health or substance use challenge. You can #BeTheDifference by helping that person get the information and support they need. Research has shown that talking about our challenges can encourage others to do the same. Having these difficult conversations helps reduce mental health stigma so more people reach out for the support they need.

This is why it’s important to understand mental health and substance use challenges. As a First Aider, you have the information and resources to identify and respond to signs and symptoms among your family, friends, neighbors, teachers, and even yourself. You can support early intervention for people in need, help reduce stigma and discrimination, and support your loved one’s journey to recovery.

Reducing stigma around mental health can start as simply as asking someone how they’re really doing. By taking the first step, and encouraging an open and honest conversation, you can #BeTheDifference for yourself and your loved ones.

For more ways on how you can start the conversation and support a loved one, take a look at our blogs:

• What Not to Do: Seven Things to Keep in Mind When Helping Someone with a Mental Health Challenge
• Why Mental Health First Aid?
• Why Healthy Friendships are Important for Mental Health
• How to Support a Loved One Who’s Going Through a Tough Time

References:

American Psychiatric Association. (August 2020). Stigma, Prejudice and Discrimination Against People with Mental Illness. https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/stigma-and-discrimination

Committee on the Science of Changing Behavioral Health Social Norms Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016, August 3). Ending Discrimination Against People with Mental and Substance Use Disorders: The Evidence for Stigma Change. National Academies Press https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK384914/

Mental Health First Aid USA. (2020). Mental Health First Aid. Washington, DC: National Council for Mental Wellbeing.

Get the latest MHFA blogs, news and updates delivered directly to your inbox so you never miss a post.

Share and help spread the word.

Related stories, how to help someone who is having a panic attack, 5 surprising mental health statistics, 10 things you need to know about the opioid epidemic, lady gaga announces teen mental health first aid pilot program will expand to 20 additional high schools, five ways to be more culturally aware.