Amy Kroska

Stigma Sentiments and Self-Meanings: Exploring the Modified Labeling Theory of Mental Illness

We introduce “stigma sentiments” as a way to operationalize the cultural conceptions of the mentally ill. Stigma sentiments are the evaluation, potency, and activity (EPA) associated with the cultural category “a mentally ill person.” We find consistent support for the validity of the evaluation and potency components as measures of these conceptions. We also demonstrate the validity of EPA ratings of self-identities (“myself as I really am”) and reflected appraisals (“myself as others see me”) as measures of self-meaning among psychiatric patients. Then we assess hypotheses derived from the modified labeling theory of mental illness: we expect each stigma sentiment to be related positively to the corresponding dimension of self-identities and reflected appraisals among psychiatric patients but unrelated to the corresponding dimension among non-patients. We find support for 13 of the 18 components to these hypotheses. We also find three cross-dimensional results that were not anticipated. The results suggest that the cultural conceptions of the mentally ill do affect the self-meanings of individuals diagnosed with a mental disorder, although the connection is sometimes more complex than a one-to-one relationship between a stigma sentiment and its corresponding dimension of self-meaning.

Illness Labels and Social Distance

The authors examine a key proposition in the modified labeling theory—that a psychiatric label increases vulnerability to negative evaluation and social rejection—using an experimental design wherein female participants interact with a female teammate over a computer. The authors also evaluate a hypothesis derived from the disease-avoidance account of disgust by examining this same process for a nonpsychiatric illness: food poisoning. In addition, they introduce a composite measure of social distance behavior that is easy to implement in a laboratory experiment. The authors find, as predicted, that women seek greater social distance from teammates with a history of psychiatric or food poisoning hospitalization than they do from teammates with no hospitalization history. But, contrary to predictions, a teammate’s hospitalization history does not affect participants’ ratings of her likability. The results also do not vary significantly by psychiatric diagnosis (depression vs. schizophrenia), suggesting that the stigma of depression may be just as strong as the stigma of schizophrenia when information about symptoms is not available. The authors discuss the implications of these findings for the modified labeling theory of mental illness and for the literature on disgust and stigma. They also outline avenues for future research.

Gender, status, and psychiatric labels.

We examine a key modified labeling theory proposition-that a psychiatric label increases vulnerability to competence-based criticism and rejection-within task- and collectively oriented dyads comprised of same-sex individuals with equivalent education. Drawing on empirical work that approximates these conditions, we expect the proposition to hold only among men. We also expect education, operationalized with college class standing, to moderate the effects of gender by reducing mens and increasing womens criticism and rejection. But, we also expect the effect of education to weaken when men work with a psychiatric patient. As predicted, men reject suggestions from teammates with a psychiatric history more frequently than they reject suggestions from other teammates, while womens resistance to influence is unaffected by their teammates psychiatric status. Men also rate psychiatric patient teammates as less powerful but no lower in status than other teammates, while womens teammate assessments are unaffected by their teammates psychiatric status. Also as predicted, education reduces mens resistance to influence when their teammate has no psychiatric history. Education also increases mens ratings of their teammates power, as predicted, but has no effect on womens resistance to influence or teammate ratings. We discuss the implications of these findings for the modified labeling theory of mental illness and status characteristics theory.

The Social Psychology of Gender Inequality

I review social psychological theories that can explain gender inequality, highlighting the theoretical claims, findings, and limitations central to each account. Symbolic interactionist and social learning theories of socialization specify the processes through which gendered norms and expectations are learned, while the structural and doing gender perspectives highlight the roles of structural position and interactional pressures in the construction of gender inequality. Network and identity theories offer more specific structural approaches that emphasize the role of networks in the dissemination of information and values, which then produce gender-differentiated selves, opportunities, experiences, and interests. Expectation states theories show how gender status beliefs contribute to male dominance in problem solving groups and how those group experiences perpetuate the beliefs that drive them. Affect control theories show how gender differences in self-sentiments motivate identity adoption and, in turn, behavior that is differentiated by gender, with men behaving in more dominant and less sensitive ways. They also show how these behavior patterns reinforce the sentiments driving them. Identity control theory offers a similar perspective, showing how gendered identity standards motivate men to behave in more aggressive and less nurturant ways than women. Future work testing propositions related to multi-level processes and intersectionality would strengthen these theoretical explanations.

Juvenile Delinquency, Criminal Sentiments, and Self-Sentiments: Exploring a Modified Labeling Theory Proposition

Originality/value This study is the first to test a modified labeling theory proposition on juvenile delinquents.

The Self-Stigma of Psychiatric Patients: Implications for Identities, Emotions, and the Life Course

Abstract Purpose We argue that self-stigma places patients on a path of marginalization throughout their life course leading to a negative cycle of opportunity and advancement. Mental health patients with higher levels of self-stigma tend to have much lower self-esteem, efficacy, and personal agency; therefore, they will be more inclined to adopt role-identities at the periphery of major social institutions, like those of work, family, and academia. Similarly, the emotions felt when enacting such roles may be similarly dampened. Methodology/approach Utilizing principles from affect control theory (ACT) and the affect control theory of selves (ACTS), we generate predictions related to self-stigmatized patients’ role-identity adoption and emotions. We use the Indianapolis Mental Health Study and Interact, a computerized version of ACT and ACTS, to generate empirically based simulation results for patients with an affective disorder (e.g., major depression and bipolar disorder) with comparably high or low levels of self-stigmatization. Findings Self-stigma among affective patients reduces the tendency to adopt major life course identities. Self-stigma also affects patients’ emotional expression by compelling patients to seek out interactions that make them feel anxious or affectively neutral. Originality/value This piece has implications for the self-stigma and stigma literatures. It is also one of the first pieces to utilize ACTS, thereby offering a new framework for understanding the self-stigma process. We offer new hypotheses for future research to test with non-simulation-based data and suggest some policy implications.