Jo C. Phelan

On stigma and its consequences: evidence from a longitudinal study of men with dual diagnoses of mental illness and substance abuse.

Numerous studies have demonstrated a strong connection between the experience of stigma and the well-being of the stigmatized. But in the area of mental illness there has been controversy surrounding the magnitude and duration of the effects of labeling and stigma. One of the arguments that has been used to downplay the importance of these factors is the substantial body of evidence suggesting that labeling leads to positive effects through mental health treatment. However, as Rosenfield (1997) points out, labeling can simultaneously induce both positive consequences through treatment and negative consequences through stigma. In this study we test whether stigma has enduring effects on well-being by interviewing 84 men with dual diagnoses of mental disorder and substance abuse at two points in time--at entry into treatment, when they were addicted to drugs and had many psychiatric symptoms and then again after a year of treatment, when they were far less symptomatic and largely drug- and alcohol-free. We found a relatively strong and enduring effect of stigma on well-being. This finding indicates that stigma continues to complicate the lives of the stigmatized even as treatment improves their symptoms and functioning. It follows that if health professionals want to maximize the well-being of the people they treat, they must address stigma as a separate and important factor in its own right.

Stigma and its public health implications

The publication of Erving Goffmans Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity in 1963 generated a profusion of research on the nature sources and consequences of stigma--albeit with considerable variation on how stigma was defined. In our conceptualisation stigma is the result of a process in which a series of five interrelated components combine to generate stigma. In the first component people identify and label human differences. Although most human differences are socially irrelevant differences such as skin colour IQ and sexual preferences are highly salient in many social contexts. The point is that there is a social selection process determining which differences are deemed relevant and consequential and which are not. Medical conditions vary dramatically in the extent to which they are socially significant. Compare hypertension bone fractures and melanoma for example with incontinence AIDS and schizophrenia. (excerpt)

Social Conditions as Fundamental Causes of Health Inequalities Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications

Link and Phelan (1995) developed the theory of fundamental causes to explain why the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and mortality has persisted despite radical changes in the diseases and risk factors that are presumed to explain it. They proposed that the enduring association results because SES embodies an array of resources, such as money, knowledge, prestige, power, and beneficial social connections that protect health no matter what mechanisms are relevant at any given time. In this article, we explicate the theory, review key findings, discuss refinements and limits to the theory, and discuss implications for health policies that might reduce health inequalities. We advocate policies that encourage medical and other health-promoting advances while at the same time breaking or weakening the link between these advances and socioeconomic resources. This can be accomplished either by reducing disparities in socioeconomic resources themselves or by developing interventions that, by their nature, are more equally distributed across SES groups.

“A Disease Like Any Other”? A Decade of Change in Public Reactions to Schizophrenia, Depression, and Alcohol Dependence

OBJECTIVE Clinicians, advocates, and policy makers have presented mental illnesses as medical diseases in efforts to overcome low service use, poor adherence rates, and stigma. The authors examined the impact of this approach with a 10-year comparison of public endorsement of treatment and prejudice. METHOD The authors analyzed responses to vignettes in the mental health modules of the 1996 and 2006 General Social Survey describing individuals meeting DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia, major depression, and alcohol dependence to explore whether more of the public 1) embraces neurobiological understandings of mental illness; 2) endorses treatment from providers, including psychiatrists; and 3) reports community acceptance or rejection of people with these disorders. Multivariate analyses examined whether acceptance of neurobiological causes increased treatment support and lessened stigma. RESULTS In 2006, 67% of the public attributed major depression to neurobiological causes, compared with 54% in 1996. High proportions of respondents endorsed treatment, with general increases in the proportion endorsing treatment from doctors and specific increases in the proportions endorsing psychiatrists for treatment of alcohol dependence (from 61% in 1996 to 79% in 2006) and major depression (from 75% in 1996 to 85% in 2006). Social distance and perceived danger associated with people with these disorders did not decrease significantly. Holding a neurobiological conception of these disorders increased the likelihood of support for treatment but was generally unrelated to stigma. Where associated, the effect was to increase, not decrease, community rejection. CONCLUSIONS More of the public embraces a neurobiological understanding of mental illness. This view translates into support for services but not into a decrease in stigma. Reconfiguring stigma reduction strategies may require providers and advocates to shift to an emphasis on competence and inclusion.

Stigma as a Fundamental Cause of Population Health Inequalities

Bodies of research pertaining to specific stigmatized statuses have typically developed in separate domains and have focused on single outcomes at 1 level of analysis, thereby obscuring the full significance of stigma as a fundamental driver of population health. Here we provide illustrative evidence on the health consequences of stigma and present a conceptual framework describing the psychological and structural pathways through which stigma influences health. Because of its pervasiveness, its disruption of multiple life domains (e.g., resources, social relationships, and coping behaviors), and its corrosive impact on the health of populations, stigma should be considered alongside the other major organizing concepts for research on social determinants of population health.

“Fundamental Causes” of Social Inequalities in Mortality: A Test of the Theory

Medicine and epidemiology currently dominate the study of the strong association between socioeconomic status and mortality. Socioeconomic status typically is viewed as a causally irrelevant “confounding variable” or as a less critical variable marking only the beginning of a causal chain in which intervening risk factors are given prominence. Yet the association between socioeconomic status and mortality has persisted despite radical changes in the diseases and risk factors that are presumed to explain it. This suggests that the effect of socioeconomic status on mortality essentially cannot be understood by reductive explanations that focus on current mechanisms. Accordingly, Link and Phelan (1995) proposed that socioeconomic status is a “fundamental cause” of mortality disparities—that socioeconomic disparities endure despite changing mechanisms because socioeconomic status embodies an array of resources, such as money, knowledge, prestige, power, and beneficial social connections, that protect health no matter what mechanisms are relevant at any given time. We identified a situation in which resources should be less helpful in prolonging life, and derived the following prediction from the theory: For less preventable causes of death (for which we know little about prevention or treatment), socioeconomic status will be less strongly associated with mortality than for more preventable causes. We tested this hypothesis with the National Longitudinal Mortality Study, which followed Current Population Survey respondents (N = 370,930) for mortality for nine years. Our hypothesis was supported, lending support to the theory of fundamental causes and more generally to the importance of a sociological approach to the study of socio-economic disparities in mortality.

Internalized stigma predicts erosion of morale among psychiatric outpatients

Stigma in society causes harm to people with severe mental illness (SMI) and internalized stigma represents its psychological point of impact. We evaluated the extent of internalized stigma in a sample of outpatients with SMI, using the Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness (ISMI) Scale, developed with consumer input. About a third of the sample reported high levels of internalized stigma. We tested whether internalized stigma predicted increased depressive symptoms and reduced self-esteem at 4-month follow-up, controlling for baseline levels. Depression was predicted by Alienation, Stereotype Endorsement, Social Withdrawal Scales and total ISMI score. Reduced self-esteem was predicted by Alienation. ISMI results were stronger than those for the widely used Devaluation-Discrimination Scale. The finding that alienation further reduces morale speaks to the difficulty of pulling oneself out of this type of vicious cycle without assistance.

Geneticization of Deviant Behavior and Consequences for Stigma: The Case of Mental Illness*

One likely consequence of the genetics revolution is an increased tendency to understand human behavior in genetic terms. How might this “geneticization” affect stigma? Attribution theory predicts a reduction in stigma via reduced blame, anger, and punishment and increased sympathy and help. According to “genetic essentialist” thinking, genes are the basis of human identity and strongly deterministic of behavior. If such ideas are commonly accepted, geneticization should exacerbate stigma by increasing perceptions of differentness, persistence, seriousness, and transmissibility, which in turn should increase social distance and reproductive restrictiveness. I test these predictions using the case of mental illness and a vignette experiment embedded in a nationally representative survey. There was little support for attribution theory predictions. Consistent with genetic essentialism, genetic attributions increased the perceived seriousness and persistence of the mental illness and the belief that siblings and children would develop the same problem. Genetic attribution did not affect reproductive restrictiveness or social distance from the ill person but did increase social distance from the persons sibling, particularly regarding intimate forms of contact involving dating, marriage, and having children.

Social Epidemiology and the Fundamental Cause Concept: On the Structuring of Effective Cancer Screens by Socioeconomic Status

Since the early 1800s, studies have consistently demonstrated that people higher in the socioeconomic hierarchy live longer than people of lower rank. One hypothesis for the persistence of this association is that people who are relatively better off are more able to avoid risks by adopting currently available protective strategies. In a partial test of this idea, the social distributions of two cancer screening tests--Pap smears and mammography--were examined. A review of the literature and an analysis of Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data showed a consistent association between indicators of socioeconomic status and recent screening. These findings support the theory that societies create and shape patterns of disease. Innovations beneficial to health are carried out within the context of inequalities that shape the distribution of the health benefit, thereby affecting patterns of morality.

The Stigma of Homelessness: The Impact of the Label "Homeless" on Attitudes Toward Poor Persons

Poor people have long been stigmatized and blamed for their situation. According to theory about stigma and about inequality-legitimating ideologies, homeless people should be stigmatized even more severely than the generic poor. Recent research suggests that the opposite may be true, but the data used in comparing attitudes toward homeless and other poor people have not been strictly comparable. Thus the conclusions that can be drawn are limited Using a vignette experiment designed to directly compare attitudes toward a homeless and a domiciled poor man and to compare the effects of being labeled homeless with those of being labeled mentally ill, we find that (1) the homeless man is blamed no less than the domiciled man and generally is stigmatized more severely; (2) the strength of the stigma attached to the homelessness label equals that for mental hospitalization; and (3) the stigmas of homelessness and mental hospitalization are independent of one another. Thus, in addition to the hardships of the homeless condition itself homeless people suffer stigmatization by their fellow citizens. The results also suggest that the robust tendency to blame the disadvantaged for their predicament holds true for modern homelessness as well.