When Do Biological Attributions of Mental Illness Reduce Stigma? Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis to Contextualize Attributions

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew A. Andersson ◽  
Sarah K. Harkness
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Qualitative Comparative Analysis ◽  
General Social Survey ◽  
Life Stressors ◽  
Biological Factors ◽  
Genetic Abnormality ◽  
Social Survey ◽  
Biological Explanations ◽  
Chemical Imbalance

Individuals increasingly have encountered messages that mental illness is explained by biological factors such as chemical imbalance or genetic abnormality. Many assumed this “biological turn” would lessen stigma toward mental illness, but stigma generally has remained stable or even increased. Given how nonbiological illness explanations (e.g., way one is raised, bad character, life stressors) often are endorsed even among those who support biological explanations, we contend that combinations or configurations of beliefs integrating distinct types of explanation may hold a key to understanding why biological beliefs have not succeeded in lessening stigma. Using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) on national vignette data (2006 General Social Survey; N = 968), we find that not blaming an individual’s character is essential to lowering depression stigma whenever biological explanations also are endorsed and that blaming character unconditionally contributes to stigmatizing alcoholism. For schizophrenia and alcoholism, biological explanations may lower stigma contingent on several other beliefs.

scholarly journals A social network analysis of the role of social contact in mental illness stigma using the 2018 General Social Survey

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brea Louise Perry ◽  
Elizabeth Felix ◽  
Megan Bolton ◽  
Erin L. Pullen ◽  
Bernice A. Pescosolido
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Social Network ◽  
General Social Survey ◽  
Social Contact ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Mental Illness Stigma ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Negative Stereotypes ◽  
Social Survey ◽  
People With Mental Illness

Despite decades of research and dozens of public health campaigns, stigma continues to negatively affect the well-being and life chances of people labeled with a mental illness. One of the most promising directions for reducing stigma lies in Allport’s (1954) theory of intergroup contact, suggesting that social interactions with people with mental illness invalidate negative stereotypes, decrease fear and anxiety, and enable perspective-taking and empathy. While the empirical literature is largely supportive of the contact hypothesis, social network theory indicates that the degree to which contact reduces stigma should depend on the nature, magnitude, and valence of exposure to people with mental illness. We address this question using data from the National Stigma Study – Replication II (NSS-R II), fielded on a special module of the 2018 General Social Survey (N=1,179). We find that simply knowing someone with mental illness, or even the number of people one knows, explains little about the public’s desire for social distance, endorsement of coercion, or perceptions of dangerousness. However, having stronger relationships with more people with mental illness, and having more friends and family (but not more peripheral ties) with mental illness, are associated with reductions in stigma. In contrast, exposure to more dangerousness or violence among people in the network with mental illness is associated with greater levels of stigma, while contact with more people who are in treatment for mental illness (as opposed to untreated) is linked to less stigma.

Americans’ Attitudes toward Mental Illness and Involuntary Psychiatric Medication

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 200-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krysia N. Mossakowski ◽  
Lauren M. Kaplan ◽  
Terrence D. Hill
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Psychiatric Treatment ◽  
General Social Survey ◽  
Psychiatric Medication ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Mandated Treatment ◽  
Social Survey ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
People With Mental Illness ◽  
Attitudes Toward Mental Illness

This study uses data from the Mental Health Modules of the General Social Survey (1996 and 2006) to understand why some Americans endorse the involuntary use of psychiatric medication. Results indicated that in 1996 and 2006, 28 percent of Americans believed that people with mental illness should be forced by law to take psychiatric medication. The belief that people with mental illness are dangerous significantly contributed to Americans’ endorsement of this form of mandated treatment. Interestingly, the belief that mental illness is caused by stress increased the odds of support for mandated medication in 1996 and then reduced the odds of support in 2006. Moreover, stigmatizing preferences for social distance from those with mental illness were no longer contributing factors in 2006. It is still imperative, however, that public policy makers promote anti-stigma initiatives to reduce barriers to psychiatric treatment and counteract the public’s lingering fear of people with mental illness.

scholarly journals Mental illness and the left

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emil O. W. Kirkegaard
Keyword(s):  
Mental Illness ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
General Social Survey ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Mental Disability ◽  
Left Wing ◽  
Social Survey ◽  
Potential Link ◽  
The Difference

It has been claimed that left-wingers or liberals (US sense) tend to be more mentally ill than right-wingers or conservatives. This potential link was investigated using the General Social Survey. A search found 5 items measuring one's own mental illness in different ways (e.g.”Do you have any emotional or mental disability?”). All of these items were associated with left-wing political ideology as measured by self-report. These results held up mostly in regressions that adjusted for age, sex, and race. For the variable with the most data, the difference in mental illness between “extremely liberal” and “extremely conservative” was 0.39 d. This finding is congruent with numerous findings based on related constructs.

GSS 2011 Linked with TIFF: Exploring the Cost of Child Care in Canada and the Use of the Child Care Tax Benefit

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-103
Author(s):  
Leanne Findlay ◽  
Dafna Kohen
Keyword(s):  
Child Care ◽  
General Social Survey ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Indigenous Identity ◽  
Social Survey ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Care Costs ◽  
Compare And Contrast ◽  
Employment Characteristics ◽  
Different Sources

Affordability of child care is fundamental to parents’, in particular, women’s decision to work. However, information on the cost of care in Canada is limited. The purpose of the current study was to examine the feasibility of using linked survey and administrative data to compare and contrast parent-reported child care costs based on two different sources of data. The linked file brings together data from the 2011 General Social Survey (GSS) and the annual tax files (TIFF) for the corresponding year (2010). Descriptive analyses were conducted to examine the socio-demographic and employment characteristics of respondents who reported using child care, and child care costs were compared. In 2011, parents who reported currently paying for child care (GSS) spent almost $6700 per year ($7,500 for children age 5 and under). According to the tax files, individuals claimed just over $3900 per year ($4,700). Approximately one in four individuals who reported child care costs on the GSS did not report any amount on their tax file; about four in ten who claimed child care on the tax file did not report any cost on the survey. Multivariate analyses suggested that individuals with a lower education, lower income, with Indigenous identity, and who were self-employed were less likely to make a tax claim despite reporting child care expenses on the GSS. Further examination of child care costs by province and by type of care are necessary, as is research to determine the most accurate way to measure and report child care costs.

Mapping the General Social Survey to the Generic Statistical Business Process Model: NORC's Experience

2015 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Scot Ausborn ◽  
Julia Rotondo ◽  
Tim Mulcahy
Keyword(s):  
Business Process ◽  
Process Model ◽  
General Social Survey ◽  
Business Process Model ◽  
Social Survey

Mapping the General Social Survey to the Generic Statistical Business Process Model: NORC's Experience

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document