Impact of Mental Health Research in Sociology: Nearly Four Decades of Research 1975-2011

Full text

141
Chapter 7
Impact of Mental Health Research
in Sociology: Nearly Four Decades
of Scholarship (1975–2011)
Robert J. Johnson
© The Author(s) 2014
R.J. Johnson et al. (eds.), Sociology of Mental Health,
SpringerBriefs in Sociology, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-07797-0_7
In the early 1980s sociology witnessed the leading crest of a wave of new and
noteworthy research in the sociology of mental health that helped raise the
American Sociological Association’s (ASA) Journal of Health and Social
Behavior (JHSB) to the highest levels of scholarly impact up to that time and
later help launch a new Section of the Sociology of Mental Health. Prior to that
point, research on topics of mental health were present among the founding and
most influential works in both European and American Sociology as well. Today,
20 years after its formation in 1992, the Section of the Sociology of Mental Health
(SSMH) is large and vibrant with its own ASA journal, Society and Mental Health
(SMH).
This article looks back at a period before the formation of the Section of the
Sociology of Mental Health and traces the impact and course of mental health
research in select sociology publications through that period until the first issue
of the journal published last year. The formation of the section 20 years ago was
especially prescient in light of the Center for Disease Control’s assessment that
mental health is among the top ten public health challenges we will face in the
21st century, a list that followed just less than a decade later. Koplan and Fleming
(2000, p. 1697) identified those ten challenges, and noted the importance of
addressing the “impact of mental health” as the “second leading cause of disability
and premature mortality in the United States….” The rise in the impact of social
science research into the social causes and consequences of mental health prob-
lems, perhaps then, should not be so surprising. The economy of scholarship is
much like that any—scholarly productivity is in response to demand and lead by
innovation, both of which should figure prominently in the fields scholarly outlets.
R.J. Johnson (*)
University of Miami, Coral Gables, USA
e-mail: rjohnson@miami.edu

142 R.J. Johnson
But before turning to evidence of that impact in the published literature, a brief
nod is given to the early foundations followed by the early history of the formation
of the section.
7.1 Early Foundations of Mental Health Research
in Sociology
Although a comprehensive history of mental health research in sociology has yet to
be written, when it is it will surely include the works of foundational sociologists
such as Durkheim (1951) and Simmel (1903), early influences such as Wirth (1931)
Faris and Dunham (1939), and those who earlier influenced American Sociology
itself such as James (1890, 1907). References to the early and modern history of
sociological research on mental health in the U.S. (by way of its link to Medical
Sociology) can be found strewn throughout Bloom’s (2002) history of Medical
Sociology. Continually throughout this period, as Bloom documents, mental health
has been the topic of research by prominent sociologists. It has been argued that
mental health research itself has found a prominent place in sociology in the last
half-century, contributing greatly to the impact of sociological research (both within
and across disciplinary boundaries). Sociological research with such an impact is
required for the vitality of the discipline (Pescosolido and Kronenfeld 1995).
7.2 Brief History of the Formation of the Section
on the Sociology of Mental Health
There were many, obvious reasons for the formation of the section. Several peo-
ple, led by Jay Turner, circulated the petitions to start a section. As time for the
1990 ASA annual meeting drew near, several potential members were prepared to
make a formal proposal to form the new section. The letter formally proposing to
form the new section was prepared by Turner and submitted on their behalf to the
Executive Committee of the ASA on July 25, 1990 (See Appendix A).
Jay Turner presided (unelected) over the organizational meetings and over the
“section in formation” during the first year concluding in the first section presenta-
tion in 1992. The first elected Chair was Mechanic in 1993 and Turner was elected
as the second official chair in 1994. The subsequent chairs of the section are listed
in Appendix B.
The section started strong with 396 members in 1992 and grew to 423 by 1993
(see Fig. 7.1).
Except for 3 years (2001–2003) the membership has remained above 400, vary-
ing by little more than 5 %. The last membership year, 2011, provides a notable
exception to this trend when the number climbed to 457 members.

143
7 Impact of Mental Health Research in Sociology: Nearly Four Decades …
7.3 Impact of Mental Health Research in Sociology
The impact of mental health research in Sociology can partially be assessed by
considering the number of and citations to research articles published in the socio-
logical literature. The data reviewed below are derived from Reuters (2012) Web
of Knowledge (primarily for article counts) and Harzing (2011) Publish or Perish
which uses Google Scholar (primarily for citation counts). The first database is
used for article counts because it allows for convenient screening of research
articles versus editorial, review, and other publication content by specific jour-
nal titles. Both databases provide similar results in terms of trends and ranks for
citations.
A broad definition of mental health research that would be representative of the
goals of the section would include research on particular illnesses such as anxi-
ety or depression, more general health concerns such as stress, distress, events
and trauma, reactions to stressors such as coping and social support, the social
context of these including identity and status hierarchies (race, class, and gen-
der), the social organization of mental health services, and the utilization of them.
Obviously, health research more generally but also arguably nearly all sociologi-
cal research have profound implications for mental health and well-being, and
so the distinction between mental health research and other sociological research
is a matter of overlapping boundaries (both disciplinary and interdisciplinary).
Nevertheless, it is necessary to make these distinctions and in doing so, heuristics
for both inclusion and exclusion are employed here.
Each publication was examined to determine whether it met the criteria for
research in mental health research. Among those that did, the general topics
addressed were coded to according to general topical themes that emerged during
the first review. Any one article may have been coded in more than one category.
340
360
380
400
420
440
460
480
Annual Membership in the Section on the
Sociology of Mental Health 1992-2011
Fig. 7.1 Annual membership in the section of the sociology of mental health since its formation

144 R.J. Johnson
7.3.1 Sources of Mental Health Research
in the Sociological Literature
The Journal of Health and Social Behavior (JHSB) is the primary sociological
outlet for health related sociological research, being an official publication of
the American Sociological Association, and thus a forum where sociologists can
share their health research (including but not limited to mental health) with other
sociologists. An examination of all articles appearing in the JHSB from 1975
through 2011 can provide insights not only for determining the impact of mental
health research but also into trends of the sociological study of mental health dur-
ing a period of time that such research was expanding (1) before the formation of
the Section on Sociology of Mental Health in 1992 and (2) during the period to
follow its formation. Research on the closely related topic of the legacy of stress
research (though with a stated focused on stress it also included much mental
health research more broadly defined here) has previously documented the rise
in prominence of this journal during the earlier years of this period (Johnson and
Wolinsky 1990).
Prevalence of Mental Health Research. Among the first articles found pub-
lished during this period are indisputably those appearing in a special issue of
JHSB in 1975 on recent developments in the “Sociology of Mental Illness.” These
half a dozen or so articles would be followed to eventually include 148 out of 595
research articles (excluding notes, replies, comments, or other editorial content)
published through 1990. Thus nearly 25 % of all research published in the JHSB
was related to the sociology of mental health. During the second period of time,
202 out of 588 research articles published in the JHSB were on the topics of men-
tal health. This represents a substantial increase to just over one-third (34 %) of all
the articles published during this period.
7.3.2 Top 100 Cited Articles in the JHSB
Prominence of Mental Health Research. Nearly two thirds of the top 100 cited
article appearing between 1975 and 1990 in the JHSB were on the topic of mental
health (62 %). As Fig. 7.2 shows, these earlier leading articles dealt primarily with
the topics of stress, coping and social support.
The impact of these top three categories ranges from 6,000 to 12,000 cita-
tions over their lifetime (Harzing 2011). The fourth ranked category according to
number of articles published that cited these dealt variously with identity, roles
and social status dealt but largely with marital status, occupational status or soci-
oeconomic status and often with multiple combinations of these. Closely follow-
ing their impact was the study of life events, which often dealt with life event
scales and/or the positive/negative valence associated with these events. Gender
and depression ranked about evenly, and sometimes overlapped in terms of

145
7 Impact of Mental Health Research in Sociology: Nearly Four Decades …
coverage. The former was often studied in terms of difference with the latter but
certainly not always. Depression was by far the most common “disorder” used
as an indicator of mental illness during this period. The study of race differ-
ences in mental health made an early appearance in the literature and certainly
established itself as a palpable but not quite a leading or central theme in the
sociological literature at that time. Periodically articles dealing with methodo-
logical or measurement issues would appear in this literature and while one gets
the impression that they have had an impact on the direction of research in the
field, that are not cited as often as substantive themes. The impact of research
on mental health services appears as a theme among the top 100 cited in several
articles. The appearance of personality near the end of the ranking of themes
perhaps is a reflection of its “psychological” underpinnings as a topic, yet one
that was still ahead of notions of purely social factors as the cause of mental ill-
ness, which appears last in this ranking. Other themes did appear from time to
time, but those not listed here did not appear often among the top articles during
this time period.
The second period of time (1991–2011) is reflected in Fig. 7.3 that shows cita-
tions to articles appearing in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior.
This period coincides with the formation and existence of the Section on
Sociology of Mental Health. The number of mental health articles in the top
100 cited articles was 57 (compared to 62 earlier), a slight decline from the ear-
lier period. Although this time period is 5 years longer, the top citation rates are
lower over the lifetime of the cited articles because of the reduced exposure time
(i.e., the availability of an article to be read and cited was much greater for earlier
time periods than the most recent ones, a large proportion of which have only been
“citable” for the last couple of years). Once again, articles that appeared in this
period and primarily dealt with “stress” were having the greatest impact. However,
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Fig. 7.2 Citations to mental health articles among the top 100 cited appearing in the JHSB
1975–1990

146 R.J. Johnson
“coping” and “social support” slipped from ranking 2nd and 3rd to stand at 7th
and 8th in the rankings of impact.
Rising to 2nd place were articles that addressed mental illness in terms of
“depression” as the focal outcome, usually in combination with other themes
appearing in Fig. 7.2. The themes of identity, roles, and status (while moving
up only one rank) followed the 1st and 2nd ranked themes to establish a per-
ceptively higher threshold of impact than other themes appearing during this
period. The “apparent top tier” of the earlier period included primarily “stress
and coping” while the “apparent top tier” during the later period included
“stress” again at the top along with “depression” and “identity/roles/status.”
The movement of “coping” and “social support” to a second tier of influence
is particularly notable. Also notable, race moved up to form the top of a 2nd
tier along with the appearance of “stigma”, “social cause” and “neighborhood”
themes. With the upward movement of race as a theme, it had expanded to con-
tain the effects of discrimination specifically and usually as a cause of dimin-
ished mental health (going beyond the mere documentation of racial differences
in earlier research). Interestingly enough, the appearance and rise of “stigma”
may be more rightly described as a “reappearance” from a body of sociological
work (largely theoretical) that was popularized in earlier periods of time (i.e.,
labeling and dramaturgical theories of mental illness). The sociological research
examining neighborhood effects on health also quickly gained strength during
this period as it expanded its focus to include mental illness and other areas
of social problems as well (e.g., crime). Finally, life event research endured
throughout this period but it was augmented in part with a new focus on trauma
and/or abuse. Gender, age, religion and measurement or methodology rounded
out the impact of mental health research during this period.
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Citations 1991-2011
Fig. 7.3 Citations to mental health articles among the top 100 cited appearing in the JHSB
1991–2011

147
7 Impact of Mental Health Research in Sociology: Nearly Four Decades …
7.3.3 High Impact Articles1—The JHSB 100, 500, and 1,000
As the primary sociological outlet for health research in sociology, the articles pub-
lished in JHSB have undoubtedly helped shaped the fields of medical sociology and
the sociology of mental health. The citation impact for the most heavily cited articles
are shown in Table 7.1. Between 1975 and 1990, 161 of the 595 articles were cited
more than 100 times, 9 were cited more than 500 times, and 6 were cited more than
1,000 times. During the following period, 1991–2011, 145 of the 588 articles were
cited more than 100 times, 6 were cited more than 500 times, and 4 were cited over
1,000 times. For all six categories, half or more of the high impact articles dealt with
research on the topics of the sociology of mental health. During the period of 1975–
1991 the mental health articles were 49 % (71 out of 146) of the JHSB 100, 67 % (6
out of 9) of the JHSB 500 and 100 % (6 out of 6) of the JHSB 1000. During the period
of 1991–2011, mental health articles accounted for 49 % (66 out of 135) of the JHSB
100, 83 % (5 out of 6) of the JHSB 500 and 50 % (2 out of 4) of the JHSB 1000.
Table 7.2 refers to the 306 high impact journal articles by decade since 1975
appearing in JHSB. It often takes several years since the initial publication for high
impact articles to be revealed, but between roughly the decade before and following
the formation section (with a lag factor of 3-5 years) does reveal a slight decline. It
is too soon and too brief a period to determine if this represents any trend.
The flagship journal of the ASA is the American Sociological Review (ASR)
and although it is not a primary outlet for mental health related research, it remains
a prominent forum for leading research to be published. The venue provides an
opportunity for an examination of the impact of mental health research relative to
other sociological research appearing there. The articles appearing in it from 1975
through 2011 can also provide additional insights for determining the basis of the
rise in prominence of research on mental health in sociology. During the two peri-
ods under consideration, 849 (1975–1990) and 886 (1991–2011) research articles
were published in the ASR. Only a small percentage during each period could be
classified as mental health research according to the criteria we set above; 25 were
published in the earlier period and only 11 (less than half as many) were published
in the later period. The palpable decline in the number of research articles overall
is even greater when considering the annual rate, 1.6 versus 0.6 per year.
1 We used 100 citations as the benchmark for high impact articles following the lead of an edito-
rial in ASR that examined the citations to articles in that journal (Jacobs 2005). The most highly
cited articles (JHSB 1,000 and 500) appear in Appendix C.
Table 7.1 High impact
JHSB articles by period and
type
1975–1990 1991–2011
Mental health Total Mental health Total
JHSB 100 71 (49 %) 146 66 (52 %) 135
JHSB 500 6 (67 %) 9 5 (83 %) 6
JHSB 1000 6 (100 %) 6 2 (50 %) 4
Total 83 (52 %) 161 73 (50 %) 145

148 R.J. Johnson
The impact of mental health research articles placed them high on the list of
all articles. The large number of mental health research articles (10/25 and 6/11)
were in the top 100 ASR articles published during those periods. Again, the large
majority of those (15 articles during the earlier period, 10 during the latter) qual-
ify as highly cited articles, the ASR 100 articles (Jacobs 2005) having been cited
100 times or more. The average percentile rank of these articles was at the 64th
percentile (top 3rd) during 1975–1990 and at the 80th percentile (top 5th) during
1991–2011, both far above the median rank for an ASR article.
7.4 Discussion
The Section on the Sociology of Mental Health formed 20 years ago in response to
a growing number of sociologists who were conducting research on mental health
topics, identifying as professionals in this subspecialty, and seeking additional
forums to present their scholarly work. The sociological literature published in the
decades before and after the formation of the section provide evidence of what
types of research was appearing and the citations to that research is evidence, in
part, of the impact it was having. This evidence suggests that the surge in research
in this subspecialty that was taking place was matched by prominence in scholarly
impact. The prominence of this research documented for a much shorter period
earlier (Johnson and Wolinsky 1990) is found here to have been present and main-
tained over a much broader period. This prominence was reflected in both quantity
(number and proportion of articles published) and recognition (measured by cita-
tion impact) of the research appearing in the JHSB, and although the quantity pal-
pably declined in the ASR, the recognition in terms citation impact increased from
the earlier to the latter period.
These general trends over a longer period are important to note for a couple of
reasons. First, citations are only a rough indication of the importance and recogni-
tion of research, especially in emerging fields that develop unevenly over shorter
periods of time. The general conclusions based on the citations to the articles rep-
resenting the broad subspecialty of mental health research include this range of
established and developing topics of study, appearing in the same sociological
journals with other sociological research having a similar range of topics. Thus,
the notable features of the subspecialty as a whole over a very long period of
time seem to lead to more stable conclusions. Second, while the findings on the
Table 7.2 High impacta
journal articles by decade
since 1975
aHigh impact journal articles (with more than 100 citations)
bHigh impact journal articles since 2005 yet to appear
1975–1984 96
1985–1994 113
1995–2004 90
2005b7

149
7 Impact of Mental Health Research in Sociology: Nearly Four Decades …
major and minor substantive trends in mental health research itself over this period
may prove to be interesting, conclusions about them must be more guarded. The
emerging topics are likely to be uneven in their development, more vulnerable to
short periods of obscurity or popularity. More popular research topics should not
be confused with more important research topics, and neither with higher qual-
ity research. It is also true however, that seminal research should not be confused
with popularity either. In terms of these data, all the research is notable because
of it has been reviewed by peers and published in the leading journals of the dis-
cipline. A simple citation count after the fact is not intended to weigh (or second
guess) these decisions, which after all were based on a thorough reading of each
article. And to that end, we rely on editors, editorial board members and review-
ers to make these judgments about what articles do and do not get published. With
that in mind, we turn to examine some of the trends occurring over this period.
7.4.1 Stress
The findings show that “stress” has persisted as the most prominent topic in mental
health research in Sociology. The overall early rise in prominence of mental health
research (late 70s and early 80s) in the JHSB posited the putative role of the legacy
of stress research itself as part of the explanation of this rise (along with other fac-
tors such as the influence of prominent stress researchers like Howard Kaplan and
Leonard Pearlin serving as editors), although the distinct effect of research labeled as
“stress” was not directly examined (Johnson and Wolinsky 1990). In these analyses,
research labeled as “stress” did emerge as one of those distinguished topics clearly
associated with the greater prominence of the research. Stress research was the most
salient and persistent of all the mental health topics appearing during these years.
Near the end of the first period of analyses presented here, Pearlin (1989) wrote
about the sociological study of stress in a way that both seems to sum up the pre-
vious 15 years of research evidence and predicate the following period of stress
research prominence that continued during the formation and throughout the exist-
ence of the section, stating:
Sociologists have an intellectual stake in the study of stress. It presents an excellent
opportunity to observe how deeply well-being is affected by the structured arrangements
of people’s lives and by the repeated experiences that stem from these arrangements.
Social research into stress is entirely consistent with a present-day social psychology that
seeks to establish the unities between social structure and the inner functioning of individ-
uals (House 1981a). Yet stress is not generally seen as part of a sociological mainstream,
partly, I believe, because those of us who are engaged in stress research are not consist-
ently attentive to the sociological character of the field.
In some ways, then, it does not seem like it should be any revelation that stress
research should have been or remained a prominent theme in the sociological research
on mental health. Stating the obvious however (even when done so by a careful,
knowledgeable observer of and notable scholar in the field) often can be overlooked
or even dismissed by others (who often are either less careful or knowledgeable).

150 R.J. Johnson
7.4.2 Depression
Nearly one of two adults in the United States will experience some form of mental
illness in their lifetime (Kessler et al. 2005). Major depressive disorder is among
the most common mental health illnesses in the United States. Over one in five
have some form of mood disorder generally and roughly one in six adults exhibit
symptoms of major depressive disorder (Kessler et al. 2005). Thus it should not be
surprising that it is among the most common topics of research in the sociology of
mental health area.
7.4.3 Coping
The decline in the relative rank of coping research, from 2nd in the earlier period
to 7th during the later period was also reflective of an absolute drop in the ratio of
citations to the leading category of stress research (fcoping/fstress). The earlier period
shows coping at a ratio of 0.85 of the top cited category, while during the period
following the formation of the section its ratio of 0.40 was less than half that num-
ber. What happened to coping research? Did it decline overall? If not, where did
it go? The observation that coping and social support seemed to move down the
impact rankings in tandem might suggest that there are similar explanations for
changes in both. It makes sense, then, to turn next to the topic of social support and
consider what those explanations might be. But before doing that I have a few final
thoughts. As much as I suspect that the research on coping has the same character-
istics that allow for a similar explanation about its relative decline, there is at the
same time something unique and perhaps more psychological about it than social
support. They are similar in that coping may involve the use of social support
resources, and in fact, some coping strategy terminology may have morphed into
social support terminology because of this overlap. Coping may also be perceived
as having a greater affinity with social psychology because it is readily adapted to
the clinical experience that may focus more intensely on the individual patient. As
social support research moves to more closely embrace the social causes of mental
illness paradigms, such a focus on individual patients and coping efforts becomes
more problematic as coping can be viewed as shifting the burden to (i.e., blaming)
the victim. This makes it less popular in many sociological circles.
7.4.4 Social Support
One trend that seems particularly salient for a sociological audience is the role of
social support as a topic in mental health research. There is a general consensus
that social support was evident in the very foundations of the sociology of mental
health, and abundant evidence that it was present in an important way during the
rise to prominence from the seventies into the eighties of the last century. It seems

151
7 Impact of Mental Health Research in Sociology: Nearly Four Decades …
obvious that it continue to be viewed as important well through the end of the sec-
ond period of impact that has been examined here a evidenced by recent attention
in the prominent sociological outlets. So then why did the relative impact of this
topic as measured by citations decline in the premier journal of the sociological
study of mental health? The absolute decline in the ratio of social support impact
to the leading category of stress research (fsocial support/fstress) can be readily seen
by comparing Figs. 7.2 and 7.3. In this case, it declines from 0.55 to 0.37. This
seems to be an especially important question in light of the evidence that shows
the number of papers published in the social science literature as a whole on topics
of social support went from 1,062 during the first period to 26,154 during the sec-
ond period of time. Possible answers include (a) research on social support moved
to other journals, primarily psychology and psychiatry, (b) the research became
applicable to clinical and other professional settings and proliferated in that litera-
ture, (c) there were barriers to publishing this research in sociological literature.
In terms of where research on social support and coping is published, it has
been the case that most of it has always appeared in journals other than purely
sociological ones. The simple fact of the matter is that there are far more soci-
ologists publishing in these fields than there is space in the sociological journals
to include their work. The very interdisciplinary nature of mental health research
from the beginning meant that sociologists would not only likely find outlets for
their work in other disciplinary fields, but that sociological research on the topic
would compete with and hopefully contribute to the broader interests of scholars
in our own and other disciplines. Because the influence of social support on men-
tal health is primarily a sociological phenomenon, the field of sociology in general
runs the risk of not profiting more mightily from the impact and significance of
this research when those sociologists can find room for their work more and more
exclusively in other outlets. Ironically, however, the prestige of the discipline of
sociology is enhanced across disciplines as the fruit of from its own subfield of
mental health research is disseminated elsewhere. It is possible, and in fact desira-
ble, for sociology to benefit by both taking into account the mental health research
on social support in our own general studies and deriving prestige from making an
impact across disciplines. My sense is that the members of the SSMH are willing
and in fact anxious to do so, ever hopeful of finding a receptive audience.
7.4.5 Identity, Roles and Status
The central concept of the social self and its relationship to others in the hierarchy
of society is fundamental to American Sociology arising from its earliest roots in
the Chicago School. It was central through the impact that James (1890) had on the
earliest introduction of pragmatism as it emerged in its central treatment by Mead
(1934). James had been keenly interested in the self as a central idea in understand-
ing mental illness, although Mead did not at least in his writings and lectures that
survived. A reworking of his theories of the self, I, and me have been relevant in later
critical assessments of the relationships between the mind and society. It re-emerged

152 R.J. Johnson
in the mental health research of sociologists in at least three forms: (1) the self as a
psychosocial resource (self-esteem and self-mastery), (2) through its reworking by
the symbolic interactionists who focus on the relationship between structure and per-
sonality through the concepts of identity, roles and status, and (3) as found in the
development of social constructionism, labeling and stigma which are theoretically
built on the idea of the self as socially constructed (as is expectedly mental illness
as well). In its first form, the reflexive and evaluative dimension of self is viewed
largely as a personal resource that might provide a salutogenic independent effect,
moderating or mediating (resource depletion) response to life stressors by alleviating
symptoms of distress (e.g., depression). In its second form, the sociological social
psychologists also reworked the self into an examination of the structured positions
of status and identity assigned to gender, race and ethnicity primarily, but as we
have also seen in the findings above, in work and family. Among these most of the
research in the sociology of mental health has involved gender, marital and occupa-
tional roles. In its third form, the self embodies behavioral, physical and mental ill-
ness as potentially stigmatized identities.
7.4.6 Conclusions
The scholarly field of the sociology of mental health is itself healthy and robust.
Based on its foundation at the very inception of the field, its notable early history in
sociology, its strong resurgence in the score of years preceding the formal organiza-
tion of the SSMH, and its continuing strength in the score of years that followed, the
stature of the field within the discipline is unmistakably high. The articles on men-
tal health that appear in our flagship journal, ASR, are generally well cited and rank
high among their peers. The same can be said for the articles that appear on mental
health in the leading health journal of our field, JHSB. Stress research, among the
many mental health topics and despite (or because) of all that has been said about it
over the years, remains the frontrunner in terms of citation impact.
The earlier contributions of sociological research on stress coupled with
the closely ranked impacts of coping and social support, written by sociologists
appears not solely in the main sociological journals as research of high impact
as noted above, but also in journals across disciplinary boundaries (psychology,
psychiatry, medicine, etc.) and in interdisciplinary journals (epidemiology, pub-
lic health, gerontology, human development, etc.) Evidence suggests that this
research is of high enough quality to compete for journal space in and across these
disciplinary boundaries and that it has high impact there as well. Perhaps one of
the more revealing pieces of evidence beyond citation impact is the recent inclu-
sion of sociological content by the Association of American Medical Colleges
(2012) in the new 2015 Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT). The addi-
tion of the social and behavioral sciences in the exam was done in recognition
of the impact that social factors have on health. This recognition undoubtedly
comes from the years of research published by social scientists on these topics.

153
7 Impact of Mental Health Research in Sociology: Nearly Four Decades …
The reader needs only to browse the foundational topics, the “big ideas” in the
MCAT preview guide (e.g., social processes, self-identity, social interaction, social
structure, social inequality), to get a sense of the sociological contributions that
the impact of this research has had on the field. To be sure, research on the soci-
ology of health in general and mental health in particular is not solely responsi-
ble for this recognition that is to be shared with psychology, anthropology and
other social sciences. Further analyses of citation patterns of these various topics
in leading disciplinary and interdisciplinary fields outside of the sociological lit-
erature would be necessary to understand completely the relative contributions of
each. However, the relative high rank of mental health research in sociology is a
solid clue that the importance of its impact is secure.
There are several questions remaining about the course and impact of men-
tal health research in sociology that might also be the focus of future research.
As noted above the impact of coping and social support declined in the premier
journal for sociological study of mental health. This is an especially important
question because the number of papers published on topics of coping and social
support increased dramatically in the social science literature. Also note that a
recent update (trends and future) article by Peggy Thoits (2011) in JHSB had very
few recent references to social support and coping from the sociological literature.
This provides more evidence that leading edge research is going elsewhere than
sociology. Why hasn’t life course research appeared yet? Perhaps it (a) has taken
hold in aging literature that doesn’t move easily into the disciplinary boundaries of
sociology, (b) appears only in marital and occupational transitions, (c) is perceived
to have other specialized or even interdisciplinary outlets (e.g., criminology, ger-
ontology, human development) and thus reviewers turn these manuscripts down
and refer them elsewhere.
Where had stigma gone and why did it reappear? The answer to the second part
of this question is easier than it is to the first. Appearing throughout the two dec-
ades that followed the formation of the SSMH were several research articles on
stigma that were cited more than 100 times each. And only 3 of the 26 articles on
stigma that appeared in JHSB were published in the period before the formation
of the section. Research focusing on the impact of stigma during both periods that
include other disciplines and interdisciplinary outlets would be necessary to fully
answer the first part of this question. Looking at articles published in JHSB during
the period following the formation of SSMH provides mixed evidence implicating
several possible explanations.
7.4.7 Why Did Stress Remain Strong While Social Support
and Coping Declined?
Depression remains the dominant illness outcome in the sociology of men-
tal health research. The high prevalence of the clinical cases of depression and
the dreadful scope of it as a common human experience are perhaps two of the

154 R.J. Johnson
reasons why it remains dominant as an outcome in social science research on men-
tal health. It is a characteristic of both individual human suffering and collective
social problems. In addition, sociological researchers on health topics, especially
mental health topics, have long struggled with the forces exerted by the strained
dichotomy of the “sociology of medicine” and the “sociology in medicine” first
described by Straus (1957). This strain fosters research on both sides of the ques-
tion of depression (clinical and applied on one, social construction and control
on the other). Both perspectives engage in the active pursuit of scholarly activity
because each concedes its significance (even if only from their own perspectives).
The widespread availability of reliable and valid standardized scales, both long
and short versions, in addition to the widespread acceptance of both subjective and
clinical understandings of depression, is undoubtedly another reason.
Why have identity/roles/status persisted, how has this focus changed or is
changing? (socioeconomic status now seems to be moving to include dimensions
of wealth and other accumulated resources, or would these be better conceptual-
ized as coping resources, or do the two lines of thought need to be integrated, or
are psychosocial and economic resources a new area that needs to be explored
leaving coping to types of behavior).
Are social cause, neighborhood, events, trauma and abuse related/overlapping
sociological concepts? Or, if this question can be asked perhaps more appropri-
ately in the affirmative, how are they related and where do they overlap?
What happened to gender? Is this now an area of settled findings? Or is it being
marginalized again? The chapter by Simon suggests that gender and mental health
is a “field of continuities and new developments.” It appears that the interest in and
the findings on gender may continue to be as important yet fluid as the construct
itself. And even as this is being written, new challenges to the old continuities and
questions about the earlier findings continue to evolve (e.g., Hill and Needham
2013).
These conclusions and further questions are necessarily more tentative than
definitive, more suggestive than exhaustive as explanations for the findings or pro-
cesses that produced them. The data were drawn from only two sources of socio-
logical research, albeit those representing the flagship and leading outlets for the
discipline with respect to the sociological research on mental health.
7.4.8 Caveats
As noted in the discussion above, none of our conclusions based on these findings
are intended to convey meaning about the quality of one particular scholarly publi-
cation. As I indicated then, and repeated here, the intellectual and scholarly contri-
bution made by any one journal article is still determined at the time of publication
by the editors and peer reviewers of the journal. Nevertheless, there is nothing
inconsistent with that in the use of citation counts to gauge the impact of a general
body of scholarly work. As Garfield (1998) noted following his 1962 meeting with

155
7 Impact of Mental Health Research in Sociology: Nearly Four Decades …
Robert Merton, “The Mertonian description of normal science describes citations
as the currency of science. Scientists make payments, in the form of citations, to
their preceptors. Referees are supposed to help keep that Mertonian principle alive
and honest.” Thus in a Mertonian sense, the cumulative impact count of articles
within specific areas represents a general sense of the robustness of its overall
scholarly “economy” in the field. Whether or not we should be trading with this
“currency” in that “economy” is another, to be sure related, topic. The restriction
of these analyses to a single discipline (even further to only two journals in that
discipline published by its official national association), the use of relative rank-
ings not simply counts, and the use of such data over long periods of time help
mute many of the criticisms (not all of course and perhaps silencing none com-
pletely). The reader should be aware of the intent of the analyses in light of these
criticisms.
Appendix A: Text of Petition to Form the Section
on the Sociology of Mental Health
University of Toronto
Department of Sociology
203 COLLEGE STREET. SUITE 301
TORONTO MST 1 P9
25 July 1990
Executive Office
American Sociological Association
1722 N Street, NW
Washington DC 20036
Dear Colleagues:
In accordance with the procedure specified in the Manual on Sections, this letter is
to inform you of our intention to form a new ASA section. The section we propose
is the Sociology of Mental Health. This section is proposed for much the same
reasons that sections were originally created within the association—to promote
and ensure interaction, collaboration and the exchange of concepts, research meth-
ods and scientific findings between persons of similar scholarly and/or applied
interests.
The study of the social determinants of mental health and illness and of associ-
ated service providers and systems has long been recognized as a relatively dis-
tinct subject and often accorded separate treatment within social problems and
other texts. The widespread recognition that there are advantages with respect
to communication, service and scientific progress in viewing mental health as
a distinct sub area is most clearly expressed in the administrative structure of
governmental agencies. That there is a National Institute of Mental Health and

156 R.J. Johnson
departments of mental health at both state and county levels is sufficient to
illustrate this point.
Sociologists in the mental health area, of course, share many interests with other
medical sociologists just as medical sociologists share many interests with soci-
ologists in the areas of deviance, organizations, etc. However, the study of health
related issues has grown in size and complexity to the point where the medical
sociology section is, by several hundred members, the largest in the ASA. Within
such a large group there are competing interests and, indeed, ideologies that are
difficult to consistently serve well year after year. We wish to emphasise that we
see the proposed section as in no way a challenge to, or in competition with, the
medical sociology section. Rather, we see the general area of medical sociology as
so large and so diverse that it is time to institutionalize a significant aspect of this
diversity.
Mental health scholars and researchers represent a significant minority of the
1,100 or so members of the medical sociology section and, we believe, account for
a not insignificant fraction of the grants received and field research conducted by
all sociologists in North America. We strongly feel that it is crucial for the future
of our sub-area that the Association afford us a reliable opportunity to share our
ideas, our work and our conclusions with one another. A separate section would
achieve this goal through entitlement to sessions at our annual meeting. We have
no doubt of our capacity to generate a section membership well in excess of the
minimum required for a section and we urge the Committee on Sections and the
Council to respond favourably to this petition.
Signed:
Appendix B: Chairs of the Section of Sociology
of Mental Health
1992 R. Jay Turner (in formation)
1993 David Mechanic
1994 R. Jay Turner
1995 Leonard Pearlin
1996 Carol Aneshensel
1997 Bruce Link
1998 Mary Clare Lennon
1999 William R. Avison
2000 Sarah Rosenfield
2001 Allan V. Horwitz

157
7 Impact of Mental Health Research in Sociology: Nearly Four Decades …
2002 Nan Lin
2003 Blair Wheaton
2004 Jane D. McLeod
2005 William W. Eaton
2006 Bernice A. Pescosolido
2007 Debra Umberson
2008 Linda George
2009 Mark Tausig
2010 Heather Turner
2011 Michael Hughes
2012 Teresa Scheid
2013 Virginia Aldige Hiday
Appendix C: The JHSB 1000+ and 500+: Articles Cited
1000+ or 500+ Times Since Publication Thru 2010
Period Author(s) Title Year
The JHSB 1000+
1975–1990 Leonard I. Pearlin and Carmi
Schooler
The structure of coping 1978
Sheldon Cohen, Tom Kamarck
and Robin Mermelstein
A global measure of perceived stress 1983
Susan Folkman and Richard
S. Lazarus
An analysis of coping in a middle-
aged community sample
1980
Leonard I. Pearlin, Elizabeth
G. Menaghan, Morton A.
Lieberman and Joseph T.
Mullan
The stress process 1981
Leonard I. Pearlin The sociological study of stress 1989
Peggy A. Thoits Conceptual, methodological, and
theoretical problems in studying
social support as a buffer against life
stress
1982
1991–2011 Peggy A. Thoits Stress, coping, and social support
processes: where are we? What
next?
1995
Bruce G. Link and Jo Phelan Social conditions as fundamental
causes of disease
1995
Ellen L. Idler and Yael
Benyamini
Self-rated health and mortality: a
review of twenty-seven community
studies
1997
Ronald M. Andersen Revisiting the behavioral model
and access to medical care: does it
matter?
1995
The JHSB 500+(continued)

158 R.J. Johnson
Period Author(s) Title Year
1975–1990 Barbara Snell Dohrenwend,
Alexander R. Askenasy,
Larry Krasnoff and Bruce P.
Dohrenwend
Exemplification of a method for
scaling life events: the PERI life
events scale
1978
Elaine Wethington and Ronald
C. Kessler
Perceived support, received support,
and adjustment to stressful life
events
1986
James M. LaRocco, James
S. House and John
R.P. French, Jr.
Social support, occupational stress,
and health
1980
Susan Gore The effect of social support in
moderating the health consequences
of unemployment
1978
Nan Lin, Walter M. Ensel,
Ronald S. Simeone and Wen
Kuo
Social support, stressful life events,
and illness: a model and an
empirical test
1979
M. Audrey Burnam, Richard
L. Hough, Marvin Karno,
Javier I. Escobar and Cynthia
A. Telles
Acculturation and lifetime
prevalence of psychiatric disorders
among Mexican Americans in Los
Angeles
1987
Lois M. Verbrugge Gender and health: an update on
hypotheses and evidence
1985
Debra Umberson Family status and health behaviors:
social control as a dimension
of social integration
1987
Lois M. Verbrugge The twain meet: empirical
explanations of sex differences
in health and mortality
1989
1991–2011 Ronald C. Kessler, Kristin
D. Mickelson and David R.
Williams
The prevalence, distribution,
and mental health correlates
of perceived discrimination
in the United States
1999
Christopher G. Ellison Religious involvement and subjec-
tive well-being
1991
Carol S. Aneshensel and Clea
A. Sucoff
The neighborhood context of
adolescent mental health
1996
Ilan H. Meyer Minority stress and mental health
in gay men
1995
James S. House, James M.
Lepkowski, Ann M. Kinney,
Richard P. Mero, Ronald C.
Kessler, A. Regula Herzog
Source Journal of Health
The social stratification of aging
and health
1994
Bruce G. Link, Elmer L.
Struening, Michael Rahav, Jo
C. Phelan, Larry Nuttbrock
On stigma and its consequences:
evidence from a longitudinal study
of men with dual diagnoses of men-
tal illness and substance abuse
1997
Appendix C (continued)

159
7 Impact of Mental Health Research in Sociology: Nearly Four Decades …
References
AAMC (2012). MCAT2015: A better test for tomorrow’s doctors. Preview guide for the
MCAT2015 exam, (2nd ed.). Association of American Medical Colleges, www.aamc.org/m
cat2015
Avison, W. R., Aneshensel, C. S., Schieman, S., & Wheaton, B. (Eds.). (2010). Advances in the
conceptualization of the stress process: Essays in honor of Leonard I. Pearlin. New York:
Springer.
Bloom, S. (2002). The word as scalpel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology. New York: Free Press.
Faris, R. E. L., & Dunham, H. W. (1939). Mental disease in urban areas. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Garfield, E. (1998, May 4). The use of journal impact factors and citation analysis for evaluation
of science. In Presented at the 41st annual meeting of the council of biology editors, Salt
Lake City, UT.
Harzing, A. W. (2011). Publish or Perish 3.5. Retrieved January 2011 from http://www.harzing.
com
Hill, T. D., & Needham, B. L. (2013). Rethinking gender and mental health: A critical analysis of
three propositions. Social Science and Medicine, 92, 83–91.
Jacobs, J. (2005). ASR’s greatest hits—Editor’s comment. American Sociological Review.
William, J. (1890). The Hidden Self. Scribner’s Magazine, 7(3).
James, W. (1907). Pragmatism. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co.
Johnson, R. J., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1990). The legacy of stress research: Course and impact of this
journal. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 31(3), 217–225.
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P. A., Demler, O., Jin, R., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence
and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey
Replication (NCS-R). Archives of General Psychiatry, 62(6), 593–602.
Koplan, J. P., & Fleming, D. W. (2000). Current and future public health challenges. Journal of
the American Medical Association, 284(13), 1696–1698.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Pearlin, L. (1989). The sociological study of stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30(3),
241–256.
Pescosolido, B. A., & Kronenfeld, J. J. (1995). Health, illness, and healing in an uncertain era:
Challenges from and for medical sociology. Journal of Health and Social Behavior (Extra
Issue), 5–33.
Simmel, G. (1903). The metropolis and mental life. In K. H. Wolff (ed.) (1950), The sociology of
Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press.
Straus, R. (1957). The nature and status of medical sociology. American Sociological Review,
22(2), 200–204.
Thoits, P. (2011). Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 145–161.
Reuters, T. (2012). Web of knowledge-social science citation index (SSCI). New York: Thompson
Reuters. (retrieved January).
Wirth, L. (1931). Clinical sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 37(1), 49–66.