How Stigma Interferes With Mental Health Care
University of Chicago
Many people who would beneﬁt from mental health ser-
vices opt not to pursue them or fail to fully participate once
they have begun. One of the reasons for this disconnect is
stigma; namely, to avoid the label of mental illness and the
harm it brings, people decide not to seek or fully partici-
pate in care. Stigma yields 2 kinds of harm that may impede
treatment participation: It diminishes self-esteem and robs
people of social opportunities. Given the existing literature
in this area, recommendations are reviewed for ongoing
research that will more comprehensively expand under-
standing of the stigma–care seeking link. Implications for
the development of antistigma programs that might pro-
mote care seeking and participation are also reviewed.
lthough the quality and effectiveness of mental
health treatments and services have improved
greatly over the past 50 years, many people who
might beneﬁt from these services choose not to obtain them
or do not fully adhere to treatment regimens once they are
begun. Stigma is one of several reasons why people make
such choices; namely, social–cognitive processes motivate
people to avoid the label of mental illness that results when
people are associated with mental health care. A brief
deﬁnition of stigma is provided, followed by a more com-
plete description of two speciﬁc manifestations that dis-
suade people from treatment: the threats of diminished
self-esteem and of public identiﬁcation when labeled “men-
tally ill.” The article ends by brieﬂy reviewing implications
of these two factors for research and antistigma programs
that seek to increase consumer use of mental health
An important question throughout this article is
whether the problem of stigma and adherence applies to the
generic concept of mental illness or differs by diagnosis
and/or level of disability. Research evidence on this issue is
mixed. On one hand, research suggests there is a nonspe-
ciﬁc label effect, implying that people labeled mentally ill,
regardless of the speciﬁc psychiatric diagnosis or level of
disability, are stigmatized more severely than those with
other health conditions (Corrigan et al., 2000; Weiner,
Magnusson, & Perry, 1988). On the other hand, studies
suggest the public discriminates among psychiatric groups
in terms of stigma; for example, people with psychotic
disorders are judged more harshly than people with depres-
sion or anxiety disorders (Pescosolido, Monahan, Link,
Stueve, & Kikuzawa, 1999). Moreover, treatment partici-
pation and adherence seem to be greater problems in indi-
viduals with psychotic disorders (Fenton, Blyler, & Hein-
ssen, 1997). Given the equivocal nature of stigma and
diagnosis, the relevance of speciﬁc diagnoses and disabil-
ities is highlighted where appropriate in the remainder of
Mental Health Problems and Care
Most clinical and services researchers recognize several
interventions as having sufﬁcient empirical evidence to
commend them for treatment of speciﬁc disorders (Amer-
ican Psychiatric Association, 1997, 2000; Gibbs & Gam-
brill, 2002; Proctor, 2002; Torrey et al., 2001). Two task
forces of the American Psychological Association
(APA)—on Psychological Intervention Guidelines (1995)
and on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological
Procedures (1995)—have developed standards for deﬁning
research evidence that describes empirically supported in-
terventions. Division 12 members have summarized these
proceedings and similar efforts into a continually evolving
set of guidelines and recommendations (Chambless et al.,
1996, 1998; Weisz, Hawley, Pilkonis, Woody, & Follette,
2000). Chambless and Hollon (1998, p. 7) posed three
questions that perhaps best deﬁne evidence-based treat-
(a) Has the treatment been shown to be beneﬁcial in controlled
research? (b) Is the treatment useful in applied clinical settings,
and if so, with what patients and under what circumstances? (c) Is
the treatment efﬁcient in the sense of being cost-effective relative
to other alternative interventions?
As a result of ongoing clinical and services research, pro-
viders and policymakers have developed evidence-based
guidelines that suggest speciﬁc treatments will improve the
lives of people with particular problems and disorders.
Despite the plethora of evidence-based interventions,
services researchers are familiar with two disconcerting
trends vis-a`-vis effective treatment: (a) Many people with
mental illness never pursue treatment, and (b) others begin
treatment but fail to fully adhere to services as prescribed.
Large-scale epidemiologic research has provided evidence
that supports the ﬁrst assertion. Research from the Epide-
Patrick Corrigan, Department of Psychiatry, University of Chicago.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Patrick Corrigan, who is now at the Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation,
Evanston Northwestern Health Care, 1033 University Place, Suite 450,
Evanston, IL 60201. E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
614 October 2004
Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association 0003-066X/04/$12.00
Vol. 59, No. 7, 614–625 DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.614
miologic Catchment Area (ECA) Study showed that less
than 30% of people with psychiatric disorders seek treat-
ment (Regier et al., 1993). A subsequent large-scale study,
the National Comorbidity Survey, showed similar results
(Kessler et al., 2001). Less than 40% of respondents with
mental illness in the past year received stable treatment.
Perhaps these small ratios represent those with relatively
minor adjustment disorders who choose to withstand brief
psychological discomfort rather than engage mental health
Additional analyses of ECA data, however, do not
support this assumption. Although somewhat better, there
is still concern about the number of people with serious
mental illness who do not receive care. About 40% of
people with such serious disorders as schizophrenia failed
to obtain treatment (Regier et al., 1993), and people with
serious mental illness were no more likely to participate in
treatment than those with relatively minor disorders (Nar-
row et al., 2000). A national survey conducted by the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administra-
tion found similar sobering results (Willis, Willis, Male,
Henderson, & Manderscheid, 1998); fewer than 10% of
people with psychiatric disabilities receive such diagnosti-
cally indicated services as vocational rehabilitation, case
management, or day treatment. Findings from a national
survey conducted by the Schizophrenia Patient Outcome
Research Team are also alarming (Lehman et al., 1998).
Although more than 90% of individuals in the survey
received maintenance neuroleptic treatment, participation
in evidence-based psychosocial treatments was far lower.
Less than half of survey participants reported participation
in appropriate psychotherapies, less than a quarter were
involved in family therapy, and only about 10% received
intensive case management. This lag has multiple causes,
including avoidance of the public labels that yield stigma.
These problems are further exacerbated by the number
of people who obtain mental health services but fail to fully
adhere to component prescriptions. A recent review of 34
studies of compliance with psychiatric medication found,
on average, that more than 40% of persons receiving anti-
psychotic medication failed to fully comply with prescribed
regimens (Cramer & Rosenbeck, 1998). Failure to adhere
to antipsychotic regimens increased rehospitalization by
three-fold, accounting for an $800 million increase in hos-
pital costs world wide (Weiden & Olfson, 1995). In addi-
tion, many persons drop out of psychosocial interventions
before ﬁnishing the complete regimen (Falloon, Lindley,
McDonald, & Marks, 1977; Tarrier et al., 1998).
The Relevance of Stigma
The question of interest in this article is why people with
mental health problems fail to engage in treatment. The
stigma process is proffered as one relevant factor and is
framed here as four social–cognitive processes: cues, ste-
reotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. First, the general
public seems to infer mental illness from four cues: psy-
chiatric symptoms, social-skills deﬁcits, physical appear-
ance, and labels (Corrigan, 2000; Penn & Martin, 1998).
Many of the symptoms of severe mental illnesses like
psychoses—for example, inappropriate affect and bizarre
behavior—are manifest indicators of psychiatric illness that
produce stigmatizing reactions (Link, Cullen, Frank, &
Wozniak, 1987; Penn et al., 1994; Socall & Holtgraves,
1992). Moreover, poor social skills (Bellack, Mueser, Mor-
rison, Tierney, & Podell, 1990; Mueser, Bellack, Douglas,
& Morrison, 1991) that result from some psychiatric ill-
nesses also lead to stigmatizing responses from others.
Similarly, research suggests that poor personal appearance
may lead to stigmatizing attitudes; for example, “that un-
kempt person on the park bench must be a mental patient”
(Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani, & Longo, 1991; Penn,
Mueser, & Doonan, 1997).
It is important to note, however, the potential for
misattributing someone as mentally ill on the basis of these
three cues. For example, eccentric behavior that is not
characteristic of a psychiatric disorder could be misunder-
stood as mental illness. Just as these signs may yield false
positives, so may their absence lead to false negatives.
Many people are able to conceal their experiences with
mental illness without peers being aware. Juxtaposing con-
cerns about false positives with the idea that the stigma of
mental illness may be hidden begs the following question:
What else, then, is the mark that leads to stigmatizing
responses? Several carefully constructed studies suggest
labeling as an important candidate (Jones et al., 1984; Link,
1987; Scheff, 1974). Labels lead to stigma in two ways.
People can obtain labels from others (a psychiatrist can
inform someone that Ms. X is mentally ill) or labels can be
obtained by association (a person observed coming out of
a psychologist’sofﬁce may be assumed to be mentally ill).
Second, stigmas are cues that elicit stereotypes,
knowledge structures that the general public learns about a
marked social group (Augoustinos, Ahrens, & Innes, 1994;
Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1994; Hilton & von Hippel,
1996; Judd & Park, 1993; Krueger, 1996; Mullen, Rozell,
& Johnson, 1996). Stereotypes are especially efﬁcient
means of categorizing information about social groups.
Stereotypes are considered “social” because they represent
collectively agreed on notions about groups of persons.
They are “efﬁcient” because people can quickly generate
impressions and expectations of individuals who belong to
a stereotyped group (Hamilton & Sherman, 1994). Com-
monly held stereotypes about people with mental illness
include violence (people with mental illness are danger-
ous), incompetence (they are incapable of independent
living or real work), and blame (because of weak character,
they are responsible for the onset and continuation of their
disorders; Brockington, Hall, Levings, & Murphy, 1993;
Corrigan et al., 2000; Hamre, Dahl, & Malt, 1994; Link,
Phelan, Bresnahan, Stueve, & Pescosolido, 1999).
Just because most people have knowledge of a set of
stereotypes does not mean that they agree with them (De-
vine, 1989; Jussim, Nelson, Manis, & Sofﬁn, 1995). Third,
people who are prejudiced endorse negative stereotypes
(“That’s right; all people with mental illness are violent and
incompetent!”) and generate negative emotional reactions
as a result (“They all scare me!”; Devine, 1988, 1989,
1995; Hilton & von Hippel, 1996; Krueger, 1996). In
contrast to stereotypes, which are beliefs, prejudicial atti-
tudes involve an evaluative (generally negative) component
(Allport, 1954; Eagley & Chaiken, 1993). Prejudice, which
is fundamentally a cognitive and affective response, leads
to discrimination, the behavioral reaction (Crocker, Major,
& Steele, 1998).
Fourth, discriminatory behavior manifests itself as
negative action against the out-group or exclusively posi-
tive action for the in-group. Most notably, out-group dis-
crimination may appear as avoidance, not associating with
people from the out-group. For example, employers avoid
workers with mental illness by not hiring them. Landlords
wanting to protect their tenants from people with mental
illness do not rent to them.
I made an additional distinction about stigma that has
been applied to more general work with all health condi-
tions (Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Corrigan & Watson, 2002).
I have distinguished public stigma (what a naive public
does to the stigmatized group when they endorse the prej-
udice about that group) and self-stigma (what members of
a stigmatized group may do to themselves if they internal-
ize the public stigma). The ramiﬁcation of this distinction
for understanding the link between stigma and care seeking
is outlined in Figure 1 and is reviewed more thoroughly in
the next section. Please note that although public and
self-stigma are presented separately in the ﬁgure, their
impact is likely to interact with and augment each other.
Public Stigma: Harm to Social Opportunities
Stigma harms people who are publicly labeled as mentally
ill in several ways. Stereotype, prejudice, and discrimina-
tion can rob people labeled mentally ill of important life
opportunities that are essential for achieving life goals.
People with mental illness are frequently unable to obtain
good jobs or ﬁnd suitable housing because of the prejudice
of key members in their communities: employers and land-
lords. Several studies have shown that public stereotypes
and prejudice about mental illness have a deleterious im-
pact on obtaining and keeping good jobs (Bordieri &
Drehmer, 1986; Farina & Felner, 1973; Farina, Felner, &
Bourdreau, 1973; Link, 1982, 1987; Olshansky, Grab, &
Ekdhal, 1960; Wahl, 1999; Webber & Orcutt, 1984) and
leasing safe housing (Aviram & Segal, 1973; Farina, Thaw,
Lovern, & Mangone, 1974; R. Hogan, 1985a, 1985b; Page,
1977, 1983, 1995; Segal, Baumohl, & Moyles, 1980; Wahl,
Stigma also inﬂuences the interface between mental
illness and the criminal justice system. Criminalizing men-
tal illness occurs when police, rather than the mental health
system, respond to mental health crises, thereby contribut-
ing to the increasing prevalence of people with serious
mental illness in jail (Watson, Ottati, Corrigan, & Heyr-
man, in press). Persons exhibiting symptoms and signs of
serious mental illness are more likely than others to be
arrested by the police (Teplin, 1984). Moreover, people
with mental illness tend to spend more time incarcerated
than those without mental illness (Steadman, McCarthy, &
Morrissey, 1989). The growing intolerance of offenders in
general has led to harsher laws and has hampered effective
treatment planning for mentally ill offenders (Jemeka,
Trupin, & Chiles, 1989; Lamb & Weinberger, 1998).
The negative impact of public stigma is also observed
in the general health care system; people labeled mentally
ill are less likely to beneﬁt from the depth and breadth of
available physical health care services than people without
these illnesses. Druss and colleagues completed two studies
on archival data that suggested people with mental illness
receive fewer medical services than those not labeled in
this manner (Desai, Rosenheck, Druss, & Perlin, 2002;
Druss & Rosenheck, 1997). Moreover, studies by this
group suggest that individuals with mental illness are less
likely to receive the same range of insurance beneﬁts as
people without mental illness (Druss, Allen, & Bruce,
1998; Druss & Rosenheck, 1998). An additional study
seems to implicate stigma more directly. Druss, Bradford,
Rosenheck, Radford, and Krumholz (2000) examined the
likelihood of a range of medical procedures after myocar-
dial infarction in a sample of 113,653 individuals. Com-
pared with the remainder of the sample, Druss et al. (2000)
found that people identiﬁed with comorbid psychiatric dis-
order were signiﬁcantly less likely to undergo percutaneous
transluminal coronary angioplasty. Once again, mental ill-
ness is indicated as a barrier to receiving appropriate care.
Combined, this evidence suggests that public identi-
ﬁcation as “mentally ill” can yield signiﬁcant harm. Re-
search has suggested that people with concealable stigmas
(people who are gay, of minority faith-based communities,
or with mental illness) decide to avoid this harm by hiding
their stigma and staying in the closet (Corrigan & Mat-
thews, 2003). Alternatively, they may opt to avoid the
stigma all together by denying their group status and by not
seeking the institutions that mark them (i.e., mental health
care). This kind of label avoidance is perhaps the most
signiﬁcant way in which stigma impedes care seeking.
616 October 2004
Controlled social laboratory studies have demon-
strated an inverse association between public stigma and
care seeking. Results of one survey showed members of the
general public who blamed individuals for their mental
illness and withheld help to them were less likely to seek
care for themselves (Cooper, Corrigan, & Watson, 2003).
A second study showed an inverse relationship between
stigmatizing attitudes and treatment adherence (Sirey,
Bruce, Alexopoulos, Perlick, Raue, et al., 2001). In this
study, stigma was measured using the Scale of Perceived
Stigma (Link, Cullen, Struening, Shrout, & Dohrenwend,
1989). Scores on the Scale of Perceived Stigma were
associated with whether 134 adults were compliant with
their antidepressant medication regimen three months later.
Findings on these small samples have been supported by
additional population-based studies that frequently incor-
porated probability samples. One study on about 3,000
community residents is an example. Endorsing negative
attitudes about mental illness inhibits personal service uti-
lization in those at risk for psychiatric disorder (Leaf,
Bruce, Tischler, & Holzer, 1987). Results from the Na-
tional Comorbidity Survey identiﬁed several speciﬁc be-
Two Factors That May Influence Whether a Person Who Might Benefit From Mental Health Treatment Actually
liefs that might sway people from treatment (Kessler et al.,
2001). These include concerns about what others might
think and wanting to solve problems on one’s own. These
two studies were completed on adults. A third study using
a national probability sample examined the inﬂuence of
stigma on care seeking in adolescents (Penn et al., in press).
The National Annenberg Risk Survey of Youth was con-
ducted by telephone in the spring of 2002 with 900 respon-
dents selected via random-digit dialing procedures. Results
showed that adolescents who were more likely to endorse
the stigma of mental illness were less likely to obtain care
when needed. An additional interesting ﬁnding was that the
connection between stigma and treatment seeking was me-
diated by perceptions about treatment success. Views about
stigma were less relevant to care seeking when the adoles-
cent believed treatment was likely to be successful. This
result parallels another study done on adults with neurotic
disorders; people in this group were less likely to seek
treatment when they believed no one could help them
(Meltzer et al., 2003).
Self-Stigma: Harm to Self-Esteem
People may also avoid the stigma of mental illness because
of stigma’s potential effects on one’s sense of self. Living
in a culture steeped in stigmatizing images, persons with
mental illness may accept these notions and suffer dimin-
ished self-esteem, self-efﬁcacy, and conﬁdence in one’s
future (Corrigan, 1998; Holmes & River, 1998). Research
shows that people with mental illness often internalize
stigmatizing ideas that are widely endorsed within society
and believe that they are less valued because of their
psychiatric disorder (Link, 1987; Link & Phelan, 2001).
Persons who agree with prejudice concur with the stereo-
type “That’s right; I am weak and unable to care for
myself!” Self-prejudice leads to negative emotional reac-
tions; prominent among these is low self-esteem and low
self-efﬁcacy (Link, Struening, Neese-Todd, Asmussen, &
Phelan, 2001; Markowitz, 1998). Self-esteem is typically
operationalized as diminished views about personal worth
(Corrigan, Faber, Rashid, & Leary, 1999; Rosenberg,
1965) and is often experienced as shame. Families fre-
quently report an intense sense of shame secondarily as a
result of a member’s mental illness (Corrigan & Miller,
2004). Self-efﬁcacy is deﬁned as the expectation that one
can successfully perform a behavior in a speciﬁc situation
(Bandura, 1977, 1989). Low self-efﬁcacy and demoraliza-
tion has been shown to be associated with failing to pursue
work or independent living opportunities at which people
with mental illness might otherwise succeed (Link, 1982,
1987). Obviously, this kind of self-prejudice and self-
discrimination signiﬁcantly interferes with a person’s life
goals and quality of life.
Fundamental suppositions of social psychological re-
search on prejudice suggest why self-stigma would dis-
suade people from being labeled and seeking treatment
(Jost & Banaji, 1994). People in general are motivated to
stigmatize others because of ego (Adorno, Frenkel-Bruns-
wik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Katz & Braly, 1935;
Lippmann, 1922) or group enhancement (Tajfel, 1981).
Instead of thinking “I am not competent,” individuals
buffer their self- or group’s image against interpersonal
failings by viewing others as incompetent; in this case,
people with mental illness (among the many possible stig-
matized groups) are deﬁcient. Hence, people avoid being
labeled mentally ill, thereby escaping the negative state-
ments that lessen self-esteem and self-efﬁcacy.
Research has shown a signiﬁcant relationship between
shame and avoiding treatment. The measures used in the
study by Sirey, Bruce, Alexopoulos, Perlick, Raue, et al.
(2001)—the Scale of Perceived Stigma (Link et al.,
1989)—included a proxy of shame. Research participants
who expressed a sense of shame from personal experiences
with mental illness were less likely to be involved in
treatment. Family shame was also a signiﬁcant predictor of
treatment avoidance. Results of the Yale component of the
ECA data (Leaf, Bruce, & Tischler, 1986) showed that
respondents with psychiatric diagnoses were more likely to
avoid services if they believed family members would have
a negative reaction to these services, that is, if they learned
from their family that being identiﬁed as mentally ill dis-
graced themselves and/or their family. Conversely, positive
attitudes of family members were associated with greater
service use in a sample of more than 1,000 drawn from a
representative community sample and a group from a men-
tal health clinic (Greenley, Mechanic, & Cleary, 1987).
Hence, the potential of self-stigma can yield label avoid-
ance and decreased treatment participation. A point made
earlier in this article is reiterated here. What is presented as
self-stigma here is clearly inﬂuenced by public stigma.
Hence, the two constructs, and their impact on care seek-
ing, are best understood in interaction.
Stigma and Diversity
Given concerns about diversity in the service system (e.g.,
some psychotherapies are not sensitive to differences in
ethnicity), perhaps the impact of perceived stigma and
service use is mediated by a third set of variables: demo-
graphics. A survey of 92 outpatients with depression tested
this hypothesis by examining the effects of age on stigma
perception and service use (Sirey, Bruce, Alexopoulos,
Perlick, Friedman, & Meyers, 2001). Results showed that
younger patients (under 65) were likely to perceive more
stigmas about mental illness than a comparison group over
65. However, only the older group showed a signiﬁcant
association between perceived stigma and reluctance to
participate in treatment. In another study, older adults with
negative attitudes about mental health services were also
shown to be less likely to talk to their primary care physi-
cian about psychiatric symptoms (Corrigan, Swantek,
Watson, & Kleinlein, 2003).
Stigma and service utilization also seem to interact
with the ethnic background of the potential consumer.
Analyses of the ECA data, for example, suggest that Eu-
ropean Americans with mental illness are more likely to
use psychiatric services than African Americans or Hispan-
ics (Narrow et al., 2000). It still needs to be clariﬁed how
much of this ﬁnding is due to public versus self-stigma in
ethnic minorities. However, there is some evidence that
618 October 2004
non-Caucasians are less likely to think that the medical
system is a useful source of mental health treatment, per-
haps reﬂecting basic prejudices in the health care system.
This ﬁnding was supported in a recent qualitative study of
African Americans in Chicago who reported that the
church, rather than the mental health system, was often a
better venue for mental health care (Matthews, Corrigan,
Smith, & Rutherford, 2003). Moreover, persons with less
education or income, a variable often conﬂated with eth-
nicity, express more concern about family reactions (Leaf
et al., 1987).
Implications for Increasing Mental
Health Care Seeking
This article argues that stigma represents a signiﬁcant pub-
lic health concern because it is a major barrier to care
seeking or ongoing treatment participation. The evidence
reviewed in this article vis-a`-vis stigma and mental health
care yields four sets of implications, which are explained in
the subsequent sections.
Directions for Future Research
Existing bodies of research have extensively described why
people might opt to avoid services because of stigma.
Future research needs to build on this literature to develop
a more cohesive paradigm for understanding the link be-
tween stigma and care avoidance. Six speciﬁc conundra
need to be addressed in this research. First, determine how
varying aspects of person-level stigma interfere with care
seeking. Two elements of person stigma seem relevant
from the literature review provided in this article. Some
people might not seek treatment to avoid the public harm
that results from labels. Alternatively, some people with
mental illness may avoid the label to escape stigma’s
impact on their sense of self. Future research needs to
determine the relative impact of these and other kinds of
person-level stigma. Second, examine the impact of disease
awareness. Many persons with psychotic disorders are un-
aware of the nature of their mental illness or its impact on
the breadth of life functioning domains (Amador et al.,
1994; Amador & Seckinger, 1997). As a result, some
persons with mental illness may not realize they belong to
a group of people who are stigmatized. Hence, they may be
relatively immune to person-level stigma. Research exam-
ining the impact of stigma on care seeking should include
awareness as a covariate.
Third, demonstrate causal relationships where existing
studies have examined fundamentally correlational ones.
Research reviewed in this article, for example, has shown
that people who endorse some aspect of person-level
stigma are less likely to admit to care seeking. Unclear
from this research is whether this association represents a
causal effect of stigma or some other relationship implied
by correlation. Future research needs to include experimen-
tal or multipanel designs to test the causality of these
relationships. Fourth, incorporate behavioral proxies for
care seeking. For the most part, past research has used
self-report to assess care seeking even though care seeking
is fundamentally a behavior. Future research should incor-
porate measures of actual behavior, including direct obser-
vation, to ﬁnd out whether stigma attitudes impede people
from seeking care. Prospective designs, in particular, may
be useful; over a period of time, determine how preexisting
attitudes inﬂuence care seeking as the person needs mental
Fifth, adopt broader models of care seeking. To focus
the discussion of the article, I limited care seeking here in
terms of the original decision to obtain treatment or main-
tain ongoing participation. Services researchers have
framed this issue into the much broader construct of illness
career, which includes problem recognition, care initiation,
ongoing treatment adherence, and treatment exit framed
within an undulating course (Pescosolido, Grauerholz, &
Milkie, 1997; Pescosolido et al., 1999). Further research
into the stigma–care seeking link needs to incorporate
broader models of illness career. In a similar vein, research-
ers need to remember that the idea of care exceeds tradi-
tional mental health settings. Future research must also
determine how care in other settings—primary health care,
faith-based initiatives, or consumer operated programs (i.e.,
programs developed by people with mental illness for
people with mental illness)—inﬂuences the stigma–care
link. Faith-based communities, for example, provide a con-
gregation of supportive peers rather than an identity of
“mental patient” that corresponds with hospitalization.
Finally, use research methods that incorporate micro-
and macrolevel variables. Integrating psychological and
sociological constructs into a common model offers inter-
esting methodological conundra (Corrigan, Markowitz, &
Watson, in press). For example, units of analysis relevant
to social cognition almost exclusively represent the indi-
vidual and include proxies of cognitive content and pro-
cesses, as well as emotions, related to stigmatizing attitudes
plus the behavioral consequences of these attitudes. Struc-
tural discrimination involves processes that typically rep-
resent collective and macrolevel units rather than individ-
uals; for example, how the insurance systems of national
governments limit mental health beneﬁts. The aggregate of
individual properties serves as an index of macrolevel
The macro-to-micro link was an important research
agenda of sociologists in the ﬁrst half of the 20th century
(Blau, 1960; Faris & Dunham, 1939). However, analyses of
this form diminished in the 1970s after a series of critiques
concluded that only a small amount of variance in individ-
ual-level variables is attributable to macrolevel variables
(Alexander & Grifﬁn, 1976; Hauser, 1977). Liska (1990)
responded to this criticism by arguing that although mac-
rovariables might account for relatively minor variance in
microlevel individual variables (especially compared with
other psychological predictors), the social scientist should
not overlook the conceptual importance of macrolevel vari-
ables per se. Presence of a mental health parity law is still
theoretically important to understanding the impact of in-
surance beneﬁts. Hence, the interesting research question
may not be whether macrovariables account for more vari-
ance than microvariables in a group’s experience of stigma
and willingness to access services, but rather whether Ma-
crovariable A accounts for signiﬁcantly more variance than
Macrovariable B and thereby seems to have a bigger role as
a macrovariable in explaining the individual’s experience
of stigma. Future research efforts need to further struggle
with the multiple levels of methodological possibilities.
Strategies That Diminish Stigma
Programs that decrease stigma will reduce the attitudes and
behaviors that might be barriers to care seeking. Corrigan
and Penn (1999) identiﬁed three approaches that may di-
minish aspects of the public stigma experienced by people
with mental illness: protest, education, and contact. Groups
protest inaccurate and hostile representations of mental
illness as a way to challenge the stigmas they represent.
These efforts send two messages: to the media, stop report-
ing inaccurate representations of mental illness; to the
public, stop believing negative views about mental illness.
Largely anecdotal evidence suggests that protest campaigns
have been effective in getting stigmatizing images of men-
tal illness withdrawn (Wahl, 1995). However, controlled
studies on changing the stigmatizing attitudes of individu-
als suggest that protest may actually cause attitude rebound
in the stigmatizing beliefs of the public (Corrigan, River, et
al., 2001; Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten, 1994).
Instead of decreasing stigma, reactance seems to occur
(“don’t tell me what to think”) and negative attitudes
Protest attempts to diminish negative attitudes about
mental illness but fails to promote more positive attitudes
that are supported by facts. Education provides information
so that the public can make more informed decisions about
mental illness. Research on education related to mental
illness stigma has suggested that participation in these
kinds of programs has led to improved attitudes about
persons with these problems (Corrigan, River, et al., 2001;
Holmes, Corrigan, Williams, Canar, & Kubiak, 1999;
Keane, 1990; Morrison, Cocozza, & Vanderwyst, 1980;
Penn et al., 1994). Given the research that suggests having
conﬁdence in treatment diminishes the negative impact of
stigma on treatment seeking (Meltzer et al., 2003; Penn et
al., in press), education programs should also reﬂect evi-
dence about the success of treatment participation. Unfor-
tunately, research also suggests that the effects of education
may not endure over time (Corrigan et al., 2002).
Stigma is further diminished when members of the
general public have contact with people with mental illness
who are able to hold down jobs or live as good neighbors
in the community (Corrigan, Edwards, Green, Diwan, &
Penn, 2001; Corrigan et al., 2002; Pinfold et al., 2003;
Schulze, Richter-Werling, Matschinger, & Angermeyer,
2003). Hence, opportunities for the public to meet persons
with severe mental illness may discount stigma. The re-
search question of particular interest here is how attitudes
that may change as a result of these antistigma programs
increase care seeking for persons in need.
Diminishing self-stigma. In this article, I also
highlighted poor treatment adherence as another public
health concern that might be exacerbated by stigma. Con-
sumer advocates (Chamberlin, 1978; Deegan, 1990) have
argued, and research (McCubbin & Cohen, 1996; Rappa-
port, 1987) seems to support the idea, that many psycho-
social and medical treatments disempower people; as a
result, people in need decide to not fully participate in
services. People with mental illness who self-stigmatize
tend to report little personal empowerment in terms of
treatment and hence participation in treatment is dimin-
ished. As a result, interventions that challenge self-stigma
and facilitate empowerment are likely to improve adher-
ence (Corrigan & Calabrese, in press; Speer, Jackson, &
Peterson, 2001). Professionals must be able to recognize
what adherence means in this context; not blind compliance
with whatever the therapist prescribes but active participa-
tion and engagement in all aspects of care. Consumer
operated self-help services are among the best examples of
practices that facilitate empowerment (Davidson et al.,
Implications for advocacy. Many groups
have called for antistigma programs to increase care seek-
ing for people in need of mental health services; these
include most of the professional mental health associations,
the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the Mental
Health Association, the Center to Address Discrimination
and Stigma, and the Eliminate the Barriers Initiative (the
last two represent Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration-funded national projects with
eliminating stigma as the primary goal). Explaining the
relationship between stigma and care provides necessary
information for antistigma programs. Given the APA’s
interest in the public health agenda, how might the associ-
ation proceed given the position of these advocacy groups?
It is important to note that advocacy groups do not speak
with a single voice in terms of the stigma question and
sometimes represent opposing views. For example, the
Treatment Advocacy Center promotes the notion that un-
treated mental illness leads to great community violence.
Advocacy groups like the National Stigma Clearinghouse
believe this kind of message makes stigma worse. Hence,
there is not a transparent agenda to which the APA might
consider joining. Instead, advocacy efforts need more re-
search to better understand stigma and ways to effectively
reduce it. APA members should use its theoretical and
methodological prowess to advance this goal.
Stigma as Social Cognition Is Only One of the
Stigma as a social–cognitive construct is only one of sev-
eral stigma-related factors that undermine obtaining mental
health care when in need. Services researchers have exam-
ined other interpersonal, economic, and policy factors that
also mitigate service use. One manifestation of these fac-
tors is structural stigma; namely, economic and political
pressures on the culture, rather than psychological inﬂu-
ences on the individual, that yield discrimination and un-
dermine care access (Corrigan et al., in press; Link &
Phelan, 2001). Rather than stereotypes, prejudice, and dis-
crimination, the products of these forces are social and
institutional structures that rob people of opportunities.
620 October 2004
Structural stigma develops during historical epochs that can
be centuries long rather than the few years that might
describe an individual’s developmental period.
Although a thorough discussion of structural stigma is
beyond the scope of this article, brief examples provide an
illustration. Sociologists have identiﬁed legislative activi-
ties that are examples of intended structural stigma as
applied to African Americans (Hill, 1988; Wilson, 1990).
Jim Crow laws passed by many of the southern states after
the Civil War restricted voting rights and other civil liber-
ties of American Blacks. A store clerk who did not serve a
Black customer may not have been acting out her own
prejudice but instead complying with the law. Unfortu-
nately, research suggests similar patterns still exist in terms
of mental illness. Approximately one third of the 50 states
restrict the rights of an individual with mental illness to
hold elective ofﬁce, participate on juries, and vote (Burton,
1990; Corrigan, Watson, Heyrman, et al., 2004; Hemmens,
Miller, Burton, & Milner, 2002). Even greater limitations
are evident in the family domain. About 50% of states
restrict the child custody rights of parents with mental
illness. It is important to note that these legal restrictions
frequently do not reﬂect societal concerns about whether a
person with psychiatric disabilities is incompetent to as-
sume these social privileges. Instead, it is the label per se
that leads to loss of these important opportunities.
Threats to conﬁdentiality may also be an example of
intended structural discrimination, especially relevant to
care seeking. Many people may avoid mental health ser-
vices because they fear that conﬁdential information about
their psychiatric history may become known to groups to
whom they would opt to not disclose. For example, sepa-
rated spouses in child custody battles may fear that conﬁ-
dentiality protections will not keep their mental health
records out of court. Prospective employees who need
security clearance as part of being hired may be concerned
about private health information being disclosed to em-
ployers. Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act in 1996 to offer further conﬁden-
tiality protections. However, despite these kinds of protec-
tions, future research needs to determine public protections
about conﬁdentiality and the impact of these perceptions on
Structural stigma may also result from unintended
consequences. Pincus (1999) provided some useful exam-
ples. Many universities and colleges use the Scholastic
Achievement Test (SAT) to limit admission to students
who have earned high scores, believing this to be an
unbiased way to select students. However, given that Af-
rican American and Hispanic students typically score lower
than Caucasians on these tests, universities that rely on the
SAT and ACT admissions are likely to disproportionately
favor admission of Caucasians over African American and
Hispanic students. Alternatively, many large companies
require job applicants to have a bachelor’s degree, even
though the kinds of skills this degree entails are sometimes
not relevant to speciﬁc positions. Given that African Amer-
icans entering the job market have a much lower rate of
college degrees, they are less likely to access these kinds of
jobs. Many insurance companies adjust claims and premi-
ums on the basis of area crime rates. Given that crime rates
are generally higher in Black communities, African Amer-
icans are likely to pay signiﬁcantly more for the same level
of coverage. It is important to note in each case that the
goal was actually to be color blind, but the result was
discrimination against people of color.
I have argued that the federal government’s inability
to move ahead on mental health parity (e.g., require private
insurers to equate lifetime and annual limits on mental
health beneﬁts at a similar level as medical and surgical
beneﬁts) is one example of unintended structural stigma as
applied to mental illness (Corrigan et al., in press). Oppo-
nents of the Mental Health Parity Act are not against it
because they believe people with mental illness are to
blame for their illness and, therefore, are not deserving of
these kinds of protections. Rather, they cite ﬁnancial con-
cerns that are frequently at the root of structural discrimi-
nation. Lobbyists for the business sector argued that parity
requirements could bankrupt small businesses by raising
health care costs (Levinson & Druss, 2000). The inability
to shake business concerns despite evidence to the contrary
is an example of the ongoing inﬂuence of structural stigma.
An Issue of Social Justice
Framing stigma as a prominent public health concern has
led to deﬁning the problem vis-a`-vis the medical model.
Proponents of this model have argued that treatments that
eliminate or otherwise control the disease will help to
eradicate the accompanying stigma (Sartorius, Byrne, &
Smith, 2003). They point to broad improvement in public
attitudes toward diseases like leprosy, small pox, and tu-
berculosis with greatly diminished incidence and preva-
lence rates, as well as illnesses like AIDS and cancer with
vastly improved treatments. Hence, stigma should diminish
(and care seeking should improve) as speciﬁc mental ill-
nesses are eliminated or controlled.
Although improving treatments may yield secondary
effects including diminished prejudice and discrimination,
framing mental illness stigma as a medical concern may
also exacerbate the problem. Antistigma programs solely
reﬂecting the medical perspective may have unintended
consequences (Corrigan, Watson, Byrne, & Davis, 2004).
The public may view mental illness as a genetic condition
from which the person does not recover (Phelan, Cruz-
Rojas, & Reiff, 2002). It might suggest the harm caused by
stigma has greater impact on the mental health system
rather than the person with mental illness. It might foster
pity rather than parity. It places responsibility for the
stigma on the person with mental illness rather than where
it belongs—on the public.
When viewed in terms of the prejudice and discrimi-
nation experienced by other out-groups, such as ethnicity
and gender, stigma is better understood as an issue of social
injustice. On the basis of sociological research, a social
injustice perspective argues that many of the lost opportu-
nities experienced by people with mental illness result from
the difference and defects suggested by stigma. Exagger-
ated notions of group difference result in less power for
people with mental illness. Most readers would protest any
policy that suggested the best way to deal with the preju-
dice experienced by gays and lesbians would be to correct
their sexual orientation. Framing stigma as social injustice
expands understanding of the phenomena as well as broad-
ens the approach to erasing stigma. Ultimately, it may be
the integration of public health and social injustice models
that leads to the greatest challenges to stigma. Psycholo-
gists and other social scientists need to partner with advo-
cates to identify the best strategies to bring about these
Research suggests that stigma may impede people from
seeking or fully participating in mental health services. In
particular, the threat of social disapproval or diminished
self esteem that accompanies the label may account for
underused services. Advocacy and government groups
have strongly endorsed resolving the stigma of mental
illness as a way to improve service use. The report of
President Bush’s New Freedom Commission highlighted
antistigma programs as a primary goal to improve the
mental health system (M. F. Hogan, 2003). A better un-
derstanding of the problem of stigma is needed to inform
the development of these antistigma programs. Several
areas for development of the research agenda were re-
viewed in this article. Psychologists who are able to em-
brace this research agenda will help advocates to better
tackle the stigma problem and will signiﬁcantly advance
treatment use in turn.
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N.
(1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Alexander, K. L., & Grifﬁn, L. J. (1976). School district effects on
academic achievement: A reconsideration. American Sociological Re-
view, 52, 222–237.
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA:
Amador, X. F., Flaum, M., Andreasen, N. C., Strauss, D. H., Yale, S. A.,
Clark, C. C., & Gorman, J. M. (1994). Awareness of illness in schizo-
phrenia and schizoaffective and mood disorders. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 51, 826–836.
Amador, X. F., & Seckinger, R. A. (1997). The assessment of insight: A
methodological review. Psychiatric Annals, 27, 798–805.
American Psychiatric Association. (1997). Practice guideline for the treat-
ment of people with schizophrenia. American Journal of Psychiatry,
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Practice guideline for the treat-
ment of patients with major depressive disorder. American Journal of
American Psychological Association Task Force on Psychological Inter-
vention Guidelines. (1995). Template for developing guidelines: Inter-
ventions for mental disorders and psychosocial aspects of physical
disorders. Washington, DC: Author.
Augoustinos, M., Ahrens, C., & Innes, J. (1994). Stereotypes and preju-
dice: The Australian experience. British Journal of Social Psychology,
Aviram, U., & Segal, S. P. (1973). Exclusion of the mentally ill: Reﬂec-
tion on an old problem in a new context. Archives of General Psychi-
atry, 29, 126–131.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efﬁcacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived
self-efﬁcacy. Developmental Psychology, 25, 729–735.
Bellack, A. S., Mueser, K. T., Morrison, R. L., Tierney, A., & Podell, K.
(1990). Remediation of cognitive deﬁcits in schizophrenia. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 650–655.
Blau, P. M. (1960). Structural effects. American Sociological Review, 25,
Bordieri, J. E., & Drehmer, D. E. (1986). Hiring decisions for disabled
workers: Looking at the cause. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
Brockington, I. F., Hall, P., Levings, J., & Murphy, C. (1993). The
community’s tolerance of the mentally ill. British Journal of Psychia-
try, 162, 93–99.
Burton, V. S. (1990). The consequences of ofﬁcial labels: A research note
on rights lost by the mentally ill, mentally incompetent, and convicted
felons. Community Mental Health Journal, 26, 267–276.
Chamberlin, J. (1978). On our own: Patient-controlled alternatives to the
mental health system. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chambless, D. L., Baker, M. J., Baucom, D. H., Beutler, L. E., Calhoun,
K. S., Crits-Christoph, P., et al. (1998). Update on empirically validated
therapies: II. The Clinical Psychologist, 51, 3–16.
Chambless, D. L., & Hollon, S. D. (1998). Deﬁning empirically supported
therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 7–18.
Chambless, D. L., Sanderson, W. C., Shohman, V., Bennett, J. S., Pope,
K. S., Crits-Cristoph, P., et al. (1996). An update on empirically
validated therapies. The Clinical Psychologist, 49, 5–18.
Cooper, A., Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. C. (2003). Mental illness
stigma and care seeking. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 191,
Corrigan, P. W. (1998). The impact of stigma on severe mental illness.
Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 5, 201–222.
Corrigan, P. W. (2000). Mental health stigma as social attribution: Impli-
cations for research methods and attitude change. Clinical Psychol-
ogy—Science and Practice, 7, 48–67.
Corrigan, P. W., & Calabrese, J. D. (in press). Cognitive therapy and
schizophrenia. In M. A. Reinecke & D. A. Clark (Eds.), Cognitive
therapy over the lifespan: Theory, research and practice. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Corrigan, P. W., Edwards, A. B., Green, A., Diwan, S. L., & Penn, D.
(2001). Prejudice, social distance, and familiarity with mental illness.
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 27, 219–226.
Corrigan, P. W., Faber, D., Rashid, F., & Leary, M. (1999). The construct
validity of empowerment among consumers of mental health services.
Schizophrenia Research, 38, 77–84.
Corrigan, P. W., Markowitz, F. E., & Watson, A. (in press). Structural
levels of mental illness stigma and discrimination. Schizophrenia
Corrigan, P. W., & Matthews, A. K. (2003). Stigma and disclosure:
Implications for coming out of the closet. Journal of Mental Health, 12,
Corrigan, P. W., & Miller, F. E. (2004). Shame, blame, and contamina-
tion: A review of the impact of mental illness stigma on family members.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Corrigan, P. W., & Penn, D. L. (1999). Lessons from social psychology on
discrediting psychiatric stigma. American Psychologist, 54, 765–776.
Corrigan, P. W., River, L., Lundin, R. K., Penn, D. L., Uphoff-Wasowski,
K., Campion, J., et al. (2001). Three strategies for changing attributions
about severe mental illness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 27, 187–195.
Corrigan, P. W., River, L., Lundin, R. K., Uphoff Wasowski, K., Cam-
pion, J., Mathisen, J., et al. (2000). Stigmatizing attributions about
mental illness. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 91–102.
Corrigan, P. W., Rowan, D., Green, A., Lundin, R., River, L., Uphoff
Wasowski, K., et al. (2002). Challenging two mental illness stigmas:
Personal responsibility and dangerousness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 28,
Corrigan, P. W., Swantek, S., Watson, A. C., & Kleinlein, P. (2003).
When do older adults seek primary care services for depression?
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 191, 619–622.
Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. C. (2002). The paradox of self-stigma and
mental illness. Clinical Psychology—Science and Practice, 9, 35–53.
Corrigan, P. W., Watson, A. C., Byrne, P., & Davis, K. (2004). Mental
622 October 2004
illness stigma: Problem of public health or social justice? Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Corrigan, P. W., Watson, A. C., Heyrman, M., Warpinski, A., Gracia, G.,
Slopen, N., & Hall, L. L. (2004). State legislation as proxies of
structural stigma. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Cramer, J. A., & Rosenbeck, R. (1998). Compliance with medication
regimens for psychiatric and medical disorders. Psychiatric Services,
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert,
S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol.
2, 4th ed., pp. 504–553). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Davidson, L., Chinman, M., Kloos, B., Weingarten, R., Stayner, D., &
Tebes, J. K. (1999). Peer support among individuals with severe mental
illness: A review of the evidence. Clinical Psychology—Science and
Practice, 6, 165–187.
Deegan, P. E. (1990). Spirit breaking: When the helping professions hurt.
Humanistic Psychologist, 18, 301–313.
Desai, M. M., Rosenheck, R. A., Druss, B. G., & Perlin, J. B. (2002).
Mental disorders and quality of care among postacute myocardial
infarction outpatients. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 190,
Devine, P. G. (1988). Stereotype assessment: Theoretical and method-
ological issues. Madison: University of Wisconsin.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and
controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Devine, P. G. (1995). Prejudice and out-group perception. In A. Tessor
(Ed.), Advanced social psychology (pp. 467–524). New York:
Druss, B. G., Allen, H. M., & Bruce, M. L. (1998). Physical health,
depressive symptoms, and managed care enrollment. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 155, 878–882.
Druss, B. G., Bradford, D. W., Rosenheck, R. A., Radford, M. J., &
Krumholz, H. M. (2000). Mental disorders and use of cardiovascular
procedures after myocardial infarction. JAMA: Journal of the American
Medical Association, 283, 506–511.
Druss, B. G., & Rosenheck, R. (1997). Use of medical services by
veterans with mental disorders. Psychosomatics, 38, 451–458.
Druss, B. G., & Rosenheck, R. (1998). Mental disorders and access to
medical care in the United States. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155,
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991).
What is beautiful is good, but . . . : A meta-analytic review of research
on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110,
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The social psychology of attitudes.
Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Esses, V. M., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1994). The role of mood in
the expression of intergroup stereotypes. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson
(Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: Ontario symposium on personality
(Vol. 7, pp. 77–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Falloon, I. R., Lindley, P., McDonald, R., & Marks, I. M. (1977). Social
skills training of out-patient groups: A controlled study of rehearsal and
homework. British Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 599–609.
Farina, A., & Felner, R. D. (1973). Employment interviewer reactions to
former mental patients. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 82, 268–272.
Farina, A., Felner, R. D., & Bourdreau, L. A. (1973). Reaction of workers
to male and female mental patient job applicants. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 41, 363–372.
Farina, A., Thaw, J., Lovern, J. D., & Mangone, D. (1974). People’s
reactions to a former mental patient moving to their neighborhood.
Journal of Community Psychology, 2, 108–112.
Faris, R. E. L., & Dunham, H. W. (1939). Mental disorders in urban
areas: An ecological study of schizophrenia and other psychoses.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fenton, W. S., Blyler, C. R., & Heinssen, R. K. (1997). Determinants of
medication compliance in schizophrenia: Empirical and clinical ﬁnd-
ings. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 23, 637–651.
Gibbs, L., & Gambrill, E. (2002). Evidence-based practice: Counterargu-
ments to objections. Research on Social Work Practice, 12, 452–476.
Greenley, J. R., Mechanic, D., & Cleary, P. (1987). Seeking help for
psychological problems: A replication and extension. Medical Care, 25,
Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, J. W. (1994). Stereotypes. In R. S. Wyer &
T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., pp. 1–68).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hamre, P., Dahl, A. A., & Malt, U. F. (1994). Public attitudes to the
quality of psychiatric treatment, psychiatric patients, and prevalence of
mental disorders. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 48, 275–281.
Hauser, R. M. (1977). The process of stratiﬁcation: Trends and analyses.
New York: Academic Press.
Hemmens, C., Miller, M., Burton, V. S., & Milner, S. (2002). The
consequences of ofﬁcial labels: An examination of the rights lost by the
mentally ill and the mentally incompetent ten years later. Community
Mental Health Journal, 38, 129–140.
Hill, R. B. (1988). Structural discrimination: The unintended conse-
quences of institutional processes. In H. J. O’Gorman (Ed.), Surveying
social life: Papers in honor of Herbert H. Hyman (pp. 353–375).
Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
Hilton, J. L., & von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annual Review of
Psychology, 47, 237–271.
Hogan, M. F. (2003). New Freedom Commission Report: The President’s
New Freedom Commission—Recommendations to transform mental
health care in America. Psychiatric Services, 54, 1467–1474.
Hogan, R. (1985a). Gaining community support for group homes. Com-
munity Mental Health Journal, 22, 117–126.
Hogan, R. (1985b). Not in my town: Local government in opposition to
group homes. Unpublished manuscript.
Holmes, E. P., Corrigan, P. W., Williams, P., Canar, J., & Kubiak, M.
(1999). Changing public attitudes about schizophrenia. Schizophrenia
Bulletin, 25, 447–456.
Holmes, E. P., & River, L. P. (1998). Individual strategies for coping with
the stigma of severe mental illness. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice,
Jemeka, R., Trupin, E., & Chiles, J. A. (1989). The mentally ill in prisons:
A review. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 40, 481–491.
Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D. T., & Scott,
R. A. (1984). Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships.
New York: Freeman.
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-
justiﬁcation and the production of false consciousness. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.
Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1993). Deﬁnition and assessment of accuracy in
social stereotypes. Psychological Review, 100, 109–128.
Jussim, L., Nelson, T. E., Manis, M., & Sofﬁn, S. (1995). Prejudice,
stereotypes, and labeling effects: Sources of bias in person perception.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 228–246.
Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1935). Racial prejudice and racial stereotypes.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 30, 175–193.
Keane, M. (1990). Contemporary beliefs about mental illness among
medical students: Implications for education and practice. Academic
Psychiatry, 14, 172–177.
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P. A., Bruce, M. L., Koch, R., Laska, E. M.,
Leaf, P. J., et al. (2001). The prevalence and correlates of untreated
serious mental illness. Health Services Research, 36, 987–1007.
Krueger, J. (1996). Personal beliefs and cultural stereotypes about racial
characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71,
Lamb, H., & Weinberger, L. E. (1998). Persons with severe mental illness
in jails and prisons: A review. Psychiatric Services, 49, 483–492.
Leaf, P. J., Bruce, M. L., & Tischler, G. L. (1986). The differential effect
of attitudes on the use of mental health services. Social Psychiatry, 21,
Leaf, P. J., Bruce, M. L., Tischler, G. L., & Holzer, C. E. (1987). The
relationship between demographic factors and attitudes toward mental
health services. Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 275–284.
Lehman, A. F., Steinwachs, D. M., Dixon, L. B., Goldman, H. H., Osher,
F., Postrado, L., et al. (1998). Translating research into practice: The
Schizophrenia Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT) treatment
recommendations. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 24, 1–10.
Levinson, C. M., & Druss, B. G. (2000). The evolution of mental health
parity in American politics. Administration and Policy in Mental
Health, 28, 139–146.
Link, B. G. (1982). Mental patient status, work and income: An exami-
nation of the effects of a psychiatric label. American Sociological
Review, 47, 202–215.
Link, B. G. (1987). Understanding labeling effects in the area of mental
disorders: An assessment of the effects of expectations of rejection.
American Sociological Review, 52, 96–112.
Link, B. G., Cullen, F. T., Frank, J., & Wozniak, J. F. (1987). The social
rejection of former mental patients: Understanding why labels matter.
American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1461–1500.
Link, B. G., Cullen, F. T., Struening, E. L., Shrout, P. E., & Dohrenwend,
B. P. (1989). A modiﬁed labeling theory approach to mental disorders:
An empirical assessment. American Sociological Review, 54, 400–423.
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual
Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385.
Link, B. G., Phelan, J. C., Bresnahan, M., Stueve, A., & Pescosolido,
B. A. (1999). Public conceptions of mental illness: Labels, causes,
dangerousness, and social distance. American Journal of Public Health,
Link, B. G., Struening, E. L., Neese-Todd, S., Asmussen, S., & Phelan, J.
(2001). Stigma as a barrier to recovery: The consequences of stigma for
the self-esteem of people with mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 52,
Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Macmillan.
Liska, A. (1990). The signiﬁcance of aggregate dependent variables and
contextual independent variables for linking macro and micro theories.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 53, 292–301.
Macrae, C., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of
mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 67, 808–817.
Markowitz, F. E. (1998). The effects of stigma on the psychological
well-being and life satisfaction of persons with mental illness. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 39, 335–348.
Matthews, A. K., Corrigan, P. W., Smith, B. M., & Rutherford, J. L.
(2003). Use of supportive resources among African Americans. Manu-
script submitted for publication.
McCubbin, M., & Cohen, D. (1996). Extremely unbalanced: Interest
divergence and power disparities between clients and psychiatry. In-
ternational Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 19, 1–25.
Meltzer, H., Bebbington, P., Brugha, T., Farrell, M., Jenkins, R., & Lewis,
G. (2003). The reluctance to seek treatment for neurotic disorders.
International Review of Psychiatry, 15, 123–128.
Morrison, J. K., Cocozza, J. J., & Vanderwyst, D. (1980). An attempt to
change the negative, stigmatizing image of mental patients through
brief reeducation. Psychological Reports, 47, 334.
Mueser, K. T., Bellack, A. S., Douglas, M. S., & Morrison, R. L. (1991).
Prevalence and stability of social skill deﬁcits in schizophrenia. Schizo-
phrenia Research, 5, 167–176.
Mullen, B., Rozell, D., & Johnson, C. (1996). The phenomenology of
being in a group: Complexity approaches to operationalizing cognitive
representation. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about
social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small
groups (pp. 205–229). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Narrow, W., Regier, D., Norquist, G., Rae, D., Kennedy, C., & Arons, B.
(2000). Mental health service use by Americans with severe mental
illnesses. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 35,
Olshansky, S., Grab, S., & Ekdahl, M. (1960). Survey of employment
experiences of patients discharged from three state mental hospitals
during period 1951–1953. Mental Hygiene New York, 44, 510–522.
Page, S. (1977). Effects of the mental illness label in attempts to obtain
accommodation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 9, 85–90.
Page, S. (1983). Psychiatric stigma: Two studies of behaviour when the
chips are down. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 2,
Page, S. (1995). Effects of the mental illness label in 1993: Acceptance
and rejection in the community. Journal of Health and Social Policy, 7,
Penn, D. L., Guynan, K., Daily, T., Spaulding, W. D., Garbin, C., &
Sullivan, M. (1994). Dispelling the stigma of schizophrenia: What sort
of information is best? Schizophrenia Bulletin, 20, 567–578.
Penn, D. L., Judge, A., Jamieson, P., Garczynski, J., Hennesy, M., &
Romer, D. (in press). Stigma. In M. Seligman (Ed.), The Annenberg
adolescent mental health initiative. Oxford, England: Oxford Univer-
Penn, D. L., & Martin, J. (1998). The stigma of severe mental illness:
Some potential solutions for a recalcitrant problem. Psychiatric Quar-
terly, 69, 235–247.
Penn, D. L., Mueser, K. T., & Doonan, R. (1997). Physical attractiveness
in schizophrenia: The mediating role of social skill. Behavior Modiﬁ-
cation, 21, 78–85.
Pescosolido, B. A., Grauerholz, E., & Milkie, M. A. (1997). Culture and
conﬂict: The portrayal of Blacks in U.S. children’s picture books
through the mid- and late-twentieth century. American Sociological
Review, 62, 443–464.
Pescosolido, B. A., Monahan, J., Link, B. G., Stueve, A., & Kikuzawa, S.
(1999). The public’s view of the competence, dangerousness, and need
for legal coercion of persons with mental health problems. American
Journal of Public Health, 89, 1339–1345.
Phelan, J. C., Cruz-Rojas, R., & Reiff, M. (2002). Genes and stigma: The
connection between perceived genetic etiology and attitudes and beliefs
about mental illness. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Skills, 6, 159–185.
Pincus, F. L. (1999). From individual to structural discrimination. In F. L.
Pincus & H. J. Ehrlich (Eds.), Race and ethnic conﬂict: Contending
views on prejudice, discrimination, and ethnoviolence (pp. 120–124).
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Pinfold, V., Toulmin, H., Thornicroft, G., Huxley, P., Farmer, P., &
Graham, T. (2003). Reducing psychiatric stigma and discrimination:
Evaluation of educational interventions in UK secondary schools. Brit-
ish Journal of Psychiatry, 182, 342–346.
Proctor, E. K. (2002). Quality of care and social work research. Social
Work Research, 26, 195–197.
Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention:
Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 15, 121–148.
Regier, D. A., Narrow, W. E., Rae, D. S., Manderscheid, R. W., Locke,
B. Z., & Goodwin, F. K. (1993). The de facto U.S. mental and addictive
disorders service system: Epidemiologic Catchment Area prospective
1-year prevalence rates of disorders and services. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 50, 85–94.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self image. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sartorius, N., Byrne, P., & Smith, M. (2003, October). Fighting stigma: Is
it necessary to make diagnostic distinctions? Paper presented at the
conference of the World Psychiatric Association, Kingston, Ontario,
Scheff, T. (1974). The labeling theory of mental illness. American Socio-
logical Review, 39, 444–452.
Schulze, B., Richter-Werling, M., Matschinger, H., & Angermeyer, M. C.
(2003). Crazy? So what! Effects of a school project on students’
attitudes towards people with schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatrica Scan-
dinavica, 107, 142–150.
Segal, S. P., Baumohl, J., & Moyles, E. W. (1980). Neighborhood types
and community reaction to the mentally ill: A paradox of intensity.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21, 345–359.
Sirey, J. A., Bruce, M. L., Alexopoulos, G. S., Perlick, D. A., Friedman,
S. J., & Meyers, B. S. (2001). Stigma as a barrier to recovery: Perceived
stigma and patient-rated severity of illness as predictors of antidepres-
sant drug adherence. Psychiatric Services, 52, 1615–1620.
Sirey, J. A., Bruce, M. L., Alexopoulos, G. S., Perlick, D. A., Raue, P.,
Friedman, S. J., & Meyers, B. S. (2001). Perceived stigma as a predictor
of treatment discontinuation in young and older outpatients with de-
pression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 479–481.
Socall, D. W., & Holtgraves, T. (1992). Attitudes toward the mentally ill:
The effects of label and beliefs. Sociological Quarterly, 33, 435–445.
Speer, P. W., Jackson, C. B., & Peterson, N. (2001). The relationship
between social cohesion and empowerment: Support and new implica-
tions for theory. Health Education and Behavior, 28, 716–732.
Steadman, H. J., McCarthy, D. W., & Morrissey, J. P. (1989). The
mentally ill in jail: Planning for essential services. New York: Guilford
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Tarrier, N., Yusupoff, L., Kinney, C., McCarthy, E., Gledhill, A., Had-
dock, G., & Morris, J. (1998). Randomised controlled trial of intensive
624 October 2004
cognitive behaviour therapy for patients with chronic schizophrenia.
British Medical Journal, 317, 303–307.
Task Force on Promotion and Dissemination of Psychological Procedures.
(1995). Training in and dissemination of empirically validated treat-
ments: Report and recommendations. The Clinical Psychologist, 48,
Teplin, L. A. (1984). Criminalizing mental disorder: The comparative
arrest rate of the mentally ill. American Psychologist, 39, 794–803.
Torrey, W. C., Drake, R. E., Dixon, L., Burns, B. J., Flynn, E. F., Rush,
A. J., et al. (2001). Implementing evidence-based practices for persons
with severe mental illnesses. Psychiatric Services, 52, 45–50.
Wahl, O. F. (1995). Media madness: Public images of mental illness. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Wahl, O. F. (1999). Mental health consumers’ experience of stigma.
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 25, 467–478.
Watson, A., Ottati, V., Corrigan, P., & Heyrman, M. (in press). Mental
illness stigma and police decision making. Community Mental Health
Webber, A., & Orcutt, J. D. (1984). Employers’ reactions to racial and
psychiatric stigmata: A ﬁeld experiment. Deviant Behavior, 5,
Weiden, P. J., & Olfson, M. (1995). Cost of relapse in schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 21, 419–429.
Weiner, B., Magnusson, J., & Perry, R. P. (1988). An attributional
analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 55, 738–748.
Weisz, J. R., Hawley, K. M., Pilkonis, P. A., Woody, S. R., & Follette,
W. C. (2000). Stressing the (other) three Rs in the search for empirically
supported treatments: Review procedures, research quality, relevance to
practice and the public interest. Clinical Psychology—Science and
Practice, 7, 243–258.
Willis, A. G., Willis, G. B., Male, A., Henderson, M., & Manderscheid,
R. W. (1998). Mental illness and disability in the U.S. adult household
population. In R. W. Manderscheid & M. J. Henderson (Eds.), Mental
health, United States, 1998 (pp. 235–246). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Wilson, W. J. (1990). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the un-
derclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.