Leveraging Neuroscience to Fight Stigma Around Mental Health

Abstract

Labels serve as identifiers and convenient descriptors of inanimate and animate objects. In humans, given labels can easily become part of an individual’s self-perceived identity. Negative labels ascribed to a person can result in internalized stigma, a state that will shape the subject’s biography. This can ultimately impact the person’s mental and physical health since perceived and/or anticipated stigma discourages the use of social and health services. Per definition, stigma involves labeling of persons with physical, mental, or social characteristics that do not match the observer’s arbitrarily conditioned and calibrated sense of norms (public stigma); such labeling may eventually become embedded in rules, regulations, and laws (structural stigma). Internalized stigma projects onto a person’s emotions and actions. Public (enacted) stigma results from stereotyping (collectively agreed-upon notions about a group of persons that are used to categorize these people) and devaluation, which subsequently leads to social distancing, discrimination, and blatant abuse of human rights. Much of what we know about stigma results from research in the psychosocial sciences and, more recently, from social neuroscience. The stigma around mental health has generated much attention in the field of psychiatry where, to date, most research has focussed on epidemiology and anti-stigma interventions. This essay intends to stimulate thought, debate, and research within the behavioral neuroscience community and, therefore, to inform evidence-based design and implementation of neuroscience-based approaches by other professionals working towards the elimination of the stigma attached to mental illness. The article starts by considering the concept of stigma and the psychological processes that give rise to the phenomenon; it also considers how projected and perceived stigma are multiplied. Finally, after a brief review of the few existing neuroscientific explorations of stigma, gaps in our knowledge of the neurobiological basis of stigma are identified and discussed.

‘HIV made me fabulous’: a qualitative analysis of embodied storytelling in film to address stigma, further understandings of U=U and advance gender equity

“…This study found that the embodied storytelling in the short film, HIV Made Me Fabulous, was an effective method to counter HIV-related stigma among people living with and without HIV, by driving emotional connections, developing understanding and reflection, and sparking a willingness to influence positive change. As Almeida and Sousa 40 have noted, stigma can transpire as emotions, cognitions and behaviour, and our findings reveal that the film was able to impact each of these facets.…”

Internalized stigma and self-stigma in people diagnosed with a mental disorder. One concept or two? A scoping review

“…Of the total included studies, 20 (57.14%) prefer the name SS (Almeida & Sousa, 2021; Bos et al, 2013; Corrigan, Roe & Tsang, 2011; Corrigan et al, 2005; Corrigan, 2016, 2018a; Corrigan & Bink, 2016; Corrigan & Kosyluk, 2014; Corrigan & Watson, 2002a, 2002b; Dubreucq et al, 2021; Jones & Corrigan, 2014; Overton & Medina, 2008; Park et al, 2019; Reupert & Maybery, 2015; Roe et al, 2014; Rüsch et al, 2009, 2010; Vidović et al, 2016; Watson et al, 2007), 8 (22.86%) that of IS (Boyd et al, 2014; González-Domínguez et al, 2019; González-Sanguino et al, 2022; Karakaş et al, 2016; J. D. Livingston & Boyd, 2010; Quinn & Earnshaw, 2011, 2013; Yanos et al, 2008) and 7 (20.00%) use both names, assuming they are the same (Aakre et al, 2015; Krajewski et al, 2013; Lucksted & Drapalski, 2015; Tsang et al, 2016; Yanos et al, 2011, 2012, 2019).…”

“…This result is consistent with what has been reported in other studies that found that stigma is mainly studied in high-income countries (Alonso et al, 2019; Del Rosal et al, 2021; Fernández et al, 2022; Vicente et al, 2016). Another critical aspect to highlight is that four of the definitions identified offer a rather vague description of the concept, alluding only to its negative consequences (Almeida & Sousa, 2021; Boyd et al, 2014; Overton & Medina, 2008) or the contrary, referring only to the concept as the internal or subjective experience of stigma (Krajewski et al, 2013). This has implications for the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing the negative impact of this type of stigma since they are definitions that do not allow identifying which components to intervene on (Fernández et al, 2022).…”

“…On the other hand, a component that is included with high frequency in the conceptualizations (n = 19, 54.29%) refers to self-devaluation and/or self-discrimination that people with MD experience due to the internalization that they carry out of the stereotypes and negative prejudices that exist in society about their disorder (Almeida & Sousa, 2021;Corrigan, Roe & Tsang, 2011;Corrigan et al, 2005;Corrigan, 2016Corrigan, , 2018aCorrigan & Kosyluk, 2014;Corrigan & Watson, 2002a;Dubreucq et al, 2021;Jones & Corrigan, 2014;Karakaş et al, 2016;J. D. Livingston & Boyd, 2010;Overton & Medina, 2008;Park et al, 2019;Rüsch et al, 2009Rüsch et al, , 2010Watson et al, 2007;Yanos et al, 2008Yanos et al, , 2011.…”

Unsung Heroes: A Phenomenological Study on Experiences and Struggles of Special Education Language Teachers

“…Stigma, as described by [14], involves severe social disapproval due to perceived differences. This phenomenon is primarily experienced by students in SPED programs, but teachers in special and inclusive education also face stigmatization.…”