Introduction
Labeling of any kind significantly impacts how people see each other. In psychiatry, labeling has adverse effects because it influences how people perceive and treat a patient. Association with conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, or posttraumatic mental disorder often changes how others feel.
Dejection, isolation, low self-worth, and anger are significant consequences of psychiatric labeling. This study experimentally covers the impacts of perceptions and labeling on a patient’s well-being. Although the urge to stigmatize people with psychiatric conditions is high, mass education can reduce labeling incidents and protect victims of such circumstances.
Literature Review
Psychological diseases have many determinants and represent a complex structure of factors. For example, the study explores the relationship between levels and identity formation. The author explored how a career creates a mental picture of people and defines them. Similarly, the mental problem tag changes how a patient is viewed and identified. Thus, an authority figure such as a professor associated with a mental health issue loses their identity as most people begin to see mental illness instead of a profession or personality.
Stringer (2018) explains that people are attached to their labels and identities, which shows why a professor is more likely to change his title if diagnosed with a mental illness. The study recommends therapy for patients to mitigate the consequences of stigmatization and rejection. Bipolar disorder is associated with specific symptoms that cause mixed reactions.
According to Gerten (2021), labeling increases judgmental tendencies. When people suffer from mental disorders, such as bipolar disorder, they must be careful about the impression they give, even though such people cannot control their behavior. It is widely believed that people with bipolar disorder cannot work in professional settings.
Gerten (2021) mentions that people with bipolar disorder are perceived as dysfunctional and stupid. For this reason, most productive people lose their jobs or cannot find work due to their mental condition. Labeling reinforces stigma, bias, and stereotyping. As a result, the risk of exclusion, limited access to opportunities, seclusion, bullying, and violence increases due to their bipolar status.
The stigma around mental health arises from beliefs about a particular condition. According to Dolphin and Hennessy (2017), some people argue that mental health labeling has a negative impact, while others believe it has a positive impact. The study focused on adolescents and their relationships with peers. It targets depression, which is common among teenagers but remains the most stigmatized condition.
Researchers have confirmed that there is a continuum of labeling once an adolescent is associated with depressive symptoms and is diagnosed with depression. Essentially, labeling elicits an emotional response, which explains the insularity of depressed young people. In addition, stigmatization, which is characterized by labeling, continues to influence how depressed adolescents behave. Before sentencing, people must undergo a psychiatric evaluation to prove they were in the right state of mind when they committed the crime.
Although it is a defense in criminal cases, especially capital offenses, labeling can affect how others perceive a person. Berryessa (2018) explains that labeling after sentencing is stigmatizing, especially in cases of ADHD, dementia, autism, and borderline intellectual disability. Due to labeling, people struggle with acceptance, which in turn affects their social support and rehabilitation efforts. The study also states that pedophilia is the only condition that should not be stigmatized because it can lead to more crimes if left unaddressed. People tend to treat mental illness discreetly, although most disorders are treatable.
Langer (2016) believes a diagnosis creates a fixed perception of a person. Therefore, no one believes that a person with a mental illness can cope with everyday difficulties after treatment. Labeling has severe consequences for people, which explains why professional healthcare providers should help patients manage their mental health, because the knowledge empowers them to approach mental health with the rigor they deserve.
It is worth emphasizing that there is an essential difference in the perception of verbal constructions concerning a person: “has a mentally ill” and “mentally ill person.” The first description is considered to fit a person with a specific disease diagnosed by specialists and, as a result, has more severe consequences in terms of health. The second description describes less serious problems that do not result from known ailments. The difference can be critical in society, particularly when applying for a job.
Methods
Labeling someone as mentally ill will hurt how others view that person. Participants were selected from students aged 16-18. Some were from Southern Lutheran High School, and others were from Nerinx Hall or Webster University. They have been divided into Group A or Group B. None of the participants received compensation or promotion for their participation.
The variable measured is how well the participants judged the description of a job and an applicant for a job in marketing, and whether they considered the job applicant suitable. The experimental group was group B, which described the applicant as a person with a mental illness. The control group was group A, which described the applicant as a mentally ill person.
First of all, the consent of the participants was obtained after informing them about the experimental procedures. Information support was provided throughout the experiment. In addition, the confidentiality and anonymity of the participants were maintained. The duration of the experiment assumed the expenditure of time resources in the amount of ten minutes and the answers to two questions.
The participant is emailed a Google Doc describing candidates for either Group A or Group B jobs. They then select on a scale of 1 to 10 how qualified the candidate was for the job, with one being the most qualified and ten being the least qualified. After evaluating the candidate, the participant was asked to explain why he gave the candidate such a score. Once the participant completed the experiment and submitted their responses, the results were tabulated.
According to the Ethical Guide, ethical standards were not violated. Participants were informed in advance about the experiment’s purpose, the experimenter’s qualifications, and the procedures’ conditions. Throughout the process, each participant had the right to refuse. The procedures took a little time and, as a result, did not cause psychological or physical harm or inconvenience to anyone.
Results
Table 1. Group A Results
Table 2. Group B Results
Table 3. Statistics
Discussion
This experiment is significant because it shows a fine line of perception between different verbal formulations that can directly affect the lives of people in society. Human psychology perceives descriptions of a person differently, but this situation leads to one result: generally, the indicators of agreement are pretty low. This experiment can help people with mental disabilities integrate into social structures according to their capabilities. These studies should guide employers, HR, and service providers to create an inclusive society where human rights are equally respected, regardless of illness or other personal characteristics.
The results show the minimal difference between Group A and Group B in determining a job candidate’s qualifications. It can be seen that the median and mode for both groups are 2. A higher mean was obtained, so the hypothesis is correct to a certain extent because, in the group where the applicant is listed in the description, there is a slightly negative opinion of “as a mentally ill person.” Because of the slight difference in the results, it can be inferred that there is a negative opinion when “being a mentally ill person” rather than “a person who has a mental illness” is used, but this is a minor difference. Some of the strengths of this experiment are that it is straightforward to replicate because it is conducted via a website, does not take much time, and has a ready-made survey base.
Another strong point is reliability since each description is read by the same number of participants, ten for each. This experiment is highly demographically limited, as all participants are under 18 and represent a group of students. Extrapolation requires the inclusion of more variables by gender, age, and field of activity. Therefore, there is an essential limitation in applying the results outside of this sample. In addition, geographical factors play a role, as the results in other regions may differ.
One value in the results is the maximum, which significantly affects the overall statistics of the study. In such a case, a mechanism should be developed to treat such values as outliers excluded from the data set. Here, it may be due to a person’s special attitude toward the letter considered, an opinion that differs from the majority. In the future, with larger samples, such cases can be considered outliers.
Further studies can either extrapolate the current experiment without making specific changes to the procedures for complete coverage of various indicators or improve the methodology. Suppose the difference between these speech constructions is insignificant. In that case, a few more descriptions should be introduced, either describing the person with mental problems in a more veiled way or using other words.
References
Britt, M. A. (2016). Psych Experiments: From Pavlov’s dogs to Rorschach’s inkblots, put psychology’s most fascinating studies to the test (Illustrated). Adams Media.
Dolphin, L., & Hennessy, E. (2017). Labelling effects and adolescent responses to peers with depression: an experimental investigation. BMC Psychiatry, 17(1), 1-10.
Gerten, K. (2021). Labels hurt. Examining the impact of mental health stigma. Youth Dynamics (blog).
Langer, C. (2016). Be wary of mental health labels. National Health Executives.
Stringer, M. (2018). When labels limit: How rigid identities harm mental health. Good Therapy.