Do Semantics Matter in Empathetic Person Perception of Children or Adults with Mental Illness?

Experiences of stigma, discrimination, or aggression negatively affect the well-being of people experiencing symptoms of psychopathology. However, empathy is thought to undermine prejudice and discrimination and is linked with positive outcomes (e.g., greater well-being, more social support, etc.) among those with stigmatized mental illnesses. The current work investigates the influence of target age (adult or child) and language type (person-first or identity-first) on how much empathic concern perceivers report toward individuals with a hypothetical mental health condition. This research contributes to an ongoing debate about whether person-first or identity-first language carries stigmatizing or protective effects, while also considering a novel potential moderator: target age (i.e., does person-first and identity-first language similarly affect perceptions of adults and children?). To this end, we employed an experimental vignette design examining empathy expressed toward individuals with a mental health condition, where age was manipulated within subjects and language was manipulated between subjects. The results determine that perceivers report greater empathy towards children than adults. However, the use of person-first and identity-first language did not result in significant findings. Thus, whether language type influences empathic concern remains uncertain. These findings suggest a need for increased empirical examination of interventions to inspire empathy towards people, perhaps especially adults, experiencing symptoms of psychopathology

The Effect of Language Type and Perceived Controllability on Stigma and Compassion

Previous research suggests that mental health stigma creates significant barriers to treatment seeking and adherence, diminishes treatment outcomes, and motivates social rejection towards people experiencing mental illness; by contrast, compassion seems to offer protective effects, improving treatment outcomes and helping behavior. The current work extends the established literature by experimentally examining the independent and interactive effects of two factors theorized to influence stigma and compassion: controllability and language. Participants read vignettes about hypothetical mental illnesses explained with a genetic attribution (indicating low controllability) or a behavioral attribution (indicating high controllability) and completed measures of perceived controllability, stigma, and compassion. We found that genetic etiology, compared to behavioral etiology, decreased stigma and increased compassion. Although not statistically significant, preliminary evidence suggests that language might interact with etiology to affect stigma. In the behavioral etiology condition, identity-first language (compared to person-first) exacerbated stigma, whereas, in the genetic etiology condition, this effect was descriptively reversed, though statistically nonsignificant. Our findings provide evidence that emphasizing the contribution of uncontrollable factors (e.g., genetics) to psychopathology could help reduce stigma and increase compassion for people experiencing mental illness. Language may also interact with controllability to inform stigma. This work could aid in advising empathetic and supportive language practices dependent on condition characteristics (e.g., perceived controllability), however, replication is needed to demonstrate the reliability of these effects

Examining the Effect of Physician Language on Physician Impressions

Previous research provides evidence that stigma can be perpetuated through language with consequences for well-being and quality of care. For example, providers who use stigmatizing language transmit bias toward patients with implications for care provided by other healthcare professionals. The current work extends upon this research by investigating perceptions of physicians who use stigmatizing or humanizing language. The current work sought to document the negative consequences of providers’ indelicate language on impressions of the provider, thereby motivating thoughtful language choices. To this end, the current work experimentally manipulated the language (stigmatizing, identity-first and destigmatizing, person-first) that hypothetical providers used to describe individuals with substance use disorder and examined participants’ judgments of the providers (likeability and positive behavioral intentions). We predicted that the provider using stigmatizing, identity-first language would elicit more negative responses than the provider using destigmatizing, person-first language. However, the results provided no support for this hypothesis; instead, we observed only an effect of the vignette content: participants had more positive perceptions of the physician who spoke first, compared to the physician who spoke second. Although the current work did not observe significant effects of language, past work indicates the importance of empathy, warmth, and respect from providers for patient well-being and outcome. We suggest directions for improving upon the current study, as well as possible topics for future research that may aid in understanding these important antecedents of inclusive and successful patient-physician interactions

Effects of Controllability and Language on Stigma Toward Mental Illness

Although past work consistently demonstrates perceivers stigmatize mental illness; which dimensions of stigma are relevant for specific conditions remains debated (Brohan et al., 2010). In the current work, we manipulated (between subjects) the controllability of fictitious mental illnesses and examined participants stigmatization across six dimensions (Fear, Help, Forcing Treatment, and Negative Emotions; Brown, 2008). We also examined whether effects of controllability were moderated by language (within subjects; person-first vs identity-first). We consistently found effects of controllability such that participants in the low (compared to high) condition responded with more fear, empathy, negative emotion, and intention to force treatment, but also attributed less responsibility and reported less tendency to help. Participants responded with more negative emotion toward a condition describe with person-first (relative to identity-first). We found no evidence that language moderated effects of controllability. This work highlights the multifaceted nature of mental health stigma, and suggests that controllability may be an important, but nuanced, factor in mental health stigma