Endorsement Of Negative Stereotypes Research Articles

S27. EXAMINING DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN SELF-REPORT AND CLINICIAN-RATED ASSESSMENTS OF PSYCHOSIS RISK: DOES INTERNALIZED STIGMA MATTER?

BackgroundPsychosis is one of the most highly stigmatized mental health conditions (Thornicroft et al., 2009). Compared to those with other mental health concerns, people diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorders are more likely to be perceived by others as dangerous, violent, and unpredictable. As a result, they are often socially marginalized and discriminated against (Crisp et al., 2000; Martin et al., 2007).Individuals at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis may be at lower risk for experiencing public stigma, given that their symptoms are often less outwardly visible at this early stage of illness. However, evidence suggests that those at CHR experience high levels of self-stigma, as they may internalize negative stereotypes related to psychosis (Yang et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2015). Internalized stigma can negatively impact help-seeking behavior and has been associated with lower self-esteem and the underreporting of mental health symptoms (Corrigan, 2004; Corrigan, 2007; Saporito, Ryan, & Teachman, 2011; Rüsch, Angermeyer, & Corrigan, 2005). Despite these findings, no studies to-date have examined how internalized stigma may impact reporting of attenuated psychosis symptoms in the CHR population.The current study aims to examine whether discrepancies between self-report and clinician-rated measures of psychosis risk are associated with internalized stigma in a sample of help-seeking adolescents and young adults. We hypothesized that higher levels of self-stigma will predict inconsistencies between self-reported symptom severity and clinician-obtained diagnoses of psychosis risk.MethodsParticipants will include youth classified as either non-psychosis-related help-seeking controls or at clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis, as determined by the Structured Interview for Psychosis-Risk Syndromes (SIPS; Miller et al., 2003). The SIPS is administered by trained raters and is currently considered the gold standard tool for diagnosing clinical high-risk syndromes (Thompson et al., 2018). In addition to SIPS diagnoses, psychosis risk will also be assessed using the Prime Screen – Revised (PS-R; Miller et al., 2004), a brief, 12-item self-report questionnaire designed to measure attenuated positive symptoms. Lastly, internalized stigma will be assessed using the Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness Inventory (ISMI; Ritsher, Otilingam, & Grajales, 2003), a 29-item self-report questionnaire designed to measure subjective experiences of stigma in adolescents (e.g., endorsement of negative stereotypes, social withdrawal and feelings of alienation due to mental health problems, etc.).ResultsPreliminary analyses demonstrate a significant interaction between Prime scores and internalized stigma in predicting SIPS diagnoses. Specifically, higher scores on the Prime were associated with increased odds of being diagnosed as CHR on the SIPS, but only for those participants who endorsed low and mean levels of stigma. For participants who endorsed high levels of stigma, there did not appear to be any relation between Prime scores and SIPS diagnoses.DiscussionAt the time of submission, participant recruitment is ongoing, and results and discussion will be presented on the final sample. Findings may inform efforts to improve detection and accurate diagnosis of psychosis risk syndromes in individuals at early stages of illness.

Psychological correlates of biological and non-biological explanations for stuttering

Purpose: This study examined whether people who stutter would associate biological and non-biological explanations of stuttering with the endorsement of stereotypes about people who stutter, prognostic expectations for the reduction of stuttering, feelings of guilt, self-blame, and shame about stuttering, and agency for speech modification.Method: This was a cross-sectional study including 372 adults who stutter. Participants completed a web survey with scales that measured their agreement with biological and non-biological models of stuttering; their endorsement of common stereotypes for people who stutter; prognostic expectations for reduced stuttering; feelings of guilt, self-blame, and shame about stuttering; and feelings of agency in their ability to modify their speech.Result: Biological explanations for stuttering were significantly correlated with reduced stereotype endorsement about people who stutter, lower prognostic expectations for reducing stuttering, and reduced feelings of guilt and self-blame regarding stuttering. Non-biological explanations for stuttering were significantly correlated with increased endorsement of negative stereotypes about people who stutter, increased prognostic expectations for reducing stuttering, and increased feelings of guilt, self-blame, and shame about stuttering.Conclusion: It is concluded that the implications of biological framing of stuttering among people who stutter are complex and should be well thought out by professionals. Explaining stuttering as biological, but responsive to personal and environmental influences, may lead to reduced guilt and self-blame, while at the same time fostering feelings of agency for speech modification.

Correction: Stereotyping across intersections of race and age: Racial stereotyping among White adults working with children.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201696.].

Stereotyping across intersections of race and age: Racial stereotyping among White adults working with children.

This study examined the prevalence of racial/ethnic stereotypes among White adults who work or volunteer with children, and whether stereotyping of racial/ethnic groups varied towards different age groups. Participants were 1022 White adults who volunteer and/or work with children in the United States who completed a cross-sectional, online survey. Results indicate high proportions of adults who work or volunteer with children endorsed negative stereotypes towards Blacks and other ethnic minorities. Respondents were most likely to endorse negative stereotypes towards Blacks, and least likely towards Asians (relative to Whites). Moreover, endorsement of negative stereotypes by race was moderated by target age. Stereotypes were often lower towards young children but higher towards teens.

Predictors of Mental Health Stigma among Police Officers: the Role of Trauma and PTSD

Police officers are both at risk of exposure to trauma and experiencing PTSD and are more likely to come into contact with people with mental illness than community members. As a result, the extent and predictors of mental health stigma is an issue of concern among police officers; however, little prior research on stigma has focused on police officers. The present study examined the predictors of mental health stigma among police officers, including the experience of trauma and PTSD symptoms. Active duty police officers (N = 296) were recruited through an online survey and completed measures of trauma exposure, PTSD symptoms, and a number of dimensions of stigma (negative stereotypes, attributions, intended behavior, and attitudes toward seeking help). Findings supported that police officers experience high rates of trauma exposure and higher rates of current PTSD than the general population. Endorsement of negative stereotypes about people with mental illness was higher among police officers than the general population. Contrary to what was expected, officers meeting criteria for current PTSD endorsed more stigma about mental illness, even when controlling for common demographic predictors of stigma, including gender and knowing someone with a mental illness. Findings have important implications for the training of police officers regarding mental illness.

Stereotypes of Sex Offenders’ Romantic Partners Predict Intent to Discriminate

Registered sex offenders’ family members perceive themselves to be the direct targets of public scrutiny, ostracism, harassment, and employment discrimination. Study 1 offers a preliminary exploration of the stereotypes of registered sex offenders’ romantic partners. Participants’ open‐ended responses were coded and subjected to inter‐rater reliability, using a coding scheme that was both exploratory in nature, while also informed by theory and research. Partially supporting our hypotheses, participants primarily perceived sex offenders’ romantic partners as fearful, vulnerable, deviant, and mentally ill, but also as good, forgiving people who want to help reform the offender. In Study 2, we developed an attitudes toward sex offenders’ partners scale, designed to measure participants’ endorsement of stereotypes about offenders’ partners. As predicted, endorsement of negative stereotypes about offenders’ romantic partners (i.e., that they are deviant and predatory, as well as fearful and vulnerable) predicted greater support for sex offender legislation and less support for hiring offenders’ partners across a variety of employment contexts. Moreover, political conservatives were more likely than liberals to discriminate against offenders’ partners in job hiring contexts—an effect statistically explained by conservatives’ endorsement of negative stereotypes about offenders’ partners.