An Experimental Test of the Effects of Public Mockery of a Social Media Health Campaign: Implications for Theory and Health Organizations' Social Media Strategies

This study explored how social media users' mocking of a public health campaign can affect other users' emotions, cognitions, and behavioral intentions. Inspired by public mocking of the CDC's "Say No to Raw Dough" campaign aiming to prevent food poisoning caused by eating raw flour-based products, this experiment (N = 681) employed a 2 (Public responses to a PSA: Mocking or serious) x 3 (Organizational response to public responses: Self-mocking, serious, or none) + 1 (control condition) design. Statistical tests revealed that user-generated mocking can lower intentions to avoid the health risk by decreasing perceptions of injunctive norms (that is, seeing others mock a public health campaign resulted in weaker perceptions that others think you should avoid the risky behavior). Mockery of a public health campaign also engender anger at the CDC and at other users, with the target of the anger having differential effects on intentions to avoid eating raw dough. Implications for theory and the practice of social media-based health promotion are discussed.

A laughing matter? Managing hearing difficulties in real life everyday social interactions with adults with hearing loss

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the interactional management of hearing difficulties and hearing aids (HAs) in real-life, video-recorded social interactions with adults with hearing loss (HL) and their families/friends.

DESIGN

32 video-recordings in various social settings were analysed using Conversation Analysis.

STUDY SAMPLE

20 adults with HL and their families/friends.

RESULTS

HL and/or HAs did not typically become explicit in conversation. When adults with HL' hearing difficulties did become explicit in the conversation, they were typically accompanied by laughter/humour. Sometimes the humour/laughter was initiated by the person with HL themselves (i.e. self-directed joking) but more frequently it was initiated by someone else within the conversation (i.e. a tease).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings display the management of the "to tell or not to tell" dilemma in practice, and how humour was often used to lighten the tension when "telling" about HL and/or HAs. The findings also highlight that not all humour is equal: there are different outcomes for adults with HL depending on who initiated the humour/laughter within the context of the interaction. This study highlights stigma-in-action - how stigma related to HL and/or HAs is occasioned and managed within real-life social interactions.

Investigating mental health service user views of stigma on Twitter during COVID-19: a mixed-methods study

Background: Mental health stigma on social media is well studied, but not from the perspective of mental health service users. Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) increased mental health discussions and may have impacted stigma.

Objectives: (1) to understand how service users perceive and define mental health stigma on social media; (2) how COVID-19 shaped mental health conversations and social media use.

Methods: We collected 2,700 tweets related to seven mental health conditions: schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, autism, eating disorders, OCD, and addiction. Twenty-seven service users rated them as stigmatising or neutral, followed by focus group discussions. Focus group transcripts were thematically analysed.

Results: Participants rated 1,101 tweets (40.8%) as stigmatising. Tweets related to schizophrenia were most frequently classed as stigmatising (411/534, 77%). Tweets related to depression or anxiety were least stigmatising (139/634, 21.9%). A stigmatising tweet depended on perceived intention and context but some words (e.g. “psycho”) felt stigmatising irrespective of context.

Discussion: The anonymity of social media seemingly increased stigma, but COVID-19 lockdowns improved mental health literacy. This is the first study to qualitatively investigate service users' views of stigma towards various mental health conditions on Twitter and we show stigma is common, particularly towards schizophrenia. Service user involvement is vital when designing solutions to stigma.

Schizophrenia on Turkish Twitter: an exploratory study investigating misuse, stigmatization and trivialization

PURPOSE

This study aims to investigate use and misuse of the word 'schizophrenia' and its derivatives to assess the prevalence of stigmatizing and trivializing attitudes and the meanings attributed to the condition on Turkish Twitter.

METHODS

Using R programming language, we collected Turkish Twitter posts containing the terms used for schizophrenia in Turkish through Twitter's Search API over a 47-day period between July and June 2019. After removing retweets, we randomly sampled 3000 tweets and manually categorized them in three dimensions: use type (metaphorical/non-metaphorical), topic and attitude. Qualitative analysis on representative tweets were performed and word frequencies were calculated.

RESULTS

In total 44,266 tweets were collected and after removing retweets, 24,529 tweets were obtained. Overwhelming majority of the tweets (91.7%) used the terms metaphorically and the majority displayed stigmatizing (68.3%) and trivializing (23%) attitudes. Politics was the most common topic (58.2%) followed by everyday/social chatter (28.5%). Only a small number of tweets were part of awareness campaigns (0.2%) or displayed a supportive attitude (0.8%). Terms were often used metaphorically in a stigmatizing manner as personal or political insults, while in everyday/social contexts, they were used in a trivializing manner to label eccentricity, oddness, overthinking and suspiciousness. Popularity and reach metrics show that these tweets were extensively retweeted, liked and reached millions of users.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study investigating attitudes towards schizophrenia on Turkish Twitter. Significantly higher rates of stigmatizing attitudes demonstrate the urgent need for public health and social awareness campaigns targeting stigma surrounding schizophrenia in Turkey.

Resisting stigma and evaluating realism in a direct-to-consumer advertisement for psychiatric drugs

Purpose

This study aims to examine how experience with mental illness influences perceptions of stigma and realism in a specific direct-to-consumer advertisement (DTCA) for bipolar depression.

Design/methodology/approach

An online survey had participants watch a 90 s advertisement for a prescription bipolar depression drug and then answer 24 questions about stigma, mental illness experience and the realism of the portrayals in the advertisement.

Findings

Findings show that people who identify as having experience with mental illness tend to see the ad as more stigmatizing and less realistic. Additionally, people who expressed more stigmatizing beliefs also tended to see more stigma present in the ad. Finally, the study reconfirms conclusions of previous research that people who have experience with mental health conditions possess fewer stigmatizing beliefs overall regarding mental illness.

Research limitations/implications

The sample population, while diverse in age and somewhat diverse in location, were highly educated, suggesting that they were not representative of the general population. Future studies may want to use more representative samples. A more nuanced approach to understanding experience is needed. While the sample in this study was purposively derived from communities with a higher rate of mental illness, a comprehensive experience scale to measure degrees of experience with mental illness would enhance understanding of this construct. Researchers may also want to look more deeply into the emotional responses of consumers who view these ads. To develop a greater understanding of the trajectory of DTCA, studies of online advertising for psychiatric drugs are needed.

Practical implications

The results of the study suggest that respondents with experience with mental illness may find ads that sell psychiatric medications unrealistic. This study presents the topic of realism in DTCA as an important construct for determining how consumers may perceive portrayals of disorders.

Social implications

The fact that people who have experience with mental illness found the Latuda ad to be generally unrealistic suggests that DTCA may be failing to represent mental illness in a way that demonstrates care for patients. Additionally, this research confirms that people who have had exposure to and experience with mental illness tend to hold less stigmatizing beliefs, (Link and Cullen, 1986; Corrigan et al., 2001; Angermeyer et al., 2004) a finding which supports the continuing project of increasing mental health literacy and awareness in the general population.

Originality/value

This study investigates the reactions of people who identify as having some experience with mental illness to see if they accept the portrayals of mental illness in DTCA or resist them by challenging their realism or identifying stigmatizing elements.

Redefining fatty liver disease: an international patient perspective

Despite its increased recognition as a major health threat, fatty liver disease associated with metabolic dysfunction remains largely underdiagnosed and undertreated. An international consensus panel has called for the disease to be renamed from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) to metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) and has suggested how the disease should be diagnosed. This Viewpoint explores the call from the perspective of patient advocacy groups. Patients are well aware of the negative consequences of the NAFLD acronym. This advocacy group enthusiastically endorses the call to reframe the disease, which we believe will ultimately have a positive effect on patient care and quality of life and, through this effect, will reduce the burden on health-care systems. For patients, policy makers, health planners, donors, and non-hepatologists, the new acronym MAFLD is clear, squarely placing the disease as a manifestation of metabolic dysfunction and improving understanding at a public health and patient level. The authors from representative patient groups are supportive of this change, particularly as the new acronym is meaningful to all citizens as well as governments and policy makers, and, above all, is devoid of any stigma.

Measuring Trivialization of Mental Illness: Developing a Scale of Perceptions that Mental Illness Symptoms are Beneficial

Much of the extant research on representations of mental illness in the media have focused on stigmatization. The negative effects of these stigmatizing portrayals on individuals with mental illness are serious. However, recent scholarship has identified another phenomenon in the mediated portrayal of mental illness whereby these conditions are trivialized. As opposed to stigmatizing portrayals that make people with mental illness seem violent and incompetent, media portrayals that trivialize mental illnesses often treat the symptoms of these conditions (e.g., organizational ability for people with obsessive compulsive disorder or high energy levels for people with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder) as benefits, thereby diminishing the seriousness of these conditions. The aim of the present study was to develop a reliable and valid scale for assessing how individuals perceive symptoms of mental illnesses as benefits (and, thereby, trivialize these illnesses). Results across three studies support the existence of a reliable and valid measure whereby symptoms demark individuals with a mental illness as receiving a benefit. By establishing this scale, researchers will be better suited to assess the potential intersections and interaction of processes related to mental illness trivialization and stigmatization, both through media portrayals and through everyday interactions.

Measuring attitudes towards mental health using social media: investigating stigma and trivialisation

BACKGROUND

There are numerous campaigns targeting mental health stigma. However, evaluating how effective these are in changing perceptions is complex. Social media may be used to assess stigma levels and highlight new trends. This study uses a social media platform, Twitter, to investigate stigmatising and trivialising attitudes across a range of mental and physical health conditions.

METHODS

Tweets (i.e. messages) associated with five mental and five physical health conditions were collected in ten 72-h windows over a 50-day period using automated software. A random selection of tweets per condition was considered for the analyses. Tweets were categorised according to their topic and presence of stigmatising and trivialising attitudes. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed on all stigmatising and trivialising tweets.

RESULTS

A total of 1,059,258 tweets were collected, and from this sample 1300 tweets per condition were randomly selected for analysis. Overall, mental health conditions were found to be more stigmatised (12.9%) and trivialised (14.3%) compared to physical conditions (8.1 and 6.8%, respectively). Amongst mental health conditions the most stigmatised condition was schizophrenia (41%) while the most trivialised was obsessive compulsive disorder (33%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that mental health stigma is common on social media. Trivialisation is also common, suggesting that while society may be more open to discussing mental health problems, care should be taken to ensure this is done appropriately. This study further demonstrates the potential for social media to be used to measure the general public's attitudes towards mental health conditions.

Examining Differences in Audience Recall and Reaction Between Mediated Portrayals of Mental Illness as Trivializing Versus Stigmatizing

Researchers have documented the ways in which media stigmatize mental illness. However, media also portray mental illness trivially when diseases are mocked, oversimplified, shown to be less severe than in actuality, or represented as beneficial to an individual. Trivialization of mental illnesses could potentially lead audiences to be less likely to seek help or less likely to support related policy efforts. Therefore, it is important to understand how audiences recall and react to stigmatizing and trivializing mental illness portrayals. An experiment (N = 175) asked participants to recall either a media portrayal where mental illness was stigmatized or a portrayal where it was trivialized. Results suggest that audiences recall certain components of stigmatization and trivialization better than others. And, recollections of trivialization were associated with different patterns of word use than stigmatization. A second experiment (N = 141) found similar patterns when showing participants specific examples of different mental illness portrayals and asking them to immediately recall the content. Overall, these results suggest that theory and conceptual models about the nature and effects of mental illness portrayals could be updated to include both stigmatization and trivialization.