I was almost afraid to read the comments.
previous research has shown that many do no even know exactly what these words mean and that beyond that, they use them in a manner which contorts the meanings of the words. For example, schizophrenia is often used in sentences like “This place is schizophrenic.” or “I am having a schizophrenic day.” Those who do know what the word means are split into those who attribute the illness to biological causes or psychosocial causes, and there is an interaction with the levels of empathy people have and how they attribute the illness. For example, empathetic and informed people hold less stigma, while less empathetic yet also informed people hold more stigma than those who are informed and empathetic. I could ramble on but that should give you a picture of how it works.
I am working on the concepts of stigma and psychoeducation. Psychoeducation is operationally defined by understanding and accepting mental illnesses. Stigma has multiple levels; there is public stigma, how others view those with mental illnesses as dangerous, lacking personal hygiene, socially inept, ect., and then personal or self-stigma, which is an attribution style of the mentally ill individual who views himself/herself as inferior to normal people and less capable in multiple aspects of life, most importantly in interpersonal or social interactions.
psychoeducation is shown to have short-term benefits to all people, from patients to caregivers to college students, yet the effects have not been observed to be significant in follow up repeated measures of stigma. Psychoeducation, however, has been observed to be inferior to personal interaction with the mentally ill, as seen in NAMI programs in which people with mental illnesses speak to others and exhibit normal and healthy, more importantly, human and not-dangerous psyches. The level of functioning and efficacy of these speaker’s medication regiments are variables to be considered to be controlled for.
Dr. Mouse