The destigmatization of people with a mental illness: an evaluation of the effects of deframing and reframing.

This project investigated the effects of culturally embedded frames (Van Gorp, 2007) on stigma associated with mental illnesses. Challenging stigmatizing narratives is difficult due to their prevalence (e.g., Diefenbach & West, 2007; Nawková et al., 2012; Owen, 2012; Yang & Parrott, 2018) and their link with broader culture (e.g., Cox et al., 2012; Link & Phelan, 2001; Thoits, 2011). However, framing theory and praxis may help to counter stigmatizing narratives, since framing can affect how people perceive issues, including health-related issues (e.g., McGlynn, & McGlone, 2018; Riles et al., 2015; Van Gorp et al., 2012). Specifically, this project investigated the potency of two strategies introduced by Feagin (2010): deframing and reframing. The former refers to negating or refuting elements of an existing frame, whereas the latter refers to introducing a novel perspective to look at the issue. Using a series of in-depth interviews and experiments, this dissertation investigated how these counterframing strategies affect mental health stigma for both people with and without a personal history of mental illness. The results reaffirmed that stigmatizing frames increase stigma for both groups. On the other hand, the counterframing strategies were able to significantly reduce stigma. Overall, deframing was the most effective destigmatizing strategy. Results were mixed for reframing, but its potency could be improved by combining reframing and deframing. In other words, these strategies are complementary (Detenber et al., 2018). However, the counterframing strategies were largely ineffective in reducing the public stigma or self-stigma of people with a personal history of mental illness. Other individual level factors, such as depressive symptoms and need for cognitive closure, also moderated the effects of the counterframing strategies. This further stresses the importance of moderators for both framing effects research (Lecheler & De Vreese, 2019) and anti-stigma praxis. By testing both intended and unintended audiences, one can ensure that the message does not negatively impact the vulnerable groups it is trying to help. This is essential in the light of ethical health communication.

Publication year:2020

Accessibility:Open