ABSTRACT: Theoretical models of public stigma toward mental illness have focused on factors that perpetuate stigma toward the general label of “mental illness” or toward a handful of specific illnesses, used more or less interchangeably. The current work used the Stereotype Content Model (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002) to examine how one facet of public stigma – stereotype content – differs as a function of specific mental illnesses. Participants were recruited online from across the U.S. Study 1 demonstrated that the overarching category of people with mental illness was perceived as relatively incompetent, but not very hostile (i.e., relatively warm). Study 2 found that when the general label of mental illness was separated into thirteen individual disorders, distinct stereotype content toward four clusters of illnesses emerged. One cluster, typified by illnesses with psychotic features (e.g., schizophrenia), was perceived to be hostile and incompetent. A second cluster, comprised of mood and anxiety disorders, was perceived as average on both competence and warmth. A third cluster of illnesses with neuro-cognitive deficits was thought to be warm but incompetent. The fourth cluster included groups with sociopathic tendencies and was viewed as hostile but relatively competent. The results clearly demonstrate that the stereotype content that underlies public stigma toward individual mental illnesses is not the same for all disorders. Harnessing knowledge of differing stereotype content toward clusters of mental illnesses may improve the efficacy of interventions to counteract public stigma.

I don't like words that hide the truth. I don't like words that conceal reality. I don't like euphemisms, or euphemistic language.

And American English is loaded with euphemisms. Cause Americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it, and it gets worse with every generation.

For some reason, it just keeps getting worse. I'll give you an example of that. There's a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It's when a fighting person's nervous system has been stressed to it's absolute peak and maximum. Can't take anymore input. The nervous system has either (click) snapped or is about to snap.

In the first world war, that condition was called Shell Shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables, Shell Shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves. That was seventy years ago.

Then a whole generation went by and the second world war came along and very same combat condition was called Battle Fatigue. Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn't seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. Shell Shock! Battle Fatigue.

Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called Operational Exhaustion. Hey, were up to eight syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It's totally sterile now. Operational exhaustion. Sounds like something that might happen to your car.

Then of course, came the war in Viet Nam, which has only been over for about sixteen or seventeen years, and thanks to the lies and deceits surrounding that war, I guess it's no surprise that the very same condition was called Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Still eight syllables, but we've added a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

I'll bet you if we'd of still been calling it Shell Shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. I'll betcha. I'll betcha.