Is psychiatry’s drug addiction increasing the stigma of mental illness?

by Jon G. Allen, PhD on March 11, 2014 · 3 comments

in mental illness,psychiatric medications,stigma

I deliberately chose a tendentious title for this essay – misleadingly metaphorical rather than literal – to highlight, as one of my recent posts outlines, my alarm stemming from reading research on stigma.

With many others, I had assumed that treating psychiatric disorders as “a disease like any other” (i.e., like any other general medical condition) would ameliorate stigma. This biological perspective reflects a longstanding trend away from moralizing toward medicalizing mental illness – in Karl Menninger’s words, transforming “sin” into “sickness.”

Research on attitudes toward mental illness

In believing that we would thereby ameliorate stigma, we were wrong. My previous post was inspired by Erlend Kvaale and colleagues’ synthesis of extensive research that yielded surprising findings. Although construing mental illnesses as brain disorders decreases blame of the mentally ill person, it does not reduce stigma (i.e., social distancing). Moreover, this reframing can be harmful: It increases pessimism about prognosis, and it also risks increasing perceived dangerousness.

Reading further research on this question made me aware that I failed to appreciate an important facet of this problem that should have been obvious to me: The “brain disorder” reframing is associated with patients’ increasing reliance on medication in relation to psychotherapy; moreover, this reliance is abetted by consumer-directed advertising campaigns by drug companies. Two additional studies illustrate.

Bernice Pescosolido and colleagues examined changes in attitudes about mental illness over a 10-year period (1996-2006) in a representative national sample in the U.S. They asked participants to read clinical vignettes describing symptoms of schizophrenia, depression and alcohol dependence (without using the diagnostic labels). Then they asked participants to indicate:

  • If they viewed the person’s problems as a mental illness;
  • If they thought the problems were biological (i.e., genetic or biochemical) versus being due to character or the way the person was raised;
  • If the person should seek treatment; and
  • Most directly related to stigma, if they would seek social distance or would consider the person to be dangerous.

The findings of the study are instructive: Over the 10-year period in the sample as a whole, there was an increase in attributing these mental illnesses to a neurobiological cause. Consistent with this attribution, there was a parallel increase in endorsement of medical treatment (e.g., medication and care by a psychiatrist).

Yet, despite the increasing acceptance of a biological view of illness and treatment, there remained a high level of stigma that did not decrease over time. The majority of respondents would not want to work closely or socialize with the ill person and believed the person to be potentially violent. Some aspects of stigma actually had increased.

Furthermore, an examination of individual differences among participants showed that holding a neurobiological conception did not decrease stigma in any respect. On the contrary, the biological view increased the odds of a stigmatizing reaction in some respects (i.e., preferring not to work with a person with schizophrenia, believing persons with depression to be more dangerous).

Accordingly, a major educational effort has succeeded in persuading the public that mental illness is a neurobiological condition and that medical treatment is needed; yet the authors conclude,

“An overreliance on the neurobiological causes of mental illness and substance use disorders is at best ineffective and at worst potentially stigmatizing.”

Research among college students and attitudes toward mental health services

Corey Mackenzie and colleagues’ study also is disconcerting. These researchers examined changes in U.S. college students’ attitudes toward mental health services over a 40-year period (1968-2008). Overall, they found that students’ attitudes toward seeking help had become substantially more negative over this long period. This finding is noteworthy because accepting the biological nature of mental illness has been associated with an increase in seeking treatment with medication. The authors attribute their findings to the fact that many items in their measure pertain to talk therapy, and they note that the rise in use of medication has been accompanied by a decline in patients seeking psychotherapy.

Mackenzie and colleagues conclude, “It may be that attitudes toward seeking specialty mental health care, and especially psychotherapy, are becoming increasingly negative as a result of public education and pharmacological marketing efforts to convince the public that mental disorders have a neurobiological etiology that require biological treatments such as antidepressant medication.” They refer to previous evidence that “the focus of these marketing and educational efforts has had no effect, or perhaps a negative effect, on attitudes toward people with mental disorders,” and they conclude quite reasonably that these efforts “may be having a similar negative effect on attitudes toward seeking non-biological treatments for mental disorders.”

I hope the research I have reviewed in these two posts will be as disconcerting to professional and lay readers as it is to me. At best, our well-intentioned efforts to reduce stigma by emphasizing the biological basis of mental illness have been ineffective except insofar as they alleviate blame of the ill individual. At worst, these efforts have increased stigma in some respects and might be deterring patients from seeking psychotherapeutic treatments – either as alternatives to medication or in combination with medication. We must do something different. I will address this challenge in my next post, “Can public education decrease stigma?”

Editor’s note: Check out the first post in Dr. Allen’s series about brain disorders and stigma.


Kvaale, E.P., Haslam, N., & Gottdiener, W.H. (2013). The ‘side effects’ of medicalization: A meta-analytic review of how biogenetic explanations affect stigma. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 782-794.

Mackenzie, C.S., Erickson, J., Deane, F.P., & Wright, M. (2014). Changes in attitudes toward seeking mental health services: A 40-year cross-temporal meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 34, 99-106.

Menninger, K.A. (1973). Whatever became of sin? New York: Hawthorn Books.

Pescosolido, B.A., Martin, J.K., Long, J.S., Medina, T.R., Phelan, J.C., Link, B.G. (2010). “A disease like any other?” A decade of change in public reactions to schizophrenia, depression and alcohol dependence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 1321-1330.

Be Sociable, Share!

{ 2 trackbacks }

Is psychiatry's drug addiction increasing the stigma of mental illness?
March 14, 2014 at 3:36 pm
Jon Dun – Is psychiatry’s drug addiction increasing the stigma of mental illness? | IMH Blog (Nottingham)
March 24, 2014 at 7:00 am

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

Bev MacPhee June 6, 2014 at 4:31 pm

I appreciate your article, but how is saying that “At best, our well-intentioned efforts to reduce stigma by emphasizing the biological basis of mental illness have been ineffective except insofar as they alleviate blame of the ill individual.” going to help that individual get better. You are forgetting something here. the psychiatrist is the one who is “labeling” the individual to begin with. Then the psychiatrist, pumps this poor soul full of very dangerous drugs that do nothing to help the person, except to now give him a whole host of other symptoms that the psychiatrist now has to give him even more drugs for. Talk about stigmatizing him, let’s put the blame where it is due. Do you want to think of something scary….check out what we have planned for the future….a totally psych medicated society, who never gets better. BUT..the psychiatrists are still getting mucho dollars from the government as well as NIMH, NIH,. NAMI, etc, Come on already…connect the dots. In addition, if we keep going the way we are going, who is going to be left to defend our country? Not the future soldiers of the USA. Oh no not them…you see, they will not be fit for combat because the psychiatrists have been very busy making sure that they are suffering from every kind of post traumatic whatever they can invent this week.

When have you ever seen anybody treated by a psychiatrist get cured of what they were diagnosed with? There are people who have been under a psych’s care for 25-30 years and still not cured. I( don’t believe me..then take a look in the psych wards).

Do you really think that society would put up with medical doctors never really curing the people they treat? They would be hung up by their stethoscopes in the lobbies of the hospitals they work in.

People who are under the care of the psychs are being stigmatized because they are not getting any better. Whose fault is that?

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: