Lit rev eg

Writing a Short Literature Review William Ashton, Ph.D. York College, CUNYA student began a short literature review on the stigma of the mentally ill andperceptions of dangerousness. Working through PsychArticles she found threelikely articles. When she read each, she wrote a paragraph description of each:Alexander, L.A., & Link, B.G. (2003). The impact of contact on stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental illness. Journal of Mental Health, 12, 271-289. Alexander and Link (2003) examined the stigma of mental illness,perceptions of dangerousness and social distance in a telephone survey. Theyfound that, as a participant’s own life contact with mentally ill individualsincreased, participants were both less likely to perceive a target mentally illindividual in a vignette as physically dangerous and less likely to desire socialdistance from the target. This relationship remained after controlling fordemographic and confound variables, such as gender, ethnicity, education,income and political conservatism. They also found that any type of contact –with a friend, a spouse, a family member, a work contact, or a contact in a publicplace – with mentally ill individuals reduced perceptions of dangerousness of thetarget in the vignette.Corrigan, P. W., Rowan, D., Green, A., Lundin, R., River, P., Uphoff-Wasowski, K., White, K., & Kubiak, M.A. (2002). Challenging two mental illness stigmas: Personality responsibility and dangerousness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 28, 293-309. Corrigan, Rowan, Green, Lundin, River, Uphoff-Wasowski, White andKubiak (2002) conducted two studies to investigate the strength of the theoreticalrelationship between stigma and personality responsibility, and stigma anddangerousness. Corrigan et al. posited two models to account for stigmatizingreactions. In the first model, labeled personal responsibility, personalityresponsibility influences both the level of pity and anger displayed toward mentalpatients. Additionally, the variables of pity and anger influence helping behavior.In the second model, labeled dangerousness, perceived dangerousnessinfluences fear of mental patients, which in turn influences the avoidance of thementally ill. In their first study, Corrigan etal. (2002), administered a questionnaire to216 community college students. This questionnaire contained items whichwould allow the examination of the two models. The results of a path analysisindicated that while both models fit the data, the results for the dangerousness

model seemed far more consistent with the data. Their second study was anattempt to manipulate variables in the models. Participants met with either aneducational group or a mental patient. During the meetings, either myths aboutthe personality responsibility or the dangerousness of mental patients werediscussed and debunked. While education yielded some positive results, contactwith mental patients produced stronger results.Martin, J. K., Pescosolido, B. A., & Tuch, S. A. (2000). Of fear and loathing: The role of ‘disturbing behavior’ labels, and causal attributions in shaping public attitudes toward people with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 208-223. Martin, Pescosolido & Tuch (2000) examined the effects of descriptions ofthe targets’ behavior, causal attributions about the source of the behavior, thetarget’s perceived dangerousness, labeling and participants’ sociodemographiccharacteristics. Twenty percent of the participants labeled a target described withdepressed symptoms as having a mental illness (as compared with 54% for thosedescribed with schizophrenic symptoms or 1% with normal troubles); 37% wouldbe unwilling to interact with the depressed person (48% for the schizophrenic and21% for normal troubles); and 33% felt that the depressed person would doviolence to others (61% for the schizophrenic and 17% for the normal troubles).Next she decided upon the order of the paragraphs in the paper:Martin, Pescosolido & Tuch (2000) examined the effects of descriptions of thetargets’ behavior, causal attributions about the source of the behavior, the target’sperceived dangerousness, labeling and participants’ sociodemographiccharacteristics. Twenty percent of the participants labeled a target described withdepressed symptoms as having a mental illness (as compared with 54% for thosedescribed with schizophrenic symptoms or 1% with normal troubles); 37% wouldbe unwilling to interact with the depressed person (48% for the schizophrenic and21% for normal troubles); and 33% felt that the depressed person would doviolence to others (61% for the schizophrenic and 17% for the normal troubles).

Alexander and Link (2003) examined the stigma of mental illness,perceptions of dangerousness and social distance in a telephone survey. Theyfound that, as a participant’s own life contact with mentally ill individualsincreased, participants were both less likely to perceive a target mentally illindividual in a vignette as physically dangerous and less likely to desire socialdistance from the target. This relationship remained after controlling fordemographic and confound variables, such as gender, ethnicity, education,income and political conservatism. They also found that any type of contact –with a friend, a spouse, a family member, a work contact, or a contact in a publicplace – with mentally ill individuals reduced perceptions of dangerousness of thetarget in the vignette. Corrigan, Rowan, Green, Lundin, River, Uphoff-Wasowski, White andKubiak (2002) conducted two studies to investigate the strength of the theoreticalrelationship between stigma and personality responsibility, and stigma anddangerousness. Corrigan et al. posited two models to account for stigmatizingreactions. In the first model, labeled personal responsibility, personalityresponsibility influences both the level of pity and anger displayed toward mentalpatients. Additionally, the variables of pity and anger influence helping behavior.In the second model, labeled dangerousness, perceived dangerousnessinfluences fear of mental patients, which in turn influences the avoidance of thementally ill. In their first study, Corrigan etal. (2002), administered a questionnaire to216 community college students. This questionnaire contained items which

would allow the examination of the two models. The results of a path analysisindicated that while both models fit the data, the results for the dangerousnessmodel seemed far more consistent with the data. Their second study was anattempt to manipulate variables in the models. Participants met with either aneducational group or a mental patient. During the meetings, either myths aboutthe personality responsibility or the dangerousness of mental patients werediscussed and debunked. While education yielded some positive results, contactwith mental patients produced stronger results.She carefully chose the order of the paragraphs so she could talk about: (1) thatpeople respond to the mentally ill with fear and rejection, (2) contact reduces bothrejection and fear and (3) how to best arrange the contact to reduce stigma.Now she added introductory and concluding sentences, paragraph hooks andshort transition paragraphs to help the flow of ideas. Regarding the mentally ill, it appears that people respond to the mentally illwith feelings of fear and rejection. Martin, Pescosolido & Tuch (2000) examinedthe effects of descriptions of the targets’ behavior, causal attributions about thesource of the behavior, the target’s perceived dangerousness, labeling andparticipants’ sociodemographic characteristics. Twenty percent of theparticipants labeled a target described with depressed symptoms as having amental illness (as compared with 54% for those described with schizophrenicsymptoms or 1% with normal troubles); 37% would be unwilling to interact withthe depressed person (48% for the schizophrenic and 21% for normal troubles);and 33% felt that the depressed person would do violence to others (61% for the

schizophrenic and 17% for the normal troubles). Thus, a common respond to thementally ill are rejection and fear of violence. While, based upon research, the common response to a mentally ill personis to fear violence, diagnosed mental patients commit violence at the same ratesas non-diagnosed people (Martin, et al., 2000). Public perceptions may not matchreality due to the public’s lack of contact with the mentally ill. Alexander and Link (2003) examined contact with the mentally ill and thestigma of mental illness, perceptions of dangerousness and social distance in atelephone survey. They found that, as a participant’s own life contact withmentally ill individuals increased, participants were both less likely to perceive atarget mentally ill individual in a vignette as physically dangerous and less likelyto desire social distance from the target. This relationship remained aftercontrolling for demographic and confound variables, such as gender, ethnicity,education, income and political conservatism. They also found that any type ofcontact – with a friend, a spouse, a family member, a work contact, or a contact ina public place – with mentally ill individuals reduced perceptions ofdangerousness of the target in the vignette. Thus, according to Alexander andLink (2003), any contact with the mentally ill is associated with reduced fear andrejection. However, since this study was observational in nature, we cannot knowif contact reduces fear or having lower fear increased contact. Corrigan, Rowan, Green, Lundin, River, Uphoff-Wasowski, White andKubiak (2002) conducted two studies examining the causal processes in contact,fear and rejection. Corrigan et al. posited two models to account for stigmatizing

reactions. In the first model, labeled personal responsibility, beliefs aboutpersonality responsibility influences both the level of pity and anger displayedtoward mental patients. Additionally, the variables of pity and anger influencehelping behavior. In the second model, labeled dangerousness, perceiveddangerousness influences fear of mental patients, which in turn influences theavoidance of the mentally ill. In their first study, Corrigan et al. (2002) administered a questionnaire to216 community college students. This questionnaire contained items whichwould allow the examination of the two models. The results of a path analysisindicated that while both models fit the data, the results for the dangerousnessmodel seemed far more consistent with the data. Their second study was anattempt to manipulate variables in the models. Participants met with either aneducational group or with a mental patient. During the meetings, myths about thepersonality responsibility or the dangerousness of mental patients werediscussed and debunked. While education yielded some positive resultsregarding fear and rejection, contact with mental patients produced strongerresults. Thus, Corrigan et al. demonstrated that contact causes less rejection andfear.In the final stage, she needs to write an introductory and concluding paragraph.She wrote the concluding paragraph first. In this paragraph she needs tooverview the paper and make a conclusion.It appears that the mentally ill are rejected because of the public’s fear of thementally ill. At least one-third of the people sampled in one study said that theywould both reject socially and fear violence from someone displaying behaviors

associated with different mentally illnesses. Other research discovered that thisrejection is associated to lack of contact with the mentally ill and that as contactincreased, fear of the mentally ill decreased. The direction of the relationshipbetween fear and rejection seems to be that fear (possibly based upon mythsabout mental illness) causes rejection. Taken as a whole, it appears thatexposing these myths as myths increases the acceptance of the mentally ill andthat staged contact with a mentally person to expose myths has an even morepowerful effect.Now she needs to say something about the research methods.Caution must be advised, though; Martin et al.’s (2002) and Alexander and Link’s(2003) studies and the first study of Corrigan et al. (2002) were based upon paperand pencil methodologies. And while Corrigan et al.’s (2002) second studyinvolved staged presentations, it was conducted in a college setting with a collegesample. Future research should replicate these findings in more natural settingswith different populations.The student then brought her draft to me. After I read it I asked her about the firstsentence of her conclusion. I asked her if she could phrase it as a clear andstrong statement. She did:The rejection of the mentally ill is caused by the public’s belief in myths about thedangerousness of the mentally ill and exposing those myths can reduce rejection.Now she needs to write the Introduction. With an introduction, begin broad andnarrow down to the thesis statement. The thesis statement is the last sentence inthe introduction and the first sentence in the conclusion.

The mentally ill face a multitude of challenges. One of those challenges is thestigmatization they face. Stigmatization is social rejection; they are rejected bypeople because of the label they carry or that their behaviors clearly indicate thatthey belong to a certain labeled group. Stigmatization of the mentally ill is causedby the public’s belief in myths about the dangerousness of the mentally ill andexposing those myths can reduce stigmatization.Here’s how her whole paper looked:

Myths of violence 1 Myths of violence and the stigma of mental illness12 Suzie Student York College, CUNY1For the text of an APA article, use Courier or New Times Roman font at 12 pts.2Before the page number is the Page Header (sometimes called, Key Words) the first few wordsof your title.

Myths of violence 2 Myths of violence and the stigma of mental illness3 The mentally ill face a multitude of challenges. One ofthose challenges is the stigmatization they face.Stigmatization is social rejection; those stigmatized arerejected by people because of the label they carry or that theirbehaviors clearly indicate that they belong to a certain labeledgroup. Stigmatization of the mentally ill is caused by thepublic’s belief in myths about the dangerousness of the mentallyill and exposing those myths can reduce stigmatization. Regarding the mentally ill, it appears that people respondto the mentally ill with feelings of fear and rejection.Martin, Pescosolido & Tuch (2000)4 examined the effects ofdescriptions of the targets’ behavior, causal attributions aboutthe source of the behavior, the target’s perceiveddangerousness, labeling and participants’ sociodemographiccharacteristics. Twenty percent of the participants labeled atarget described with depressed symptoms as having a mentalillness (as compared with 54% for those described withschizophrenic symptoms or 1% with normal troubles); 37% would beunwilling to interact with the depressed person (48% for theschizophrenic and 21% for normal troubles); and 33% felt thatthe depressed person would do violence to others (61% for the3 before the text begins, repeat the title, centered.4 the first time you cite an article, list all of the authors’ names.

Myths of violence 3schizophrenic and 17% for the normal troubles). Thus, a commonrespond to the mentally ill are rejection and fear of violence. While, based upon research, the common response to amentally ill person is to fear violence, diagnosed mentalpatients commit violence at the same rates as non-diagnosedpeople (Martin, et al., 2000)5. Public perceptions may not matchreality due to the public’s lack of contact with the mentallyill. Alexander and Link (2003) examined contact with thementally ill and the stigma of mental illness, perceptions ofdangerousness and social distance in a telephone survey. Theyfound that, as a participant’s own life contact with mentallyill individuals increased, participants were both less likely toperceive a target mentally ill individual in a vignette asphysically dangerous and less likely to desire social distancefrom the target. This relationship remained after controllingfor demographic and confound variables, such as gender,ethnicity, education, income and political conservatism. Theyalso found that any type of contact – with a friend, a spouse, afamily member, a work contact, or a contact in a public place –with mentally ill individuals reduced perceptions ofdangerousness of the target in the vignette. Thus, according to5the second (etc) times you cite an article, you can use et al. if the article has more than 2authors

Myths of violence 4Alexander and Link (2003), any contact with the mentally ill isassociated with reduced fear and rejection. However, since thisstudy was observational in nature, we cannot know if contactreduces fear or having lower fear increased contact. Corrigan, Rowan, Green, Lundin, River, Uphoff-Wasowski,White and Kubiak (2002) conducted two studies examining thecausal processes in contact, fear and rejection. Corrigan etal. posited two models to account for stigmatizing reactions.In the first model, labeled personal responsibility, beliefsabout personality responsibility influences both the level ofpity and anger displayed toward mental patients. Additionally,the variables of pity and anger influence helping behavior. Inthe second model, labeled dangerousness, perceived dangerousnessinfluences fear of mental patients, which in turn influences theavoidance of the mentally ill. In their first study, Corrigan et al. (2002) administered aquestionnaire to 216 community college students. Thisquestionnaire contained items which would allow the examinationof the two models. The results of a path analysis indicatedthat while both models fit the data, the results for thedangerousness model seemed far more consistent with the data.Their second study was an attempt to manipulate variables in themodels. Participants met with either an educational group orwith a mental patient. During the meetings, myths about the

Myths of violence 5personality responsibility or the dangerousness of mentalpatients were discussed and debunked. While education yieldedsome positive results regarding fear and rejection, contact withmental patients produced stronger results. Thus, Corrigan etal. demonstrated that contact causes less rejection and fear. Stigmatization of the mentally ill is caused by thepublic’s belief in myths about the dangerousness of the mentallyill and exposing those myths can reduce stigmatization. Atleast one-third of the people sampled in one study said thatthey would both reject socially and fear violence from someonedisplaying behaviors associated with different mentallyillnesses. Other research discovered that this rejection isassociated to lack of contact with the mentally ill and that ascontact increased, fear of the mentally ill decreased. Thedirection of the relationship between fear and rejection seemsto be that fear (possibly based upon myths about mental illness)causes rejection. Taken as a whole, it appears that exposingthese myths as myths increases the acceptance of the mentallyill and that staged contact with a mentally person to exposemyths has an even more powerful effect. Caution must beadvised, though; Martin et al.’s (2002) and Alexander and Link’s(2003) studies and the first study of Corrigan et al. (2002)were based upon paper and pencil methodologies. And whileCorrigan et al.’s (2002) second study involved staged

Myths of violence 6presentations, it was conducted in a college setting with acollege sample. Future research should replicate these findingsin more natural settings with different populations.

Myths of violence 7 References6Alexander, L.A., & Link, B.G. (2003). The impact of contact on stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental illness. Journal of Mental Health, 12, 271-289.Corrigan, P. W., Rowan, D., Green, A., Lundin, R., River, P., Uphoff-Wasowski, K., White, K., & Kubiak, M.A. (2002). Challenging two mental illness stigmas: Personality responsibility and dangerousness. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 28, 293-309.Martin, J. K., Pescosolido, B. A., & Tuch, S. A. (2000). Of fear and loathing: The role of ‘disturbing behavior’ labels, and causal attributions in shaping public attitudes toward people with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 208-223.6 references begin on a new page.

Lit rev eg

by bobomale

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Lit rev eg Document Transcript