The Impact of Stigmatization of Mental Disorders on the Public's

Self-Perception

Zixuan Liu

College of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Faculty of Chinese Medicine Science Guangxi University of Chinese Medicine,

Nanning, 530000, China

Keywords: Stigma, Stigmatization, Depression.

Abstract: Objective: This research endeavours to explore whether the public's stigmatization of mental disorders exerts

an influence on the public's evaluation of their own mental states. Methods: A questionaire was designed, and

223 subjects will be recruited via convenience sampling on the Internet as the research participants. The

Perceived Devaluation-Discrimination Scale (PDDS), adapted by Zuo Bin from Link's original, will be

employed. Based on the scores obtained, the subjects will be categorized into a high group and a low group.

Subsequently, the Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) will be utilized to analyze the participants' perception

of their own mental states within the two groups. Results: In this study, 167 questionnaires were screened for

analysis. The mean score of the subjects on the Public Stigmatization Scale was (28.74 ± 5.84), and that on

the Self-Rating Depression Scale was (46.14 ± 10.33). The average score of the SDS scale for the subjects in

the low group was (48.53 ± 1.24), while that for the subjects in the high group was (44.15 ± 1.00). Conclusion:

Groups that are more perceptive of the stigmatization of mental disorder patients in society tend to experience

greater psychological stress as a consequence.

1 INTRODUCTION

Mental disorders constitute a prevalent and life-

threatening ailment (Askelund et al., 2019). Research

indicates that the lifetime prevalence rate of

depression in China reaches 6.9% (Huang et al.,

2019). Additionally, due to the exorbitant costs

associated with hospitalization, medication, and

nursing care for mental disorder patients, it imposes a

substantial burden on both families and society

(König et al., 2020). The World Health Organization

(WHO) reported in 2022 that mental disorders

currently represent the primary cause of disability-

adjusted life years, accounting for approximately one-

sixth of the global disability-adjusted life years.

Concurrently, the stigma prevalent in the mental

health domain is perturbing the public's perception of

their own mental states (Shi & Jiang, 2023). The

negative emotional experience engendered by this

stigmatization phenomenon induces certain

individuals to endure greater mental stress, and may

even impede potential mental disorder patients from

seeking assistance (Makowski & Knesebeck, 2023,

Zhang et al., 2020, Colizzi et al., 2020).

In 1963, Erving Goffman initially introduced the

concept of stigmatization. He explicitly defined

stigmatization as the act of affixing negative labels to

an entire group, thereby fostering a negative

stereotype (Goffman).

Prior research on group emotions has

demonstrated that negative emotions can proliferate

directly within groups and progressively shape the

collective perception of various matters (Barsade &

Gibson, 1998). The stigmatization of certain

phenomena emerges during this process (Zeng & Li,

2020). With the advancement of psychology,

although the public's cognizance of psychological

phenomena has witnessed an increment, the public's

stigmatization of mental disorders persists (Maharjan

& Panthee, 2019). This pervasive stigmatization

phenomenon has given rise to the emergence of

stigma among relevant patients, and has also

compelled individuals with mild psychological issues

to withstand greater psychological pressure

(Mukhopadhyay & Mukherjee, 2018).

The concept of stigma was proposed by Corrigan.

Corrigan's research bifurcated stigma into public

stigma, stemming from the stigmatization

phenomenon induced by external negative

impressions, and self-stigma, which patients develop

towards themselves due to their affliction with

diseases (Corrigan, 2004). This study is designed to

430

Liu, Z.

The Impact of Stigmatization of Mental Disorders on the Public’s Self-Perception.

DOI: 10.5220/0014120500004942

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Applied Psychology and Marketing Management (APMM 2025), pages 430-434

ISBN: 978-989-758-791-7

investigate the current public awareness regarding the

stigmatization of mental disorders and to explore

whether public stigma impacts individuals' perception

of their own mental states.

2 METHODS

2.1 Sample

The present research employed a questionnaire-based

survey approach, whereby subjects were randomly

recruited as research participants on the Chinese

Internet through convenience sampling. The inclusion

criteria were stipulated as follows: (1) Absence of any

prior history of mental disorders; (2) Attainment of an

educational level at least equivalent to primary

school; (3) Absence of overt intellectual impairments

and possession of the capacity to comprehend the

scale content. A total of 223 questionnaires were

amassed in the course of this study, among which 167

valid responses, characterized by earnest completion,

were screened out, yielding an efficacy rate of 75%

(rounded to two decimal places).

2.2 Tools

2.2.1 Perceived Devaluation-Discrimination

Scale, (PDDS)

In this investigation, the Public Stigmatization Scale

was utilized to explore the subjects’ perception of

the degree of stigmatization associated with mental

disorders (Zuo & Ai, 2011). This scale was modified

by Zuo Bin from the Perceived Devaluation-

Discrimination Scale devised by Link et al. (Link et

al., 1987) The entire scale adopts a 4-level scoring

system and comprises 12 items, with 6 of them being

reverse-scored.

2.2.2 Self-Rating Depression Scale, (SDS)

The SDS was deployed in this study to dissect the

subjects’ perception of their own mental states. This

scale is constituted of 20 straightforward

interrogatives and employs a 4-level scoring regimen,

principally aiming to evaluate the frequency and

severity of symptomatology (Xin et al., 2012). Each

entry is scored in accordance with the sequence of 1,

2, 3, and 4, such that a greater score corresponds to a

higher frequency and severity of symptom

manifestation. Among these, 10 questions necessitate

reverse scoring, and the average score is adopted for

statistical outcomes. It has been empirically validated

that this scale exhibits sound reliability and validity,

with a Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.842 and a test-

retest reliability correlation coefficient of 0.809 (Liu

et al., 2021).

2.3 Statistical Analysis

SPSS 29.0 statistical software was harnessed for data

analysis in this study. Quantitative data were

expressed in the form of mean ± standard deviation.

The t-test was implemented for comparisons between

the two groups, while multiple linear regression

analysis was employed for multivariate exploration,

with p < 0.05 serving as the benchmark for statistical

significance.

3 RESULTS

3.1 Basic Information

A total of 167 subjects were screened out. Among

them, the age range of the subjects was from 18 to 49

years old, with a mean age of (23.04 ± 3.64) years.

In terms of gender distribution, there were 100 male

cases and 67 female cases.

3.2 Grouping Information

Through the analysis of statistical data, the mean

PDDS score of all subjects was ascertained as (28.74

± 5.84). In the current study, based on the PDDS

scores of the subjects, 76 datasets with scores below

the average were incorporated into the low group, and

91 datasets with scores above the average were

incorporated into the high group. According to the

scores on the Public Stigmatization Scale, it was

revealed that the low group exhibited a more

pronounced perception of the stigmatization of

mental disorders, whereas the high group manifested

a relatively milder perception.

3.3 Data Comparison

The average score per item on the SDS scale for the

subjects in the low group was (2.43 ± 0.54), and that

for the subjects in the high group was (2.21 ± 0.48).

The results are presented in the following table.

The Impact of Stigmatization of Mental Disorders on the Public’s Self-Perception

431

Table 1: T-test analysis results.

PDDS (Mean ± Standard Deviation) t p

low group (n = 76) high group (n = 91)

SDS Average

Score

2.43±0.54 2.21±0.48 2.78 0.01**

* p<0.05 ** p<0.01

From the above Table 1, the independent samples

t-test was employed to explore the disparity in the

average SDS score among different PDDS average

score groups. It can be discerned from the table that a

significant difference (p < 0.05) was observed in the

average SDS score among different PDDS average

score groups. More specifically, a highly significant

difference at the 0.01 level (t = 2.778, p = 0.006) was

detected in the average SDS score among different

PDDS average score groups. Furthermore, upon

detailed comparison, it was evident that the average

score per item on the SDS scale for the low group

(2.43) was markedly higher than that for the high

group (2.21).

3.4 Analysis of Factors Influencing

Subjects' Perception of Their Own

Mental States

3.4.1 Univariate Analysis

The subjects were categorized by age (Li et al., 2024).

Employing the independent samples t-test, an

exploration was conducted into the disparity in the

average SDS score for a single item among diverse

age cohorts. It could be deduced that no significant

divergence (p > 0.05) was manifested in the average

SDS score across different age groups. The specific

details are presented as shown in Table 2:

Table 2: T-test analysis results.

Age (Mean ± Standard Deviation) t p

Above 25 years old (n

= 41

)

Below 25 years old (n =

126

)

SDS Average

Score

2.35±0.47 2.29±0.53 0.61 0.54

* p<0.05 ** p<0.01

Subsequently, the independent samples t-test was

utilized to scrutinize the difference in the average

SDS score for one item between disparate genders.

The resultant data indicated that a significant

discrepancy (p < 0.05) prevailed in the average SDS

score among samples of different genders. The

outcomes are tabulated below:

Table 3: T-test analysis results.

Gender (Mean ± Standard Deviation) t p

Female (n = 67) Male (n = 100)

SDS Average

Score

2.48±0.50 2.19±0.50 3.67 0.00**

* p<0.05 ** p<0.01

It is discernible from the above Table 3 that gender

exhibited a significance at the 0.01 level with respect

to the average SDS score (t = 3.665, p = 0.000).

Through meticulous comparison, it was ascertained

that the average value for females (2.48) was

conspicuously higher than that for males (2.19).

3.4.2 Multivariate Analysis

Gender, age, and the average PDDS score were

designated as independent variables, while the

average SDS score served as the dependent variable

for the purpose of conducting a linear regression

analysis. The particulars are expounded as shown in

Table 4:

APMM 2025 - International Conference on Applied Psychology and Marketing Management

432

Table 4: Linear regression analysis results (n = 167).

Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

t p

Collinearity Diagnosis

B

Standard Error

Beta VIF

Tolerance

Constant

3.78 0.34 - 10.99 0.00** - -

Gender

-0.28 0.08 -0.27 -3.62 0.00** 1.04 0.96

Age

-0.02 0.01 -0.11 -1.46 0.14 1.03 0.97

PDDS -0.28 0.08 -0.26 -3.64 0.00** 1.01 0.99

R 2

0.15

Adjusted R²

0.14

F F (3,163)=9.80,p=0.00

D-W Value

1.78

Note: Dependent Variable = SDS

* p<0.05 ** p<0.01

It can be gleaned from the above table that the

model formula is: SDS average score = 3.776 - 0.280

* gender - 0.015 * age - 0.280 * PDDS average

score.R² = 0.153, signifying that gender, age, and the

average PDDS score can elucidate 15.3% of the

variance in the average SDS score. Upon subjecting

the model to a multicollinearity test, it was

ascertained that all VIF values within the model were

less than 5, intimating the absence of a collinearity

issue. Moreover, the D-W value hovered around 2,

thereby suggesting that the model was devoid of

autocorrelation and that no correlation subsisted

among the sample data, rendering the model

satisfactory.

In summary, gender and PDDS score have a

significant negative bearing on the SDS score of the

subjects, whereas age does not have an impact on the

SDS score of the subjects.

4 DISCUSSION

Mental disorders, being ailments that imperil human

life and safety, give rise to crucial inquiries regarding

how to mitigate the morbidity risk among the general

populace and augment the prospects of recovery for

individuals afflicted with such disorders. These

inquiries warrant profound exploration. The

stigmatization of mental disorders, manifesting as a

phenomenon with the potential to impinge upon the

public's self-perceptual faculties and attenuate

patients' self-esteem as well as their inclination to

seek medical recourse, merits earnest consideration

(Li et al., 2023).

In the present study, questionnaires were

disseminated with the objective of probing into the

influence of the stigmatization phenomenon on the

public's self-perception. Subsequently, 167

questionnaire responses were amassed and

meticulously screened. Thereafter, predicated on the

PDDS scores of the subjects, they were bifurcated

into a high group and a low group. Notably, the mean

score per item on the SDS for the low group (2.43)

was markedly superior to that of the high group

(2.21).

The independent samples t-test was enlisted to

authenticate the disparities, and the resultant

deduction was that a statistically significant

difference (p < 0.05) was evinced in the average SDS

score among the subject samples of diverse

experimental cohorts. It is posited that groups that

exhibit a heightened awareness of the stigmatization

of mental disorder patients within society are

predisposed to endure more pronounced

psychological duress when engaged in self-

assessment of their mental states.

When the t-test was deployed to dissect gender-

based variances, a significance at the 0.01 level was

manifested for the average SDS score (t = 3.665, p =

0.000). Through comparative analysis, it becomes

evident that the mean value for females (2.48) was

conspicuously greater than that for males (2.19).

Antecedent research has unequivocally established

that women are characteristically more prone to detect

stigma and the stigmatization of mental disorders, a

finding that dovetails with and corroborates the

conclusion derived from this study (Feng et al., 2022).

The Impact of Stigmatization of Mental Disorders on the Public’s Self-Perception

433

5 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, data were collected and analyzed

through questionnaire surveys and convenience

sampling in this study. The designed survey proved

that the stigmatization phenomenon has a negative

influence on the self-perception of the public.

Furthermore, in the collected research samples,

gender has become one of the factors influencing the

self-perception of the subjects. It is necessary to call

on society to reduce the prejudice and discrimination

against mental illness through education, publicity

and policy advocacy. By doing so, the incidence rate

of mental disorders can be curtailed, and the self-

efficacy and propensity of patients with mental

disorders to seek medical attention can be enhanced.

REFERENCES

A. D. Askelund, S. Schweizer, I. M. Goodyer, & others.

Positive memory specificity is associated with reduced

vulnerability to depression. Nat. Hum. Behav., 3(3),

265–273. (2019)

Y. Huang, Y. Wang, H. Wang, Z. Liu, X. Yu, J. Yan, … Y.

Wu. Prevalence of mental disorders in China: A cross-

sectional epidemiological study. Lancet. Psychiatry,

6(3), 211–224. (2019)

H. König, H.-H. König, & A. Konnopka. The excess costs

of depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci., 29, e30. (2020)

S. Shi, & Y. Jiang. Research progress on stigma in patients

with depression. Chin. J. Health. Educ., 11(11), 1023–

1026. (2023)

A. C. Makowski, & O. von dem Knesebeck. Public

depression stigma does not vary by symptom severity.

J. Ment. Health., 32(2), 434–442. (2023)

Z. Zhang, K. Sun, C. Jatchavala, J. Koh, Y. Chia, J. Bose,

… R. Ho. Overview of stigma against psychiatric

illnesses and advancements of anti-stigma activities in

six Asian societies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health.,

17(1), 280. (2020)

M. Colizzi, M. Ruggeri, & A. Lasalvia. Should we be

concerned about stigma and discrimination in people at

risk for psychosis? A systematic review. Psychol. Med.,

50(5), 705–726. (2020)

E. Goffman. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled

identity. Postgrad. Med. J., 47(542), 642–642. (n.d.)

S. G. Barsade, & D. R. Gibson. Group emotion: A view

from top and bottom. Unpublished manuscript. (1998)

X. Zeng, & L. Li. Stigma and stigmatization in international

relations. Int. Political. Sci., 3, 78–111. (2020)

S. Maharjan, & B. Panthee. Prevalence of self-stigma and

its association with self-esteem among psychiatric

patients in a Nepalese teaching hospital: A cross-

sectional study. BMC. Psychiatry, 19(1), Article 347.

(2019)

D. Mukhopadhyay, & S. Mukherjee. Stigma towards mental

illness: A hospital-based cross-sectional study among

caregivers in West Bengal. Indian. J. Public. Health.,

62(1), 15. (2018)

P. Corrigan. How stigma interferes with mental health care.

Am. Psychol., 59(7), 614–625. (2004)

B. Zuo, & C. Ai. The relationship between group identity,

self-esteem, and mental illness stigma. Chin. J. Appl.

Psychol., 17(4), 299–303. (2011)

B. G. Link, F. T. Cullen, I. Frank, & J. F. Wozniak. The

social rejection of former mental patients:

Understanding why labels matter. Am. J. Sociol., 92(6),

1461–1500. (1987)

L. Y. Xin, C. L. Hou, R. M. Wang, R. L. Lan, & M. Y. Lü.

Factor structure analysis of the Self-Rating Depression

Scale and its influencing factors. Chin. J. Health.

Psychol., 20(10), 1521–1523. (2012)

B. Y. Liu, J. Zhao, & D. Zheng. Study on the accuracy of

HAMD and SDS in distinguishing the severity of

depression. Chongqing. Med., 50(18), 3174–3177,

3181. (2021)

H. Y. Li, S. Y. Wen, X. M. Chen, J. M. Qiu, X. Y. Song, X.

L. Kuang, & L. Q. Gu. Analysis of the current status and

related influencing factors of stigma levels in patients

with depression. China. Mod. Med., 31(8), 118–121.

(2024)

L. Li, Z. Zhang, & F. Li. Correlation analysis of

stigmatization and help-seeking behavior in patients

with depression. Psychol. Monthly, 16, 119–122.

(2023)

L. Feng, Y. P. Huang, & G. B. Zheng. Current status and

influencing factors of stigma among patients with

depression. China. Med. Innov., 19(33), 90–93. (2022)

APMM 2025 - International Conference on Applied Psychology and Marketing Management

434