Does Individual Stigma Predict Mental Health Funding Attitudes? Toward an Understanding of Resource Allocation and Social Climate.

Abstract

Background: The uneven progression of mental health funding in the United States, and the way that the funding climate seems to be influenced by local and regional differences, raises the issue of what factors, including stigma, may impact mental health funding decisions. Criticisms that mental health stigma research is too individually-focused have led researchers to consider how broader, macro-level forms of stigma - such as structural stigma - intersect with micro-level forms of individual stigma. While some studies suggest that macro and micro stigma levels are distinct processes, other studies suggest a more synergistic relationship between structural and individual stigma.

Method: Participants in the current study (N = 951; national, convenience sample of the U.S.) completed a hypothetical mental health resource allocation task (a measure of structural discrimination). We then compared participants' allocation of resources to mental health to participants' endorsement of negative stereotypes, beliefs about recovery and treatment, negative attributions, intended social distancing, microaggressions, and help-seeking (measures of individual stigma).

Results: Negative stereotyping, help-seeking self-stigma, and intended social distancing behaviors were weakly but significantly negatively correlated with allocating funds to mental health programs. More specifically, attributions of blame and anger were positively correlated to funding for vocational rehabilitation; attributions of dangerousness and fear were negatively correlated to funding for supported housing and court supervision and outpatient commitment; and attributions of anger were negatively correlated to funding for inpatient commitment and hospitalization.

Conclusions: Individual stigma and sociodemographic factors appear to only partially explain structural stigma decisions. Future research should assess broader social and contextual factors, in addition to other beliefs and worldviews (e.g., allocation preference questionnaire, economic beliefs).