Glasgow Caledonian University

Programme : MSc Psychology & Mental Health

Module : Clinical Governance and social context MMM208486-12-A

Student : Petrovan Florentina Arianna

Violence, Stigma and Severe Mental Disorder

Introduction

As we witness a new era in the evolution of technology, access to information and means

of communication becomes a more and more significant and indispensable aspect of our

daily lives. The channels of media are one of our main sources of information so the

content of this stream can have a great impact on the way we understand and perceive the

world. Reports on extremely violent incidents that are attributed to mental illness and

more specifically, to schizophrenia, films that portray merciless serial killers as people

that have a psychotic illness, labeling a person with socially unacceptable behavior as

“mad”, “crazy”, “psycho”, all of these issues are now a common sight on all sources of

media. Linking violent behavior, fear, dangerousness and unpredictability with psychotic

illnesses is a regular practice that has a high impact on the general population’s response

and attitudes towards mental disorder.

The purpose of this research is to critically examine the evidence for the association

between aggressive behavior and severe mental disorder (schizophrenia) and the impact

of this association on society.

1

Stigma and Schizophrenia

According to Zelst (2009), the process of stigmatization represents a negative interaction

with the environment that most of the people with schizophrenia face on a regular basis.

Stigmatization of this syndrome embodies a set of negative attitudes, stereotypes, fear

and incorrect beliefs that greatly influence how this diagnosis is understood and

perceived by others. It is rooted in problems of knowledge (that are mainly the result of

ignorance), attitudes (prejudice) and behavior (causing discrimination) and may be highly

influenced by scientifically inaccurate descriptions of the biogenetic model of mental

illnesses by both professionals and the media.

Not only does stigma cause harmful effects at a personal level, by changing the

individual`s own perceived self-value as he internalizes the negative attitudes and

emotions reflected by others (Ritsher et al, 2004), but it actively contributes to the

evolution of the illness as a active negative environmental stressor. This influence can be

reflected in all stages of development of the disorder, from potential risk factors to onset,

and course of illness. Structural discrimination can be viewed as a component of social

adversity which can result in social defeat and lead to negative beliefs about the self and

others (Collip et al, 2008). By examining the perceived discrimination regarding gender,

age, ethnicity, appearance, skin color, disability and sexual orientation, Janssen et al

(2003) concluded that stigma predicted incident delusional ideation. What we could

conclude from this finding is that in populations who suffer from structural

discrimination, the proportion of individuals who actually develop psychotic illnesses is

higher than in non-stigmatized populations (Zelst, 2009). This hypothesis can be

supported by examining the recent findings that demonstrate a strong link between ethnic

minority groups (as they are more likely to experience the effects of structural

discrimination) and schizophrenia.

In terms of course and outcome of the illness, negative discrimination can have a direct

impact in access to care, social functioning, poor health services, delay in seeking

2

treatment and help caused by shame and diminished self-esteem under the burden of the

“schizophrenic” label.

Mental Illness and the Media

As Thornicroft (2006) argues, our perception of mental illness is mainly influenced by

three things: our previous experience and knowledge on what the diagnoses mean, our

own attitudes on what type of emotional reactions towards mentally ill people are

socially accepted and the types of behavior that are socially allowed. Our main source of

information that shapes and places certain boundaries within the social context is the

media (Philo, 1996), so the importance of the contents of this stream of information

(regarding attitudes, behavior and knowledge) is crucial.

As evidence suggests (Thornicroft, 2006), the misleading depiction of mental illness is a

very common practice in all forms of mass media. Glasgow Media Group in Scotland

analyzed the content of one month`s output regarding mental disorders in press and

magazines, national and local television. From a total of 570 items, the authors found that

85% were non-fictional and 66% of these stories were focused on reported harm to

others, followed by treatment (18%), harm to self (12%), comic images (2%) or criticism

of accepted definitions of mental illness (2%). The fictional items also presented a

tendency to focus on violence and harm to others (60%) (Philo et al, 1996).

According to Flynn (et al, 2001), it is the media, more than scientists or even the truth

itself, that will finally determine whether a stigma impact will exist in a particular

situation.

Newspapers

Results of an Australian study (Williams et al, 1995) that analyzed the content of the

stories about mental illness in national newspapers showed that more than half of these

items classified the mentally ill person as being dangerous, a threat to others (61%),

unpredictable, linked to criminality or danger to self. Authors concluded that “print media

3

portrayals are negative, exaggerated and do not reflect the reality of most people with

mental illness” (Coverdale et al, 2001; Coverdale et al, 2002).

Almost half of the newspaper coverage related to mental illness from newspapers in UK

included derogatory terms such as “nutter” or “looney” (Ward, 1997) and 64% of the

psychiatric stories were negative compared to 46% of general medical pieces (Lawrie,

2000).

Research of over 3000 newspaper stories about mental illness in USA 2002 found that

front page stories were mostly focused on violence and dangerousness (39%) and rarely

on treatment (14%) or recovery (4%) (Corrigan et al, 2005).

The way in which front page news of violent crimes is attributed to people with mental

illness, with no clear evidence of illness or specific diagnosis, has a major influence on

public attitudes.

In the reporting of the recent tragic events of the Sandy Hook Elementary School

shooting (2012), all channels of media automatically attributed several mental illness

diagnoses, with no evidence to support any of these assumptions, to the shooter, Adam

Lanza. Even though it was later found that Adam Lanza was suffering from Asperger

syndrome, which is a brain-related developmental problem and not a mental illness, this

report had a dramatic effect on the association between violent behavior and psychosis.

As an aftermath consequence, the New York State government passed a new law that has

provisions to ban weapons from mentally ill individuals. A German national survey

analyzed the impact of such stories on the public`s perception regarding mental illness

and concluded that over a two year period since initial reports of violent incidents, there

was a significant deterioration in social distance towards schizophrenics, which affected

all aspects of their life (employment, social relationships, housing) (Angermeyer, 1996).

Films and Television

The illustration of mental illness on screen follows a similar pattern to the printed media

standards and reinforces stereotypes based on misleading, exaggerated and inaccurate

4

information. People in mental distress are commonly depicted as vicious serial killers,

stalkers or placed in situations that would make them look awkward and ridiculous,

stripped of any traces of human dignity. In films, although the main focus is on violence,

other themes also enter the frame. Amongst the most popular stereotypes that can be

found in films regarding mental illness we can distinguish: homicidal maniac, rebellious

free spirit, narcissistic parasite, zoo specimen, seductress (Hyler et al, 1991).

There is now clear evidence to support the idea that films which promote the stereotype

of the violent schizophrenic have enormous impact on public`s attitudes (Baumann et al,

2003), reinforcing negative stereotypes and increasing social distance (Wahl et al, 1995).

People who watch more television, have a lower level of education and less contact with

people with mental illnesses tend to be more influenced by the media and show greater

social distance towards people with mental illness (Angermeyer et al, 1998).

It would be inconsiderate to suggest that only media is to blame for promoting the

negative portrayals associated with mental illness. Academic clinicians or even mental

health staff can play a significant part in reinforcing social stigma. Maden (2007)

concluded in his book “Treating Violence” that there is a highly significant link between

mental illness and violence, comparable to the magnitude of the link between smoking

and lung cancer. This is a very unfortunate association, as smoking is an established

cause of lung cancer which kills thousands of people every year. There is no evidence of

a causal association between severe mental disorder and violence, and the magnitude of

their rates cannot be compared. Yet such statements, coming from respected academics or

mental health professionals, have a major impact on shaping the notion of mental

disorder in the mind of the general population.

Aggressive behavior and severe mental illness

Despite enormous efforts, after more than half century of research, the association

between violence and sever mental illness still remains a controversial theme. Although

many researchers have tried over the past decades to demonstrate the existence of a

5

positive link between violence and mental illness, the role of other factors such as co-

morbidity with substance abuse (Wallace et al, 1998; Elbogen and Johnson, 2009), social

conditions of the mentally ill (Swanson et al, 2002) or the contribution of psychotic

symptoms leave the results open to dispute.

As Elbogen et al (2009) argue, the association between mental illness and aggressive

behavior has a major influence on mental health practice (Freidman, 2006) and policy

(Appelbaum, 2006), and it is the foundation for imposing compulsory treatment to protect

public safety at the expense of the patients` autonomy and liberty. Maybe it is the

existence of such legislation that reinforces the common fears of the general population

that mentally ill people are dangerous and should be treated with caution. Another aspect

that could contribute to this issue is the legal special arrangement for people with severe

mental illness in the case of homicide, as diminished responsibility for one`s actions.

Even though such situations do exist, they are rare compared to the number of killings

committed every year by people with no mental disorder or people that kill as an

impulsive response to a stressor (Peay, 2009). As Walsh (2002) suggests, it is

inappropriate that mental health policy and legislation should be focused on the risk of

violence rather than on delivering effective treatments in the community. Statistics have

demonstrated that over the past quarter of century, the number of homicides committed

by people with severe mental illness has declined whilst those committed by people with

no mental disorder has increased (Large et al, 2008). The reconviction rates of people

with mental illness that were involved in serious crime have fallen over the past 20 years

(Buchanan, 1998).

As the main focus of research is targeting the risk of violence posed by the people with

severe mental illnesses, little attention has been paid to the risk posed to this vulnerable

group of people (Wehring et al, 2011), evidence suggesting that people with

schizophrenia are in fact 14 times more likely to be victims of crime rather than criminals

(Brekke et al, 2001). Choe et al (2008) argued that out of all the research that assessed

violence in severe mental illness since 1990, 31 studies focused on the risk of violence

posed by people with severe mental illness and only 10 studies regarded this group of

people as victims of violence.

6

Comorbidity with substance use

Although the overall contribution of mental illness to serious violence falls below 10 per

cent (Walsh et al, 2002), recent evidence has demonstrated the enormous influence of

other risk factors on the final outcome that ties violence and schizophrenia.

Fazel et al (2009) conducted a systematic review of studies that reported an association

between violence and schizophrenia or other psychotic illnesses. The meta-analysis

included bibliographic databases and reference lists dating from 1970 to February 2009.

The authors identified 20 studies that reported data on 18,423 individuals with

schizophrenia or other psychoses. Results have shown that the risk estimates of violence

in individuals with substance abuse but no psychotic illness was similar to the risk posed

by those with psychotic illnesses and comorbidity with substance use. These risk

estimates were overall higher than in studies that targeted individuals with psychosis

irrespective of comorbidity. Men with schizophrenia or other psychosis were found to be

four to five times as likely as men from the general population to commit a violent act.

For women with schizophrenia, the risk was eight times greater than women in general

population and this result was thought to be explained by the lower prevalence of alcohol

in the general female population. The authors concluded that, although schizophrenia and

other psychotic illnesses are associated with violent behavior and offending, most of the

excess risk appears to be mediated by substance use comorbidity. As this risk is similar to

that of substance abuse without psychosis, they advise that public health strategies for

reducing violence should focus mainly on prevention of substance abuse, as substance

use disorders are three to four times more common than psychoses.

The findings of this research support Walsh`s argument (2002) which states that the

contribution of mental illness alone to violence is low and individuals with psychotic

illnesses alone have a modest increase in risk for violent behavior.

The American Epidemiologic Catchment Area study (Swanson et al, 1990) measured self

reported violence in a community sample of 10,059 individuals over the course of one

year. Prevalence for violence in people with a psychiatric disorder was 8%, highest risk

7

being presented by people with alcohol or drug misuse (24%) or dependence disorders

(34%).

Findings of a Danish study of birth cohort followed by age 44 illustrated that only 7% of

lifetime arrests in the male population were attributable to psychotic illness, of which 5 %

were marked by comorbidity with substance use (Brennan et al, 2000). As a result, only

2% of the total were attributable to mental illness alone and this might include other

coexisting risk variables which were not named. This evidence supports the idea that the

contribution of mental illness to violence is modest.

Another important study was the US National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and

Related Conditions (NESARC), a 2-wave face-to-face survey conducted by the US

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The study included a total of

34,653 subjects, from the civilian population residing in the United States. Wave 1 data

on severe mental illness and risk factors were used to predict wave 2 data on aggressive

behavior. The main goal of this study was to analyze what risk factors predict violent

behavior, whether severe mental illnesses predict future aggressive behavior and how risk

factors predict certain types of violence (Elbogen et al, 2009). Results of the NESARC

indicated that incidence of violence was higher for people with severe mental illness but

significant only for those with comorbidity with substance abuse and dependence.

Schizophrenia alone did not predict violence.

Socio - demographic factors and violence risk

Findings of the NESARC also suggested that mental illness alone did not predict future

violence but a combination of historical, clinical, dispositional and contextual factors

which occurred more often in the case of individuals with severe mental illness (Elbogen

et al, 2009). Consequently, as mental illness did not independently predict future violent

behavior, the authors advised that in order to understand the association between mental

disorder and violent incidents other variables, such as substance abuse, history of

violence, environmental stressors should be taken under consideration. Therefore, this

finding suggests that an individual`s risk of future violence may vary according

8

environmental stressors he experiences. Data analysis also revealed that, contrary to

public fears, individuals with severe mental illness were not at risk of committing violent

crimes (use of deadly weapons, extreme forms of physical aggression). The highlighted

risk factors that were found to be predictors of serious violence were mainly attributed to

social differences such as: lower social status, younger age, lower level of education,

male gender, history of violence and being divorced or separated in the past year.

Psychotic symptoms such as perception of hidden threats from others were also attributed

to serious violence risk factors.

Psychotic symptoms and violence risk

In examining the contribution of psychotic symptoms to the risk of future violence, early

studies found that persecutory delusions can be associated with an increased risk of

aggression (Wessely et al, 1993). The content of these delusions can include the belief

that the mind is dominated by external forces beyond the one`s control, that other people

represent a threat and conspire to harm the person, that the individual is being stalked or

that thoughts are being put into the person`s head (Scott et al, 2005). These assumptions

have been dismissed by more recent research (Appelbaum et al, 2000; Monahan et al,

2001) that found no evidence between predicting future violent behavior and delusions.

Hallucinations were also found not to be related to violent acts in individuals with

schizophrenia, but certain types of hallucinations might increase the risk of violence

(Zisook et al, 1995) if they generate negative emotions (Cheung et al, 1997). The

MacArthur study (2001) results suggested there was a significant link between command

hallucinations to commit violent acts and violence.

Crime victimization amongst people with severe mental illness

Deinstitutionalization and the beginning of community care marked a significant change

not only in the approach and understanding of mental health treatment but also in the

lives of the people with severe mental illness. The consequences of this change were

9

measured in terms of risk and damage to the general population, very few taking into

consideration the impact on the exposed targeted group. Similar to other vulnerable

populations (homeless people, people with developmental disabilities), individuals with

severe mental illnesses are a high-risk group (Teplin et al, 2005). A significant amount of

factors that correlate with victimization can be found in this group: low social status,

homelessness, conflicting social relationships and substance abuse (Hiday et al, 1999;

Silver, 2002).

An epidemiologic study conducted by Teplin et al (2005) analyzed the prevalence and

incidence of crime victimization among people with severe mental illness by age, gender

and ethnicity and compared rates with the general population data. Findings demonstrated

that more than a quarter of persons with severe mental illness had been victims of a

violent crime over the course of one year, a rate 11.8 times higher than the general

population rates. Depending on the type of violent crime, prevalence was 6 to 23 times

higher among people with severe mental illness than among the general population

(Teplin et al, 2005). Significantly more women than men were victims of violent acts

and sexual assault and more men were victims of robbery. This demonstrates the

disproportion between public fears of dangerousness and stereotyped negative attitudes

towards individuals with severe mental disorder and the reality of the mental illness as

the result of the impact of these generally spread beliefs .

Walsh et al (2003) conducted a study on the prevalence of violent victimization in severe

mental illness. The study involved 708 participants that met the criteria for inclusion with

a diagnosis of psychosis, recent hospital admissions and exclusion of coexisting

substance use disorder or brain damage. Findings suggested that 40% of the subjects were

dissatisfied with their personal safety, victims of violence reporting higher rates in

perceived threat to personal safety (58%). In terms of socio-demographic factors, victims

were significantly more likely to be male, under 40 years, have low socio-economic

status (cases of homelessness included) and were less likely to engage in daily contact

with their peers and family. Results on clinical characteristics of the victims evidenced

that this group displayed significantly more clinical symptoms than the non-victim

10

participants. Authors conclude that it is becoming more and more evident that the focus

on community risk posed by individuals with mental disorders should be turned to risk

posed by the members of society to these vulnerable people.

Conclusion

As it has been illustrated above, review of scientific literature does not establish any

causal relationship between severe mental illness and violent conduct. Emphasizing more

on what is newsworthy rather than worthy and on entertainment rather than education

(Thornicroft, 2006), the common portrayals of this association promoted by the media

have no scientific background and are grossly exaggerated. Although the current

evidence does not refute this association completely, it is argued that the contribution of

mental illness alone to violence in the community is very modest and that other factors

should be taken into consideration when assessing the risk of future violent behavior.

Socio-demographic factors such as male gender, young age, low socio-economic status or

low level of education, as well as history of violent offending are considered to be far

better predictors of future aggressive conduct. The effect of media`s misleading

depictions can have a crushing impact on mental health service users, as it promotes

negative attitudes and beliefs which ultimately result in social stigma and structural

discrimination. As demonstrated by studies that analyzed the prevalence and incidence

of crime victimization among people with severe mental illness, the general population is

more likely to be the source rather than the target of aggressive behavior for individuals

with mental disorders.

11

References

1. Angermeyer, M.C., Matschinger, H. (1996), The effect of violent attacks by

schizophrenic persons on the attitude of the public towards the mentally ill. Soc

Sci Med. 43(12): 1721 - 1728.

2. Appelbaum, P.S., Robbins P.C., Monahan, J. (2000) Violence and delusions: Data

from the MacArthur violence risk assessment study. American Journal of

Psychiatry. 157:556-572

3. Buchanan, A. (1998) Criminal conviction after discharge from special (high

security) hospital. Incidence in the first 10 years. B J of Psychiatry. 172: 472 –

476.

4. Brennan, P.A., Mednick, S.A., Hodgins, S. (2000) Major mental disorders and

criminal violence in a Danish birth cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry. 57:

494 – 500.

5. Brekke J.S., Prindle C, Bae S.W., Long J.D. (2001) Risks for individuals with

schizophrenia who are living in the community. Psychiatr Serv. 52: 1358 – 1366.

6. Cheung, P., Scweitzer, I., Crowley, K., Tuckwell, V. (1997) Violence in

schizophrenia: Role of hallucinations and delusions. Schizophrenia Research.

26:181-190

7. Choe J.Y., Teplin L.A., Abram K.M. (2008) Perpetration of violence, violent

victimization, and severe mental illness: balancing public health concerns.

Psychiatr Serv. 59: 153 – 164.

8. Collip, D., Myin – Germeys, I., Van Os, J. (2008) Does the concept of

“sensitization” provide a plausible mechanism for the putative link between the

environment and schizophrenia? Schizophrenia Bulletin. 34:220-225.

9. Corrigan, P.W., Watson, A.C., Garcia, G., Slopen, N., Rasinski, K., Hall, L.

(2005) Newspaper stories as measures of structural stigma. Psychiatr Serv. 56(5):

551-556.

12

10. Coverdale, J., Nairn, R., Claasen, D. (2002) Depictions of mental illness in print

media: a prospective national sample. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 36(5):697-700.

11. Coverdale, J., Nairn, R. (2005) People never see us living well: an appraisal of the

personal stories about mental illness in a prospective print media sample. Aust N Z

J Psychiatry. 31(9): 281-287.

12. Elbogen, E.B., Johnson, S.C. (2009) The intricate link between violence and

mental disorder : Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and

Alcohol related conditions. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 66(2) - 152-161.

13. Fazel, S., Gulati, G., Linsell, L., Geddes, J., Grann, M. (2009) Schizophrenia and

Violence: Systematic Review and Meta – Analysis. PloS Med. 6(8): e1000120.

doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000120

14. Flynn, J., Slovic, P., Kunreuther, H. (2001) Risk, Media and Stigma :

Understanding Public Challenges to Modern Science and Technology. Routledge

15. Hiday, V.A., Swanson, J.W., Swarts, M.S., et al. (1999) Criminal victimization of

persons with severe mental illness. Psychiatric Services. 50:62-68.

16. Hyler, S.E., Gabbard, G.O., Schneider, I. (1991) Homicidal maniacs and

narcissistic parasites: stigmatization of the mentally ill persons in movies. Compr

Psychiatry. 42(10): 1044-1048.

17. Janssen, I., Hanssen, M., Bak, M., et al. (2003) Discrimination and delusional

ideation. B J of Psychiatry. 182: 71 – 76.

18. Large, M., Smith, G., Swinson, N., Shaw, J., Nielssen, O. (2008) Homicide due

to mental disorder in England and Wales over 50 years. B J psychiatry. 193: 130 -

133

19. Lawrie, S.M. (2000) Newspaper coverage of psychiatric and physical illness.

Psychiatric Bulletin.. 24:104-106.

20. Peay, J. (2009) Mental Illness, dangerousness and protecting society. Psychiatry.

8(12):490-492

21. Maden, A. (2007) Treating violence : a guide to risk management in mental

health. Oxford: Oxford University Press

13

22. Monahan, J., Steadman, H.J., Silver, E., Appelbaum, P(Eds.). (2001) Rethinking

risk assessment: The MacArthur study of mental disorder and violence. New

York: Oxford Press.

23. Ritsher, J.B., Phelan, J.C. (2004) Internalized stigma predicts erosion of morale

among psychiatric outpatients. Psychaiatry Res. 129: 257 – 265

24. Silver, E. (2002) Mental disorder and violent victimization: the mediating role of

involvement in conflicted social relationships. Criminology. 40: 191-211

25. Scott, C.L., Resnick, P.J. (2006) Violence risk assessment in persons with mental

illness. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 11(6): 598 - 611

26. Swanson, J.W., Holzer, Ch.E., Ganju, V.K., Jono, R.T. (1990) Violence and

psychiatric disorder in the community: evidence from the epidemiologic

catchment area surveys. Hosp and Comm Psychiatry. 41: 761 – 770.

27. Teplin, L., McClelland, G., Abram, K., Weiner, D. (2005) Crime victimization in

adults with severe mental illness: comparison with the National Crime

Victimization Survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 62:911-921.

28. Thornicroft, G. (2006) Shunned: Discrimination against People with Mental

Illness. New York: Oxford University Press

29. Wallace C., Mullen P., Burgess, P., Palmer, S., Ruscheana, D., Browne, C. (1998)

Serious criminal offending and mental disorder. Case linkage study. B J of

Psychiatry.174: 477 – 484.

30. Walsh, E., Buchanan A., Fahy, T. (2002) Violence and schizophrenia : examining

the evidence.B J of Psychiatry. 180 : 490 – 495

31. Walsh, E., Fahy T. (2002) Violence in Society. British Medical Journal. 325:507

32. Walsh, E., Moran, P., Scott, C., McKenzie, K., Burns, T., et al. (2003) Prevalence

of violent victimization in severe mental illness. B J of Psychiatry. 183:233-238.

33. Ward, G. (1997) Mental Health and the National Press. London: Health

Education Authority.

34. Wessely, S., Buchanan, A., Reed, A., Cutting, J., Everitt, B., Garety, . et al.

(1993) Acting on delusions. I: Prevalence. B J of Psychiatry. 163:69-76

35. Wehring J. H., Carpenter, T. (2011) Violence and Schizophrenia. Schizophrenia

Bulletin. 37 : 877 – 878

14

36. Williams, M., Taylor, J. (1995) Mental illness: Media perpetuation of stigma.

Contemporary Nurse. 4:41- 46.

37. Zelst, C. (2009) Stigmatization as an Environmental Risk in Schizophrenia: A

User Perspective. Schizophrenia Bulletin. 35: 293 – 296.

15