Category: Labeling Theory

The labeling theory defines how people view themselves based on how others view them. This theory was coined by Howard Becker in the 1960s. Becker’s theory of labeling stated that an outsider view of person can lead to deviant behavior. If a group of individuals begin to label a person as a deviant, that individual will begin to view themself as a deviant. This can lead to mental illness, propensity to engage in criminal activity. Once an individual is labeled as a deviant, it becomes very challenging to be remove that categorization. Ex-convicts face uphill battles when attempting to locate employment. Employment applications ask if you have been convicted of crime. Since this information can be acquired quite easily, the potential candidate must be candid. I can only imagine the percentage of employers that disregard the application based on that Ex-convict disclosing past incarcerations.

I recall a major history making story than transpired in 1989, this story clearly depicts how labeling can change a person’s destiny. On April 1989, 28-year-old white women was found unconscious in central park. It was determined that the women as beat unconscious and raped. During that investigation, detectives ascertained that a group of 30-40 teenagers were terrorizing persons in the park. Detectives arrested 5 young teenagers. During the interrogations, the teenagers adamantly denied any involvement. The detectives labeled these young boys are perpetrators, after hours long interrogations, some the of the boys began to believe that they were “bad” and finally confessed to the crime. They were sentenced to prison ranging from 5 to 15 years. These young boys were stigmatized as rapists needless to say as a result of this label, prison was not easy. Even though, it was later learned that in fact they were innocent, they were still “labeled” them as criminals.

The labeling theory can affect a person’s self-concept, for example if a teenager lives in an area associated with gangs, the teenager even though not associated with any gangs, may get labeled as a gang member. After time that teenager’s self-concept may adjust, and he will begin to think he is part of the gang. Aside from the teenager being stigmatized, this may affect the teenager’s mental health, the teenagers could begin question self-worth as a result of this labeling. This can manifest into employment issues / intimacy issues. In an article “Labeling Theory and Mental Illness” written by Fred E. Markowitz says that The stigma associated with mental illness results in discrimination, loss of socioeconomic status, lowered sense of self-worth, and increased symptoms. Labeling theory is an explanatory framework that accounts for these effects. In light of developments in the understanding of the causes and treatment of mental illness.

As a former police officer, I am guilty of labeling, while working in one of the busiest precincts in New York, I began to view groups of males congregating as all gang members. This judgement on my part could have formulated based on the area, other officers, but still, it was not fair. If I approached this group every day and questioned their actions or accused them in participating in illegal activities, after constant labeling they may have resorted to deviant behavior. Certain aspects of the labeling theory can be debated, if a person is smoking marijuana, should that individual be labeled as a criminal or deviant. If that individual is diagnosed with cancer and utilizing marijuana as a means to ease the pain, should we still label that individual?

This assignment is a review of the five articles given. In this assignment, topic on “Labeling Theory” will discussed first. The topic on “The Normal and Pathological”, “The Social Construction of Crime”, “The Reach of the Law: Sin, Crime and Poor Taste and Culture”, “Crime and Cultural Criminology” will also be discussed respectively.

For the Labeling Theory discussed by Howard S. Becker, it stated that deviance is the violation of some agreed-upon rule. The Labeling Theory focuses on society reaction to the deviant behavior rather than the behavior itself. In other words, in any particular act, no behavior itself is deviant, unless a group, usually a group with power over others, defines the behavior as deviant. The extent to which an act is seen as deviant depends on who committed it and who thinks he has been harmed by it. Deviance exist only when it is created by society. Thus, some group or culture consider a behavior negatively deviant but some others not. This is clear that deviant is associated with self-fulfilling prophecy and stereotyping. For example, when people is responsible for the death of another person, when they are labeled as murderer or killer, the reaction to death sometimes depends on the circumstances the person responsible is located, depending on the reason whether murder or self-defense or an accident. The degree of response to a particular behavior as deviant varies over time. People labeled a behavior as deviant before, may not be deviant as now. Some rules are enforced only when certain consequences arise. Being labeled as deviant has important consequences on a person’s future social participation and self-image due to it is difficult to remove the label. Some people who labeled as deviant develop a stigma. Someone who has been stigmatize usually has lower self-esteem and may even behave more deviant to fulfill the expectations of the label. Labeling theory has analyzing the impact of assuming a deviant identity let us make use of Hughes’ distinction between master and auxiliary traits. Even the interaction process of label is emphasized, but the process or the origins that bring to deviant behavior is not discussed. Socialization, attitudes difference, opportunities, social structures and economic structures may include in the process of impact the behavior. The labeling theory is also not clearly explain that whether labeling can increase deviant behavior. If the labeling is so simple and straightforward, the effect should be more uniform, Not only does it always have negative impact or consequences, but the consequences should only occur as a result of labeling.

Each society has different criminal acts, reflecting the different values of each society. The normal and pathological developed by Emile Durkheim has discuss the inevitability of deviance in all societies. Emile Durkheim argued that deviance is normal but not pathological. This is because there is no society that is does not face the problem of crime, no society can function without crime. Thus, crime is considered to be normal part of society because crime is inevitable and will always exist. To make crime a form of social morbidity is to admit that the incidence is not accidental, on the contrary, in some cases, it arises from the basic composition of living organisms. Crime will not disappear, but it will only change its form. For example, in order for the murderers to disappear, the terror of bloodshed must be increased among the social strata that recruit murderers, but, first of all, it must become greater in society as a whole. What is a crime or deviance now, may not have been a crime in the past. The Pathological will only happen when the rate of crime becomes unusually high.

According to Emile Durkheim, deviance is serving a positive function to benefit the society and is also an indicator of a healthy society. For example, the deviance or crime helps to reaffirms the society’s shared rules, reinforces social solidarity. Publicised legal proceedings help to remind society of the boundaries between the right and wrong. In order for the rule to be worth anything, there have to be people on both sides of it, the rule keepers and the rule breakers. A society needs a manageable amount of deviance to achieve the maximum benefit. Breaking the law helps to prepare the way for change and acts as a beacon of light that helps us to shape new collective sentiments. Crime at a tolerable level is not pathological at all. Numbers of people declared deviant by current society has change its moral standard in order to maintain the level of deviance within the best range. I personally agree with Emile Durkheim’s idea on the topic of deviance and crime, the crime is functional to the society, it give the society a change of rules thus reinforce the solidarity and it also give the job opportunity to the society such as police, lawyer, judges and others. It can be imagine that people depend on crime for their livelihood will lost their job if there is no crime, but this will never happen. Despite this, Emile Durkheim had never explain just how much deviant is required for a society to function and the differences between the types of crime which some behavior is more harmful than others.

In the concept of social construction discussed by the Stuart Henry, it stated that if humans define a situations as real, then they are real in their consequence. From the point of view of social constructivism, crime refers to a classification of behavior defined by individuals who have the power and authority, is rooted in interaction, which make laws that characterize certain behaviors as offensive and punish their perpetrators. Thus, deviance and crime is thus a manifestations of unequal social power. Since a behavior as deviant or crime is through the process of social construction, the same behavior may be defined as crime in a society but another may not. It also varies over time. For example, homosexuality was a crime in crime before 2019, but it is not now.

A British sociologist Stanley Cohen had focused the concept of moral panic on the topic of crime. Moral panic is usually work of the moral entrepreneurs and mass media. Media is the main role in arise the concern, anxiety, fear and panic of the society. The news media played its role by publishing news about threats and continuing to report, setting the agenda for how to discuss threats and attaching visual symbol images to them. For example, issues of drug in 1980’s were very important from a media standpoint. Television shows during that heavily focused on the themes of drug, especially the concern about the use of crack cocaine in the lower classes of black people in cities, when talking about the topics of crime. The attention of the public to the news report on this topic was generated. According to Stanley Cohen, he said that moral panic is a condition, event, the appearance of an individual or group which defined as a threat to social values and interests. There are few examples of moral panic, such as the belief of the widespread abduction of children by predatory Hebrews or paedophiles, the belief of the evil cults’ ritual abuse of women and children. I agree with the idea of Stanley Cohen which state that media is the main role in generating the moral panic. As the media is becoming important in our daily life, people nowadays are surround with the media. This media can simply increasing society or public awareness of the collection of information and also people’s attitudes toward certain issues. However, the idea of this social constructionism neglected the effect or the dedication of nature science or phenomenon. It specifically denies the impact of biology on behavior and culture, and suggest that biology is not essential for understanding human behavior.

“The Reach of the Law: Sin, Crime and Poor Taste” by Alexander Smith and Harriet Pollack study the various characteristics of the deviation field which examines the unacceptable behavior in this society. Deviance conduct can be divided into three categories: crime, sin and poor taste. Crime, as society calls it, refers to serious violation of public order that must be enforced or dealt with punitively and coercively by the police, the courts and correctional policies. The act like rape, murder, arson, robbery, larceny, burglary and assault are labeled as crime. However, other crimes may have different views on the severity of the various segments of society. They may become crimes because the majority members of society believe they are particularly aggressive or threatening. Assaultive conduct is only a categories of crime. The so-called “white-collar crime”, although non-violent, is basically an attack on legal property arrangements of society. For example, acts like tax fraud, stock manipulations, commercial bribery, misrepresentation in advertising and salesmanship. Many of the behaviors are considered sin by various religious groups, so their followers try to restrain this behavior and may believe that all others should also exercise restraint. Sin refers to behavior that were originally prohibited by mainstream religion and may have incorporated into secular law at different times. For example, drug use, obscenity, prostitution, gambling, drunkness and others. For example, alcohol consumption is legal almost all around the world, but it may cause a lot of accidents. Therefore, drinking can be handled either through criminal sanctions or through non-punitively method, although our current non-punitively methods reduce adverse side effects in the form of law enforcement difficulties and police corruption. Alcoholism is still a huge problem, and public attitudes about this have not yet been reflected. Deviant behavior that are considered as poor taste involve actions that may be disapproved, but is not severe to the level that punished by law. The behavior fall in this category such as strange dress patterns, unpopular political symbols or even public sexual practices. Smith and Pollack use excellent examples to point out that although a small classification of acts are inherently deviant, there are many other acts that are only defined as such relative to their context. In my opinion, tension relieve is the main cause of many deviant conduct. Therefore, in dealing with the deviance, the society must first look at what the pervert tried to tell us through his behavior, the society must first look at what the pervert tried to tell us through his behavior. If he can provide him with other ways of relieving stress, he will be persuaded to obey. If he is not complaint, his conduct is violent, and we must bind him, if he is non-complaint and non-violent, we should let him alone.

Lastly, in the essay of “Culture, Crime and Cultural Criminology” which discussed by Jeff Ferrell explores the common denominator between culture and criminal behavior in contemporary social life. Cultural criminology is a theory approach to study crime. Its purpose is to understand crime under context of culture dynamics and the controversial meaning. It consider crime and control institutions as cultural artifacts. It also aims to understand the daily realities of a world of extreme inequality and injustice and to emphasize the way in which power is exercised and resisted in the formulation of rules, in violation of the interaction between rules and representatives. Therefore, it is believed that crime and crime control are determined by the meaning given by culture. For example, although many people use marijuana, it is still a sign of opposition and cultural differences because of the failure of recognize the existence of a different cannabis culture. Specifically, cultural criminology studies the stylized frameworks and empirical dynamics of illicit subcultures, the symbolic conviction of popular culture forms, and the mediation of crime and crime control issues. In addition, the emerging areas of investigation in cultural criminology include the development of situational media and crime audience; the media and police culture; the relationships between crime, crime control and cultural space; and the collective emotions that shape the meaning of crime. There is a research stated that symbolism and style not only shape subculture of crime, but also interweave with the broader social and legal relations in which these subcultures live. A cultural criminology must consider not only the dynamics of criminal subcultures, but also must consider the dynamics of mass media. It is worth noting that the conviction of popular culture is not only a politicized attack on a particular media form such as pop music but also a form of media. Over the past 50 years, popular music has provided us with many examples of cultural criminalization, such as punk in the 1970s. In every cases, as cultural criminologists, we study not only images, but images of images, an infinite hall of mediated mirrors. In addition to overcatering to certain types of crime, cultural criminology is more often carried out by men. It agrees with a specific cultural ideal, that is, the cultural ideal of male activities, which is found in marginal work or subcultural activities in which men are the main actors. Cultural criminology has also neglected the harsh economic analysis of subjective or narrow cultural concerns.

In conclusion, deviant and crime are labeled by the society, which is the social constructed. The behavior as deviant is different in various society, culture and also various over time. These deviances and crimes may be a positive function to society as Emile Durkheim said. As mentioned above, deviant can be divided into three categories, which is crime, sin and poor taste. The severity of these three categories is decreasing respectively. The criminal behavior has also a significant relationship with the culture. The media plays a important role in arise these criminal behavior as well.

Reference

1. Crossman, A. (2018). An Overview of Labeling Theory. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/labeling-theory-3026627

In the film American me directed by Edward James Olmos, the film follows a chicano youth by the name of Montoya Santana whom at the age of sixteen first enters the California penal system. He is introduced to the criminal justice system which in turn causes him to be caught in the path of lifelong crime until his premature death. The film being based on the Mexican mafia, portrays how Santa our main character is introduced to a racially segregated subculture in Folsom prison which in turn leads to the creation of gangs. Santana quickly rises as the ringleader of the Mexican mafia due in part to the criminal justice system’s introduction, and in turn he is caught in a permanent criminal identity that he cannot break away from. Incapable of successfully integrating himself back into society Santana finds himself back in Folsom prison and eventually dead. According to the Labeling theory it is the intervention and efforts of the state to label lawbreakers criminals that is a source of creating the very behaviors they are meant to prevent (Criminology goes to the Movies 2011), the character of Montoya Santana in American me is a testament to this.

Labeling theory makes the argument that it is social responses to deviance, which include defining individuals as criminals or labeling them that worsens criminality and behavior (Criminology goes to the Movies 2011.) Santana is a prime example of a label being able to affect one’s behavior. He is introduced to juvenile hall for a minor deviant act however after killing another inmate in response to getting raped he is then labeled a “killer”. After that night and earning the new label of a killer, he finds a newborn swagger and speaks of earning respect and believing as though he had found the answer, constructing his self-image in response to interactions with others he becomes a criminal and later the leader of the strongest mafia in prison. Through killing a boy at a young age, according to Labeling theory Santana goes through a process of internalizing the identity of criminal and begins to create a life around criminal activity. This labeling process creates a self-fulfilling prophecy for Santana which occurs when people cause their perceptions of themselves to become true. This belief of himself being a criminal is the cause for eventually turning him to creating a life around the mafia. However this process is not done without creating the consequences that later appear once he is released from prison.

Once released from prison he attempts at a normal life outside of prison, although he is still involved with the mafia he strives for a life without useless crime and violence once he meets a woman. However he soon finds out that reintegration into society is difficult, according to labeling theory, stigma follows offenders from prison as they reenter society and attempt to find employment, access education and rebuild their relationships (Criminology goes to the Movies). Santana trying to recreate relationships is a prime example, he has an argument with his now wife who claims she sees him as two different people. One as a child who had his childhood stolen from the justice system and another who kills and sells drugs for money. He like many criminals who are stigmatized for being criminals soon find out that access to a normal life is more difficult than life in prison which may cause them to continue to commit crimes and reenter the system. Santa then asks rhetorical questions like “What do you want from me? To get a job? To become a citizen?” he knows these solutions could never be possible due to the labels that have been placed on him by the justice system, the only future he can have is pressure to pursue crime as a means of survival. The label of gangster is permanently fixed on Santana and the cause for the weakening relationship between he and his wife. Through the use of Labeling theory we can also understand that through isolation from society he has no education through the use of labels he also has no future in having a nine to five job, he becomes what he is described as: a gangster.

In Conclusion, the film does a great job of depicting how men and women are faced with more dilemmas and denied access to opportunities when tagged with Labels. Santana is an example of what hardships an American can face in society once they go through the justice system, anywhere from failure at finding employment, denied access to education and failures in relationships. The Labeling theory aims at placing the blame on the Labels, which are set to convicts due to society labeling certain acts deviant. Through the use of film we can understand just how much power they may have over one’s identity and life.

References

1. Madon, Stephanie, et al. “The Role of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy in Young Adolescents’ Responsiveness to a Substance Use Prevention Program.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol. 43, no. 9, 2013, pp. 1784–1798., doi:10.1111/jasp.12126.
2. Olmos, Edward James. American Me.
3. Rafter, Nicole Hahn., and Michelle Brown. Criminology Goes to the Movies: Crime Theory and Popular Culture. New York Univ. Press, 2011.

In an attempt to understudy the causative effects of deviant behaviors, the context of labeling came about. (Goode, E. 1975). Before this period, juvenile delinquent behavior was considered a product of the society, environment or an attribute of the youths, linking this with socioeconomic deprivation with a need to punish or treat these juveniles. This led to a shift in the focus of labeling theorists to the juvenile justice system, seeking a better understanding of how social control agencies react and respond to the juvenile behaviors which subsequently creates deviance. (Branch et al, 2012).

This did not, however, mean that labeling theory did not come with its controversies. It was submerged in controversies after its fame in the 1960s and these controversies resulted in various theories on labeling. These controversies had its various objectives asking questions like the method of its application, interpretation of results and the amount of empirical support found. (Reza Barmaki 2019). In the face of all controversies and criticism, one thing was sure about the theory: its inception and origin. This origin has been traced back adequately to three sources; the first source being Frank Tannenbaum’s work Crime and the Community, while the second source is found in Edwin M. Lemert’s Social Pathology: Systematic Approaches to the study of Sociopathic Behavior. The third source is found in Howard Becker’s’ Outsiders. (Barmaki R 2019).

In his work, Tannenbaum used the term “dramatization of evil” to outline the effect of labeling on the individual. He believed that in labeling an individual, the person becomes the thing he is portrayed to be and no matter what the individual tries to do to be reformed, the evil gowns under their hands. (Ward, R. 1971). Branch, et al (2012) noted that Edwin Lemert “emphasized the effect of social control system on the occurrence and form of deviant behavior and crime”, while Howard Becker proposed that deviance was initiated by people with prejudice against the poor and powerless individuals in the society.

In all these different views, however, there is a suggestion that the formal reaction to crime will be a channel for the development of criminal careers and in turn, increase antisocial behaviors. To this effect, labeling theory prognosticates that formal punishment stigmatizes an offender in various ways which has the unexpected outcome of boosting future delinquent behaviors. (Restivo, E., & Lanier, M 2015)

Labeling leads to unintended outcomes that begin to unfold after a delinquent label is applied. One of these outcomes is that it changes a youths’ opportunity structures in a manner that limits their ability to gain successful socioeconomic breakthrough. Another outcome is that it facilitates others to treat the labeled youth in ways that make it possible to adapt to deviant self-meanings through subsequent deviance leading to an increase in reoffending. This has stigmatization effects which go a long way in defining the individual. (Kroska, A., J., & Carr, N. 2017). In buttressing the above-stated point, McGrath, A. (2014) notes that labeling theory advocates that contact with the criminal justice system leads to feelings of stigmatization, which inherently has a counterproductive effect of increasing reoffending.

Stigmatization is characterized by acts intended to mark someone out in ways that are so visible and identifiable as having very disdainful characters. These acts are heightened by negative reactions that degrade the individual and have various effects associated with it. The effects could range from status loss to discrimination by family, friends and the wider society, and exclusion from activities and opportunities which are available to others. (Hadjimatheou, K. 2016)

In organizing this review, however, the focus would be; negative reactions from families and the public, deviant subculture and the effects of stigmatization concerning the theory of labeling.

A significant assumption of labeling theory is in the belief that negative reactions of members of the society and family directed at the labeled individual can result in negative self-concepts, which subsequently leads to further involvement in delinquency. (Branch et al, 2012). Abrah, P. (2019) tested this assumption by addressing how labeling explains persistence or desistance from crime on 23 juveniles transitioning through adolescence by looking at the reactions from families, friends and society. For 13 of the juvenile offenders, they were persistent offenders and it consisted of 12 males and a female.

The other 10 respondents were in the desistance process. These respondents were interviewed on how labeling explains their persistence or desistance from crime. The interview focused on how their interactions with family, friends, and society affected their social relationships and bonds. Results showed that of the 13 persistent offenders who participated, 9 of these offenders experienced both negative and positive reactions from society and family members because of the deviant label attached to them while the remaining 4 offenders indicated rejection from members of the society including family and friends. On the other hand, 5 offenders in the desistance process had both negative and positive reactions and the other 5 offenders experienced negative reactions from society.

The findings from the study above noted that because of labeling, the juveniles experienced negative reactions from families and friends which further pushed into deviant groups and associations. The juveniles experienced rejection, stigma, and intimidation which all comes with labeling and since they had no better options in dealing with the stigma and labeling, they had to seek solace in deviant groups and associations which welcomed them without judgement and compromise. The juveniles also experienced shame and disappointment to family and friends and this creates a negative strain in the relationships with family members and friends. (Abrah, P. 2019). The response and reaction of people around the labeled individual may cause the individual to internalize these responses and begin to think of themselves in the same manner as these responses. (Kenney, J. 2002)

A study noted that official labeling for an offense may create or impact the reputation of a juvenile as a criminal in their society. To this effect, the juveniles arrange their lives to avoid interactions with members of the society because of the negative attitude and reactions held towards them. One of the respondents in the study noted:

. . . My family received me nicely; I spent only a few months with my family and got arrested again . . . There was a time my neighbors pointed their fingers at me that I was a criminal . . . sometimes I responded other times I didn’t . . . I wasn’t bothered by what they said . . . after all, is it a shame to go to prison? (Respondent 1, Agyeman, a 19-year- old persistent offender). Stereotyping of these labeled individuals by members of the society can open a channel for these delinquents to persist in offending through their adulthood to the point that it weakens societal bonds. (Abrah, P. 2019).

Labeling theory also notes that an official deviance label inherently promotes the development of deviant self-meanings. (Kroska, Amy. 2017). Liberman & Akiva M (2014) also notes that an important mechanism in labeling theory is that a delinquent label refocuses a youth’s conception of self towards a deviant self-concept, emphasizing that the labeled individual is prone to further deviance. To this effect, Branch et al, (2012) studied the extent to which formal interaction with social control agents spurs juveniles towards the development of delinquent self-concept.

The study focused on a sample of 27 black adolescents in Barbados comprising 13 females and 14 males aged between 14 and 19 and spanned 4 years between 2006 and 2010. It employed the use of data gotten from the Royal Barbados Police force statistical office and also utilized individual interviews of these 27 individuals. The interviews were conducted to determine the extent to which formal negative labeling of juveniles caused them to remodel their self-concept to the point where they see themselves as deviants, measuring deviance by posing questions such as “have you ever been required to attend an adjudicatory hearing”, “have you ever been taken into custody by the police”, “have you ever been on court-ordered probation”.

The findings gathered showed that some of the youths felt stigmatized and cut off, thereby creating unfavorable views of themselves and others and opening a pathway to delinquency. They also expressed that they felt disconnected from their loved ones and felt separated from their communities. The implication of this is a creation of a self-concept which they adapt to and associate with people who impact them negatively and develop a criminal career leading to subsequent delinquency (Branch, et al. 2012).

Studies have shown that contact with social control agents stigmatizes the individual. In response to stigmatization or negative labeling, there is the resort to delinquency. Juveniles who have gone through the juvenile justice system report increased subsequent delinquency. (Adams, Mike S. 2003). To this effect, Mcgrath, A. (2019) tested this by looking at the relationship between labeling, gender and stigmatization effects on 394 young offenders comprising of males and females who were sentenced in the New South Wales Children’s Court and had a mean age of 16.8 years. The study was carried out through an interview which lasted about 15-20 minutes and spanned the periods between December 2004 and June 2007.

The study included stigmatization as a variable and it was measured by asking questions like: “Even though the court case is over, do you feel that others will not let you forget what you have done”?, “During the court case, did any of the people who are important to you reject you because of the offense”?, “Did people during the court case make negative judgements about what kind of person you are”?

The findings gathered from the study showed that feeling stigmatized was a causative effect of labeling which was also a significant predictor for reoffending. The risk to re-offend increased with the stigmatization variable. It also showed that the effects of stigmatization were great with young women compared to their male counterparts and therefore, serious consideration should be given to the development of more substantial therapeutic options for these young women coming into the criminal justice system to avoid the dangers of stigmatization for these young women. The language used to define a person in a long way also affects the public perception and insight of the person causing a likelihood of reoffending in the future. (Mcgrath, A. 2019)

Another study noted that the relationship and interaction between “normal” people and stigmatized individuals are characterized by unease, embarrassment, shame, confusion and a huge effort to impress the normal people. This leads to avoidance by the stigmatized individual so as not to be embarrassed and to avoid uncomfortable reactions. (Abrah, P. 2019).

The purpose of this review was to find information on labeling theory on juveniles through prior research on the issue. The findings gathered from these prior researches have been uniform throughout and show that official interventions through police arrests and court records affect the individual negatively which inherently leads to the labeled individual being stigmatized by family, friends and the society at large. A deviant label gives the delinquent a deviant subculture which the delinquent uses as a mode of adaptation to the stigmatization they go through. This adaptation leads to reoffending because they go back to their old ways to be accepted by people that influence them negatively since their families and the society see them in a different light.

The various studies showed that the negative labels applied by social control agents can backfire, leading to an increase in subsequent deviance. More so, it was noted that these labeled individuals tend to be isolated from both communities and friends, leading to a negative association with others of the same ilk. This also leads to the development of criminal careers and vices which is harmful to the individual and the society.

There is also an increased likelihood of being stigmatized. It was also noted in the findings presented that these individuals deal with the effects of stigmatization which arises because of these deviant labels attached. The effect of being stigmatized by the labels also if felt in being deprived of opportunities that are easily available to other people. There is the pressure which leads to going back to criminal ways.

It is pertinent to continue the study on labeling to advocate for better ways in which to help individuals especially juveniles better handle the effects that come with being officially labeled and somewhat ostracized by the community. This would be a better way instead of just looking at the causative effects of labeling without proffering solutions to these problems.

There are some major differences in criminal offending, particularly in the ethnic-racial differences among offenders. Studies over the years have shown a correlation between race and crime (Gabbidon, 2015:4) But, why is that? There are three theory’s that adequately explain and justify the ethnic-racial differences in criminal offending. The first theory that adequately explains these differences in the social disorganization theory. This theory was created in the Chicago School during the 1930’s (Gabbidon,2015:50). The second theory that explains the differences in offending, is Labeling Theory, there are several theorists within Labeling theory that have very strong and valid theoretical ideas, but one supersedes the others. Conflict theory is the third theory that does an adequate job at explaining the ethnic-race difference in criminal offending. All these perspectives bring forth valid points, but they can also work together to explain the bigger picture of ethnic-racial differences in crime. No perspective by itself fully explains crime, but maybe together they can.

Social Disorganization was first theorized at the Chicago School in the 1930’s. According to Gabbidon (2015:50), social disorganization was defined by Elliot and Merrill in 1934 as “a breakdown in the equilibrium of forces, a decay in the social structure, so that old habits and forms of social control no longer function effectively.” Elliot and Merrill were suggesting that delinquency in urban areas was defined differently, and they wanted to find out why this was. Social Disorganization theory combined with the Ecological Approach create the combined theory. The theory brakes cities up into 5 zones. These zones are defined by who or what makes up that part(s) of the city. The first zone is comprised of the central buisness districts. The second zone can be considered the ‘slums’ or in more common terms the ‘ghetto’. This zone houses the majority of minority families and businesses. Little Italy and China town for instance would be located in zone two. Zone three is considered the working-class housing. Gabbidon (2015:51) suggests that people who work in zone one, and are still consider working class, will live in zone three. This will also will also be a second immigrant settlement area. The forth zone is considered the residential zone and will have housing and hotels and that’s about it. The fifth zone is considered the commuter zones and will consists of farms, and bungalows. The theory predicts that the farther away from zone one you live; the more crime will decrease. Also, the farther you go out, the more expensive housing is, and the longer the commute. The theory suggests that zone two, which has the most mobility, meaning they are the most easily able to move up within the socioeconomical class, will also have the most crime (Gabbidon,2015:52). The theory also suggests that because of the mobility, it is the most likely for social control to be broken down completely. This intern leads to “ … demoralization, promiscuity, and vice” (Gabbidon,2015:52) Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, drive home this theory in their own version of it. During Shaw and McKay’s study they found that zone one and two had the highest rates of delinquency(which we will discuss later, leads to criminals and criminal offending)(Gabbidon,2015:54). Shaw and McKay also found that these zones have marked characteristics. Such as population fluctuation, significant welfare users, several ethnic groups in one area, high truancy rates, high levels of unemployment, condemned buildings, and a large number of “…foreign-born or negro ” heads of houses (Gabbidon,2015:54)

Labeling Theory suggests that our identities are rooted in how other people see, perceive and label us (Gabbidon, 2015:93). There are several theorists within Labeling theory that have solid ideas, such as Charles Cooley and Herbert Mead, Kelly Miller, and Frank Tannenbaum. Edwin Lemert’s Social Pathology however, supersedes them all. Lemert’s theory is very simple in how it works. The model has two processes or steps. The first is known as primary deviance. Primary deviance is wherein the youth commits a deviant act, and continuously commits deviant acts, he or she would them be labeled or stigmatized as a delinquent or deviant individual (Gabbidon 2015:97). After the labeling and/or stigmatization occurs, it is likely that secondary deviance will occur. Secondary Deviance is deviance or delinquency that occurs after a label or stigma has been applied to an individual (Grindal,2019a). Secondary deviance occurs because the individual has accepted the label of delinquent or deviant. The time between primary and secondary deviance can be broken down in to 8 steps. Everything starts with primary deviance and is the first step. This is where the individual either breaks a cultural norm or law. This is followed by societal penalties, which is the second step. Societal penalties could be anything from a ticket, jail time, school suspension, not being invited to community events, etc. This is a form of punishment though for breaking a norm or law. The third step is more primary deviance. This could be breaking the same norm/law, or a new one, its just further primary deviance. The forth step is stronger societal penalties, and rejection. This is most likely going to be two different forms of societal penalties. The fifth, and next step would be more primary deviance, combined with hostility/resentment towards the person or entities penalizing the individual. This is the point where a stigma/label is applied to an individual and is the sixth step. The stigma/label is applied at this point because the community tolerance has been met, and this is the community’s formal way of punishing an individual. The seventh step will happen when an individual again commits a deviant act, and as a result of the stigma/label, it will be worse than previous deviance. The last step is when the individual accepts the label and adjust themselves to fully fulfill the role (Gabbidon,2015:97). Gabbidon (2015:97) goes on to explain that Lemert believed that the reason for the larger overrepresentation of minorities was because of bias, discrimination and the greater visibility of their crimes. Lemert used crime statistics to show the overrepresentation of African Americans, American Indians and even Irish. To this extent, even now, media shows Minority’s crimes more than Caucasians. This leads to harsher societal penalties on all minorities, not just the one who did the crime.

Conflict Theory suggests that there is a power struggle between individuals and/or groups. In the instance of race and crime, and in the context of this paper, the power struggle would be between minority individuals and nonminority individuals. Furthermore, within the U.S.A. the power struggle is between Minority individuals (African Americans, Latinos, Asians, etc.) and Caucasian individuals. Willem Bonger’s work within this area, is a perfect example of the differences between race and crime. Bonger’s classic Criminality and Economic Conditions, emphasizes the importance that capitalism has on crime (Gabbidon, 2015:122). Grindal (2019b) states that “Bonger ties crime to the systematic oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie.” Proletariat’s are poor and working-class people, when talked about as a group or collectively. Bourgeoisie’s are the capitalist class who own most of a society’s wealth and power. In short, Proletariats are the poor and the Bourgeoisie are the rich. Grindal (2019b) also points out that because of the struggle of oppression and survival between the rich and the poor, individuals are more likely to develop attitudes that are lacking in empathy, which in turn accounts for the increase in violent crimes of capitalist societies. One of the main points that is drove how throughout Bonger’s theory is the poor people need to steal resources in a capitalist society, which leads to the increase in poverty crimes (Grindal 2019b). One thing that is only eluded to, but not stated directly is how race plays into Bonger’s theory. Using what is already known about society from the previous two theories that have been discussed, we can conclude who will be included in those under Proletariat. Based the Chicago Schools Social Disorganization and Ecological Theory, we know that zones one and two are mainly poor people, while zones three to five are middle class and up(Gabbidon, 2015: ). Furthermore, from Shaw and McKay’s theory we know that zone two has several minority groups, as well as “foreign born and negro” heads of houses(Gabbidon,2015: ). With this in mind, we can conclude that the poor talked about in Bonger’s theory will include a large number of minority individuals and well as a large number of African Americans.

So, what do we do with this knowledge? How do we change the overwhelming facts about ethnic-racial difference in criminal offending? Well the simple answer should be that we stop labeling each other, and/or a socialist society. But that’s not a realistic answer, that’s a utopian idea. Besides that, some theorist suggest that crime is actually a good part of society, because it helps create change in society (Gabbidon,2015: ) There are two pieces of public policy though, that could change the ethnic-racial differences in criminal offending. The first being situating government controlled affordable housing through all five zones, instead of the first and second zones. This relates back to the Chicago schools Social Disorganization and Ecological Theory. By spreading out the affordable housing, zone one and two will have less minority people squeezed into one area. It’s also well known that police presence and patrols are heightened in areas with a lot of minorities. This is partly why there are higher crime statistic for one race versus another in some cities. By spreading poor and minority people from zones one and two, the education for minority people may go up. This may in turn change the class structure, and move more people out of the lowest class, and result in less poverty crimes. The second being an accountability board within police departments specifically focused at juvenile cases. This board would-be made-up community members of all ethnic groups. It would act as a review board so that police are held accountable for treating all ethnic and racial groups fairly and equally. For example, if a young African American boy commits the same crime as a young white boy, the cases should be treated the same. This relates back to labeling theory, and how primary deviance/delinquency is dealt with. If a Caucasian boy gets into a fight, it is often considered ‘kids being kids’ or ‘boys being boys’, but when a you a young minority boy who does it, it’s considered violent and deviant. The goal of the accountability board is to dissuade police officials/officers from thinking this way and creating more equality in the justice system.

The Ethnic-racial differences in criminal offending is a huge problem not only in the U.S. but in all societies. All three theory’s have valid and good ideas as to why that might be. The Chicago School explanation explains the zones, and where crime is centered. While Willem Bonger’s theory explains why it’s occurring, and the power struggle that creates it. And Edwin Lemert’s theory explains how social penalty’s, labeling and self- identity plays into all of it. Ideally, the hope is that as a society, these differences in offending can be changed. Both spreading out affordable housing, and an accountability board for juvenile cases, are good starts at changing these criminal disparities.

References

1. Gabbidon, Shaun L.2015. Criminological Perspectives on Race and Crime. Third Edition. New York, NY; Routledge.
2. Grindal, Mathew. 2019a. Labeling Theory Explanations.
3. Grindal, Mathew. 2019b. Conflict Perspective.

Recent research into the prevalence of mental health disorders in the UK has found that 1 in 4 people suffer from a current mental health disorder (Parkin & Powell, 2018), with 1 in 6 people experiencing a common disorder, such as anxiety or depression, in the past week alone (Baker, 2018). This extremely high prevalence of mental health disorders requires a reliable process for diagnosing, treating and preventing these disorders. Psychiatry therefore uses consistent diagnostic categories and labels for people with mental, emotional and behavioral disorders.

The official system of diagnosis for mental health disorders was devised and revised by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) is used most frequently in psychology in America and worldwide and was developed to produce a standardized set of descriptions, definitions, and symptoms to diagnose mental health disorders. It is believed that the purpose of the DSM was to provide a common language for psychiatrists to communicate about their patients’ disorders and produce consistent and reliable diagnoses. Using the DSM to categorize and label psychiatric patients enables health care professionals to identify a patient’s disorder and provide a systematic pathway for treatment amongst those who display similar psychiatric symptoms. By using a standardized measure of diagnosis, it allows us to ensure diagnoses are made consistently worldwide.

Whilst using diagnostic categories and labeling can produce positive results, such as effective treatment pathways, there is contradictory research which suggests that the effects of psychiatric labeling may be detrimental and outweigh the positives of classifying a patient. These include labeling someone as being mentally ill rather than having a mental illness (Pasman, 2011) and can also produce negative consequences such as stigma (Rosenfield, 1997).

Scheff (1974) developed labeling theory (or social reactant theory) explaining how a person’s behavior is influenced by the terms used to classify them and applied it to patients who had been diagnosed with a mental health disorder. Scheff suggested that negative stereotypes of people with poor mental health are represented in the media as crazy, dangerous and associated with criminal behavior, behaviors that are not typically considered the norm in society. These stereotypes are reinforced by the general public through social interaction, resulting in mentally ill people being considered as a social deviance in society. Once psychiatry labels a person, they then experience a uniform negative response from society and the public possess negative evaluations, making it hard to shake the label.

These responses from the public encourage the patients to take on the role of someone who is deemed to be mentally ill, and they start to internalize their own beliefs about themselves. This is known as the self-fulfilling prophecy (Merton, 1948), where people live up to falsely assigned labels by changing their behavior so that the original label becomes true. Therefore, it is crucial that psychiatric labels are applied accurately otherwise people who are not mentally ill, will start behaving as if they were (Pasman, 2011). Additionally, people who are given psychiatric labels tend to conform to behavior that is stereotypically associated with someone who is deemed mentally ill, even if they did not originally display this behavior before diagnosis. Thus, once labeled psychiatric patients self-fulfil behaviors that they generally expect psychiatric patients to display, making them worse off and increasing the negative effects of their disorder.

Labeling theory has been further developed and expanded regarding mental health to suggest that even if labeling a person does not directly produce a mental disorder, it can lead to negative consequences such as feelings of devaluation and discrimination (Link, Cullen, Struening, Shrout & Dohrenwend, 1989). Society’s reaction, behavior and beliefs towards a person with a mental health disorder induce these feelings, and in turn leads patients to fear this potential devaluation and discrimination. This effects their levels of social interaction and results in negative outcomes in terms of employment, self-esteem and social networks. Hence this culminates in psychiatric patients endorsing strategies of withdrawal and secrecy to cope with the perceived threat from society.

Most people suffering from mental health disorders are doubly challenged. On the one hand they endure pain from the primary impact of the disorder, such as physical symptoms and mental disabilities, and on the other hand they are confronted with public misconceptions leading to stigma. Stigma is composed of two constructs: behavioral and cognitive (Corrigan & Shapiro, 2010). The cognitive aspect compromises of prejudice (feelings and attitudes directed towards a specific group, for example mental health patients), and stereotypes (societies beliefs about a specific group). The behavioral aspect is what influences discriminatory behavior. This subjection of stigma can lead to feelings of rejection, experiencing discrimination, lowered self-esteem and loss of socio-economic status.

Stigma towards mental health disorders is a current problem in society, with nearly 9 out of 10 of those diagnosed facing negative discrimination through stigma, attitudes and behavior directed towards them (Mental Health Foundation, 2018). Two types of stigma have been identified and both create negative beliefs towards mental health issues (Corrigan & Watson, 2002). Firstly, social stigma is the most common type, with negative beliefs including ineptitude, incompetence and precariousness towards mental health patients. This public form of stigma leads to avoidance behaviors and withdrawing the same opportunities as a ‘healthy’ individual. For example, unemployment and declining housing applications. The second type of stigma comes from the self, where individuals internalize the behavioral and cognitive aspects of stigma, similar to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Negative beliefs about the self, lead to character doubt and weaknesses in personality, often resulting in low self-esteem, lack of socialization and failing to pursue opportunities and goals.

To understand the effects of labeling on stigma, research has aimed to measure an individual’s beliefs about how others respond to mental health patients, like themselves (Link, 1987). They hypothesized that patients develop misconceptions of what the general population think of patients long before they have even been diagnosed. As a result of this, when people are officially labeled it leads to feelings of self-devaluation and fear of social rejection, resulting in a negative impact on social functioning. A scale was administered to calculate the extent to which patients thought they would be devalued and demoralized by the general public. A series of groups completed the scale, ranging from being labeled ‘severe psychiatric disorders’ to people with ‘no symptoms of psychiatric disorders’. In the labeled groups, scores on the scale were associated with effects related to self-devaluation such as unemployment, lack of a serious relationship and minimal social contact in labeled groups, but not in unlabeled groups. This study concludes that labeling a patient may produce negative outcomes as they assume the public will have conceptions leading to devaluing and discrimination, so their behavior represents this. For example, not attending job interviews as they feel they will be discriminated against because of their psychiatric disorder, and therefore experiencing income loss as a result of not getting the job.

Labeling theory suggests that once a person has been given a psychiatric label, then their reactions from others mean they will not be able to function in normal societal rules and will turn to a life of deviance. However, labeling mental health patients does not always result in rejection from the general population. Gove and Fain (1973) analyzed the experience of former mental health patients and found that their relationships with others had improved and their social activities had increased post-treatment. Amongst the former and present sufferers, only a small minority experienced stigma against their psychiatric treatment and there were inconsistencies amongst patients in reporting instances of rejection and discrimination. This study suggests that labeling someone with a psychiatric illness may not have long term effects, as people’s attitudes towards those who have been diagnosed change post-treatment. Therefore, the effect of stigma may not cause rejection and withdrawal amongst patients, instead this could be a result of the mental patients’ actions that form people’s attitudes such as self-fulfilling the psychiatric label they were assigned, concluding that the notion that stigma has long-term effects can be dismissed.

If psychiatry relies on categorizing and labeling patients, then there are potential strategies which can be implemented to reduce psychiatric stigma. These strategies include protest, education and promoting contact between society and those diagnosed with mental health problems.

Protest strategies aim to diminish negative attitudes of mental disorders by highlighting and protesting inaccurate representations in the media and society. It attempts to encourage the media to stop portraying inaccurate representations of people with mental disorders and for society to stop believing these negative views that are presented in the media. Evidence suggests that effective protest campaigns have reduced the number of stigmatizing images of mental health in the media and patients are encountering less stereotyping and discrimination due to these efforts (Wahl, 1997). However, protesting stereotypes can often lead to the minority group, such as mental health patients, experiencing higher levels of stigma. This is due to a paradoxical theory known as the rebound effect (Wegner, Schneider, Carter & White, 1987). In essence, if you are asked to think of this group in a non-stereotypical way and suppress your existing negative thoughts about them, then you are essentially priming and confirming these stereotypes. Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, and Jetten (1994) found that participants who were required to not think about a specific minority group in a stereotypical way, were more likely to describe the group in a negatively stereotypical way, identified stigmatizing adjectives quicker, and naturally distanced themselves from the group. These findings demonstrate that by attempting to suppress existing negative beliefs may actually be priming these stereotypes of people who are labeled with a psychiatric disorder.

A second way to diminish stigma towards people with poor mental health is to use educational strategies. These work by providing accurate information about people with mental health disorders and challenging stereotypes by providing evidence that contradicts them. Keane (1990) reported that people who participate in a short educational course on mental health treatment have improved attitude towards mental health patients. This suggests that negative attitudes can be challenged, and stigma reduced by educating people about how mental illness can be treated and readdressing false stereotypes. However, the evidence for educational strategies to reduce stigma has not been assessed in the long term. Most of the evidence comes from short educational programs, but these studies cannot explain how educational programs facilitate behavior and attitude change in the long-term. Although the immediate impact of educational strategies seems to reduce stigma towards people with mental health disorders, it does not suggest if these strategies will work to change long-term attitudes.

A third way of reducing psychiatric stigma is to encourage interpersonal contact between individuals with diagnosed disorders and the general public. By encouraging and facilitating contact, this allows people to disconfirm stereotypes when the stigmatized group displays non-stereotypical features, for example, having a job or numerous friends. Research has shown that those that have more contact with mental health patients endorse reduced levels of psychiatric stigma (Desforges et al., 1991). In this study, participants who had more contact with a former mental health patient had more positive attitudes towards this person and increased liking and acceptance. Thus, suggesting that contact reduces stigma and reduces negative attitudes towards people with mental health disorders.

Further research into anti-stigma campaigns have attempted to assess whether the effects of labeling can be overcome by adopting a few simple approaches. Link, Mirotznik and Cullen’s (1991) research attempted to identify whether mentally ill patients can ameliorate labeling effects through certain coping strategies: educating others about mental illness, keeping their disorder a secret and avoiding social situations where rejection may occur. The results depicted that the coping strategies were not effective in diminishing the negative effects of labeling and increased withdrawal and voidance behaviors, suggesting the strategies produced more harm than good. Link, Mirotznik and Cullen (1991) concluded that labeling effects are hard to overcome, and coping strategies have minimal impact on diminishing stigma. Based on these results, it can be concluded that stigma is a powerful social effect as a result of categorizing or labeling a person as mentally ill.

However, the question remains, are strategies towards reducing psychiatric stigma working? Effective anti-stigma campaigns have shown that social contact strategies decrease stigma the most, by improving knowledge and creating positive attitude changes (Thornicroft et al., 2016). Though it must be considered that this research has only found short-term attitude changes and it is unclear if a reduction in stigma would occur long term. Therefore, more research into strategies to reduce stigma is needed with larger sample sizes and conducted over a longer time period.

A strategy that may be effective but has little evidence to support it, is the process of using positive labeling rather than degrading labels. Although labels can be motivating and encourage people to act, people often adopt the negative psychiatric labels that are applied to them. Through the self-fulfilling prophecy patients then exhibit stereotypical behaviors of people diagnosed with mental health disorders, for example becoming reclusive. Therefore, a proposed intervention could be using Merton’s self-fulfilling prophecy to label people positively rather than defining them by their mental illness. This in term may reduce their psychiatric symptoms as they do not automatically fulfil the stereotypical behaviors of this label, and instead fulfil the positive behaviors associated with their positive label.

In conclusion, it appears that using diagnostic categories and labels in psychiatry provides a reliable method for psychiatrists to consistently diagnose disorders and treatments for those with poor mental health. However, the implications of labeling a person with a psychiatric illness can lead to irreversible prejudice and stigmatization. Most of the research in this essay suggests that whilst protest, education and contact strategies have been applied to try and reduce stigma against psychiatric patients, these strategies may not be effective long-term. Therefore, more research needs to be conducted to enhance these strategies rather than abandon them.

References

1. Baker, C. (2018). Mental Health Statistics for England: Prevalence, Services and Funding. Retrieved December 04, 2018, from https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06988
2. Corrigan, P., & Shapiro, J. (2010). Measuring the Impact of Programs That Challenge the Public Stigma of Mental Illness. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(8), 907-922. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.06.004.
3. Corrigan, P., & Watson, A. (2002). Understanding the Impact of Stigma on People with Mental Illness. World Psychiatry: Official Journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA), 1(1), 16-20.
4. Desforges, D., Lord, C., Ramsey, S., Mason, J., Van Leeuwen, M., West, S., & Lepper, M. (1991). Effects of Structured Cooperative Contact on Changing Negative Attitudes Toward Stigmatized Social Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 531-544. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.531.
5. Gove, W., & Fain, T. (1973). The Stigma of Mental Hospitalization: An Attempt to Evaluate Its Consequences. Archives of General Psychiatry, 28(4), 494-500. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1973.01750340034005.
6. Keane, R. M. (1990). Contemporary Beliefs About Mental Illness Among Medical Students: Implications for Education and Practice. Academic Psychiatry, 14(3), 172-177. doi: 10.1007/BF03341291.
7. Link, B. (1987). Understanding Labeling Effects in the Area of Mental Disorders: An Assessment of the Effects of Expectations of Rejection. American Sociological Review, 52(1), 96-112. doi: 10.2307/2095395.
8. Link, B., Cullen, F., Struening, E., Shrout, P., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (1989). A Modified Labeling Theory Approach to Mental Disorders: An Empirical Assessment. American Sociological Review, 54(3), 400-423. doi: 10.2307/2095613
9. Link, B., Mirotznik, J., & Cullen, F. (1991). The Effectiveness of Stigma Coping Orientations: Can Negative Consequences of Mental Illness Labeling Be Avoided? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 32(3), 302-320. doi: 10.2307/2136810.
10. Macrae, C., Bodenhausen, G., Milne, A., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of Mind But Back in Sight: Stereotypes on the Rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5), 808–817. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.5.808.
11. Mental Health Foundation. (2018). Stigma and Discrimination. Retrieved December 02, 2018, from https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/a-to-z/s/stigma-and-discrimination
12. Merton, R. K. (1948). The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8(2), 193-210. doi: 10.2307/4609267.
13. Parkin, E. & Powell, T. (2018). Mental Health Policy in England. Retrieved December 04, 2018, from https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7547
14. Pasman, J. (2011). The Consequences of Labeling Mental Illnesses on the Self-Concept: A Review of the Literature and Future Directions. Social Cosmos, 2, 122-127.
15. Rosenfield, S. (1997). Labeling Mental Illness: The Effects of Received Services and Perceived Stigma on Life Satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 62(4), 660-672. doi: 10.2307/2657432.
16. Scheff, T. (1974). The Labelling Theory of Mental Illness. American Sociological Review, 39(3), 444-452. doi: 10.2307/2094348.
17. Thornicroft, G., Mehta, N., Clement, S., Evans-Lacko, S., Doherty, M., Rose, D., … & Henderson, C. (2016). Evidence for Effective Interventions to Reduce Mental-Health-Related Stigma and Discrimination. The Lancet, 387(10023), 1123-1132. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00298-6.
18. Wahl, O. F. (1997). Media Madness: Public Images of Mental Illness. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
19. Wegner, D., Schneider, D., Carter, S., & White, T. (1987). Paradoxical Effects of Thought Suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 5-13. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.1.5.