Search

The Dunning-Kruger (DK) effect is a form of meta-ignorance of knowledge (Kruger & Dunning, "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology," 77(6), 121-1134, 1999) that has not been explored regarding mental illness public stigma. The current study examined the DK effect in this field by comparing participants' actual stigma (measured by a social distance scale) and their perceived stigma (measured by a self-rating scale compared to their peers). In addition, the effectiveness of two types of feedback on stigma reduction was explored. Undergraduate participants (N = 393) with low actual public stigma perceived their public stigma level to be higher than it was, while those with high actual public stigma perceived it to be lower, supporting the DK effect. Generalized feedback did not reduce public stigma, whereas personalized feedback reduced public stigma for participants with high public stigma. This study revealed the existence of meta-ignorance in the field of mental illness public stigma and the effectiveness of personalized feedback.

Objective: Worsening student mental health, along with more complex mental illness presentation and increased access to campus mental health services, has led to a mental health "crisis" on campuses. One way to address student mental health needs may be through mental health programs which have been found to increase resiliency and help-seeking, and reduce stigma. Participants: The effectiveness of The Inquiring Mind (TIM), a mental health promotion and mental illness stigma reduction program, was examined in 810 students from 16 Canadian post-secondary institutions. Methods and Results: Using a meta-analytic approach, TIM improved resiliency and decreased stigmatizing attitudes from pre to post, with medium effect sizes (d > 0.50). Analyses with those that completed the follow-up (about one-third of the sample) showed that effects were mostly retained at three months. Other outcomes also point to the program's effectiveness. Conclusion: TIM appears to be an effective program for post-secondary students. However, additional research, including randomized control trials, is needed to address study limitations.

Postsecondary students' ability to learn is affected by their mental health and wellbeing. Research in the teaching and learning context, however, has predominantly focused on teaching practices that facilitate motivation, learning, and academic success while overlooking the importance of student mental health and wellbeing. The current study aimed to fill this gap by using qualitative interviews to explore student perspectives on current and possible future supports that can cultivate student mental health and wellbeing in the teaching and learning context. Through 14 one-on-one interviews with students, five major themes were developed: (1) prioritize mental health, (2) provide and guide to accessible supports, (3) increase mental health literacy, (4) foster connections and social support, and (5) strengthen best practices in teaching and learning. Students emphasized that the institution has a role to play in several of these areas and elaborated on what practices and policies were least and most supportive of student mental health and wellbeing in teaching and learning. This study has implications for higher education institutions, and how they promote mental health and wellbeing, disseminate information and resources, and how faculty and staff can support students through their policies (e.g., flexibility in deadlines), course materials (e.g., assessments), course delivery (e.g., equity, diversity, and inclusion [EDI] considerations), and interactions (e.g., normalizing mental health conversations). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding how the public views harm reduction strategies may help inform researchers on how to reduce related stigma and barriers to help-seeking. The current study explored whether stigma towards those who use opioids was affected by gender and type of harm reduction strategy used. Undergraduate students (N = 328) were randomly assigned to read one of six vignettes varying by gender and the type of harm reduction strategy: no harm reduction, opioid agonist therapy (OAT), or safe consumption sites (SCSs). Results demonstrated that participants were less stigmatizing towards the character who engaged in OAT compared to the character with no harm reduction. There was also a pattern demonstrating that SCSs may be perceived more negatively than OAT, although these differences only met conventional significance, not adjusted/corrected alphas. There were no significant effects for gender. Qualitative results revealed that participants held misconceptions about harm reduction. Implications and future directions are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]