From Lackadaisical to Flourishing in Existence - Report Example

Psychology Name: Institution: Introduction There are so many things that people lean from televisions and one of them is mental disorders. However, like most of the lessons embedded in most shows the content is negative and stereotypes are a common scenario. Such stereotypes are the reason why the general public have the attitudes and beliefs that they hold. Mental health is just as crucial as physical health. Most people only concentrate on physical part of body and forget that the mental wellbeing of a person is just as important. Addition to drugs, alcohol and stress are just some of the factors that contribute to mental disorders. A mental disorder as defined by Bolton & Hill (2003) is more of a neutral term that is used to refer to a mental illness. Bolton & Hill states that this is a breakdown in a person’s mental order that causes a disruption in a person’s biological abnormality. Perhaps Bolton & Hill’s explanation is too complex or too formal in definition, but the two authors clearly bring out what it means to have a mental disorder. Some authors however, such as Diefenbach & West (2003) purport that the most popular way to learn about mental disorders is through the media. This is contrary to Bolton & West’s argument on mental disorder which is based purely on information theories or cognitive psychology. The portrayal of mental disorders in media continues to be troubling. Networks also come into play and seem to be some of the most sensitive contributors of these criticisms in the last few years. Nonetheless, the perceptions behind mental disorders have evolved from being characterized as untreatable problems to discussions where people admit of such problems. The ten articles in this critique review paper provide a clear and coherent explanation of how the media has a hand on the public’s view of people with mental disorders. Contribution made by Media in regard to Mental Illness and Disorders Diefenbach and West (2007) clearly proved that the media has a negative impact on public through the research study conducted for programs which were aired on American television networks such as NBC and Fox as some of the four major networks. The two authors argue that the analysis was used to determine the relationship between the portrayal of people with mental disorders and violence in crime. Diefenbach and West’s (2007) argument is that if the networks had 84 hours coded on the television, 37% of those who were acting in the shows were considered to have mental disorders and violent. This was an analysis done when coders used the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a way of defining what mental illness is and its causes. In all the characters identified in all the programs the authors show that a total of 2,027 characters were the only group that was regarded to be free from mental disorders. It is only 93of these non-disordered characters that were portrayed as violent criminals. Generally, it is only 4% of these characters who were portrayed as violent criminals but had no link to any mental illnesses. From the about analysis it is clear that the media had a negative portrayal of people suffering from mental disorders. Diefenbach and West show that the prime time television has continued to be the source of trouble in regard to the public’s perception. The misappropriate portrayal of the mentally disordered shows directly that the authors were conclusive about the negative impact that the media had on public. This article is one of the recent researches that clearly prove of how the media portrays mental disorders in a negative light. It is a fact that more characters in most films, movies and shows today continue to be portrayed as violent people with multiple offenses. It is not surprising to note that even the film industry has a hand in this because most films do not portray people with mental disorders as people who can live productive lives. In the survey conducted by Diefenbach and West (2007), it is evident that the mentally disordered were almost regarded as outcasts in the society. This is because the article reminds readers that the survey showed such characters were ten times more likely to be violent than characters who were not mentally challenged. Similar to Diefenbach and West’s insights, Wahl, Hanrahan, Karl, Lasher, and Swaye’s arguments also support the argument that the media negatively affects the public’s opinion of the mental disordered. According to Wahl et al (2007), similarly to television shows and series that have characters who are portrayed as mentally ill, children’s shows also have characters that are portrayed as both mentally ill and violent. With such evidence that strongly points to media as the key culprit in the problem, it is therefore not surprising to get the public’s negative ideologies of mentally challenged as a normal issue. The perspective that the authors want to put across is that the media not only affects the perceptions of the adults in public, but also children through programs. However, the authors have not given the reader the best examples of respondents in their survey. The researchers have only concentrated on conducting their research on American networks such as PBS and carton network. These may not be shown in all parts of the world. In my opinion, the authors may were likely to come up with conclusive results if the survey had been conducted on different states in the world. From the study, it is also clear that the researchers concentrated on single white men who had no family members. In my view mental disorders may also attack other people, who have families, are females and also from other races. Jorm (2000) on the other hand argues that the attitude and ideas the public has in regard to mental illnesses are due to lack of proper promotion of mental health issues and illnesses to the general public. Jorm’s article clearly brings out the idea that it is not the media that is responsible for the negative perceptions in so many people but also the health system in so many states. Though in most instances critics assert that more attention needs to be directed to a person’s physical health, the mental health of a person also counts. From the author’s argument, it is clear that the issue of mental health has been ignored for many years. Unlike the other authors, Jorm (2000) indicates that the problem of mental health literacy among so many people is attributed by the low level of literacy when it comes to mental disorder. However, one notable similarity between the aforementioned authors and Jorm is that they all seem to agree on one issue. They all agree that mental ill health brings the negative effects in individuals and not positive effects. The author reminds the readers that there is need to ensure that the public is provided for with all the information regarding the causes, and treatment of mental illnesses. To explain the problem to the public, this article has attempted to show that if there are no promotions which give support to mental health once such problems arise. In the article by Corrigan (2004), the stigma that is associated with mental illnesses is the reason why very few people with such mental problems seek treatment. Corrigan, unlike the other researchers in this paper has not relied on experimental methods and surveys to describe the effects of media on people. In most cases, some of the studies conducted may apply methodological techniques wrongly and hence as a result, they may not give the right information regarding a topic of discussion. Corrigan (2004) does not blame the media directly, as noted in all the aforementioned articles, but opts to frame this problem on social cognitive processes as the reason why people have a negative attitude towards the mentally disordered. The cues and stereotypes in a society are some of the processes that Corrigan mentions as the reasons behind negative perceptions in the society. These are the processes cited by Corrigan that can assist in minimization of negative influence on the public. One positive aspect that can be noted in Corrigan’s article is the solution that the author offers the readers. For instance, Corrigan points out that there is a way in which such stereotypes and cues can be handled to prevent further negative effects on the mentally challenged. The author recommends the use of interventions which may reduce the stigma that exists towards a targeted group of people. This involves the use of groups such as employers, policy makers and non psychiatrist health care providers. Keyes (2002), on the other hand contends that there is too much literature that is placed on mental health, rather than having a positive outlook of how mental health can be managed. Similar to Jorm’s argument, Keyes (2002) also supports the idea of providing the community with the information on mental health problems. However, one problem with this argument is that there is little knowledge that exists in writing regarding how to promote mental health among public members. In Keyes’ article, mental health has been discussed as an operationalization strategy where the positive feelings are analysed. However, a reader may not be certain whether the dimensions in review may be conceived by the public as part of mental health symptoms. Donovan et al. (2007), has a research article on factors of mental health on human beings. The research can be questioned because the researchers seem to have carried out questionnaires on different age groups, based on one location and not on a global scale. In addition, the researchers left the respondents in the survey to define what mental illness was on their own without offering guidance. The personal feedback given by the respondents in the survey is clearly unsatisfactory and does not give the reader, proper information regarding the ideas from all people. In addition the sample that was surveyed was very large yet most of the interviewees were only interested in those topics that were largely centred on negative sides of mental disorders. Nonetheless, one advantage with this article is that it does not blame the media as the culprit for influencing the public with negative information. But the researchers have similar views to others because they argue that mental health problems equals to mental illnesses. The World Health Organisation (2001) on the other hand reports that the mental disorders are not individual failures. This can be said to be an article that has a positive message for the public. It indicates that it does not exclude people who have a mental illness and disorders. In addition, the World Health Organization has also conducted a survey on different people in different nations in the world. This gives the reader the advantage of identify the world’s view of mental illnesses or how different people from various backgrounds in the world, view mental disorders. However, one problem that can be noted with this article is that there are no current researches done or published after the new changes in mental health treatment takes place. The article was also published long before there was a wave of new different policies and information regarding mental disorders. Though most of the content in the article is extremely valuable for policy makers, the conclusion of the article seems to be more partial in nature. The researcher has indicated that the words used in the availability in conclusions given the article are complex and cannot be easily be communicated to readers of younger ages as part of educative literature. The researchers has also made an impeccable trial to show that there is need for educating the public about the dangers of being ignorant when it comes to mental disorders. In the article written by Miller (2007), it is clear that there are insufficient details regarding how the information on the article was collected and how the researcher came to a conclusion. This is because the conclusion seems as if it has been hurriedly done. There is a lot of primary data that the researcher has presented to the readers, but this only assists the readers to understand the need of supporting policy recommendations. However, Miller (2007) has not clearly explained the need for data collection process and which criterion of selecting the samples was collected. Nonetheless, Wilson, Nairn, Coverdale and Panapa’s (2000) article shows that there was great elaboration which was conducted in the research paper, but in the absence of key details, it is extremely difficult to identify how the researcher came to the research findings. In addition, when different people were asked why the media should be blamed for mental disorders, the respondents gave different ideas and answers which only served to worsen the public’s perception of mentally ill people. Discussing the conditions for those who were interviewed also seems to have aroused sympathy from them and bad memories as some reported. Conclusion In all the aforementioned articles, it is clear that one way of changing the negative perception that has stuck for so many years in most television watchers and social media lovers is by using health professionals. There are many inaccuracies that spread via channels in media. One of the excellent examples that were aforementioned is that when a person is diagnosed as mentally disordered, he or she is immediately termed as a violent person. I my opinion, the solution for this problem only lie entirely on the communication strategies that have to be implemented. These are strategies that are likely to convey the right message about mental illnesses. Therefore, if more articles were written on how to treat people with mental illnesses and that they are people like all the other people, such negative perceptions are likely to decrease. References Bolton, D., & Hill, J. (2003). Mind, meaning and mental disorder: The nature of causal explanation in psychology and psychiatry. (2ed ed.). London: OUP Oxford. Corrigan, P.W. (2004). Target-specific stigma change: a strategy for impacting mental illness stigma. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 28(2), 112-121. Donovan, R., N. Henley, et al. (2007). "People's Beliefs about Factors Contributing to Mental health: Implications for Mental Health Promotion." Health Promotion Journal of Australia 18: 50-56. Jorm, Anthony F. (2000), “Mental Health Literacy: Public Knowledge and Beliefs about Mental Disorders,” The British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 396-410. Keyes, Corey (2002), “The Mental Health Continuum: From Languishing to Flourishing in Life,” Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 43 (2), 207-22. Miller, G. (2007). Mental health and the mass media: room for improvement. TheLancet, 70(9592), 1015-1016. Wahl, O.F., Hanrahan, E., Karl, K., Lasher, E., & Swaye, J. (2007). The depiction of mental illness in children’s television programs. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(1),121-133. Webster, C. L. (2005). News media critique: "crazies in the streets". International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction, 3(2), 64-68. Wilson, C., Nairn, R., Coverdale, J., & Panapa, A. (2000). How mental illness is portrayed in children’s media: a prospective study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 440-443. World Health Organisation (2001), The World Health Report 2001 - Mental Health: New Understanding, New Hope, Geneva   References Diefenbach, D. L., & West, M. D. (2007). Television and attitudes toward mental health issues: Cultivation analysis and the third-person effect. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(2), 181-195. Read More

This was an analysis done when coders used the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as a way of defining what mental illness is and its causes. In all the characters identified in all the programs the authors show that a total of 2,027 characters were the only group that was regarded to be free from mental disorders. It is only 93of these non-disordered characters that were portrayed as violent criminals. Generally, it is only 4% of these characters who were portrayed as violent criminals but had no link to any mental illnesses.

From the about analysis it is clear that the media had a negative portrayal of people suffering from mental disorders. Diefenbach and West show that the prime time television has continued to be the source of trouble in regard to the public’s perception. The misappropriate portrayal of the mentally disordered shows directly that the authors were conclusive about the negative impact that the media had on public. This article is one of the recent researches that clearly prove of how the media portrays mental disorders in a negative light.

It is a fact that more characters in most films, movies and shows today continue to be portrayed as violent people with multiple offenses. It is not surprising to note that even the film industry has a hand in this because most films do not portray people with mental disorders as people who can live productive lives. In the survey conducted by Diefenbach and West (2007), it is evident that the mentally disordered were almost regarded as outcasts in the society. This is because the article reminds readers that the survey showed such characters were ten times more likely to be violent than characters who were not mentally challenged.

Similar to Diefenbach and West’s insights, Wahl, Hanrahan, Karl, Lasher, and Swaye’s arguments also support the argument that the media negatively affects the public’s opinion of the mental disordered. According to Wahl et al (2007), similarly to television shows and series that have characters who are portrayed as mentally ill, children’s shows also have characters that are portrayed as both mentally ill and violent. With such evidence that strongly points to media as the key culprit in the problem, it is therefore not surprising to get the public’s negative ideologies of mentally challenged as a normal issue.

The perspective that the authors want to put across is that the media not only affects the perceptions of the adults in public, but also children through programs. However, the authors have not given the reader the best examples of respondents in their survey. The researchers have only concentrated on conducting their research on American networks such as PBS and carton network. These may not be shown in all parts of the world. In my opinion, the authors may were likely to come up with conclusive results if the survey had been conducted on different states in the world.

From the study, it is also clear that the researchers concentrated on single white men who had no family members. In my view mental disorders may also attack other people, who have families, are females and also from other races. Jorm (2000) on the other hand argues that the attitude and ideas the public has in regard to mental illnesses are due to lack of proper promotion of mental health issues and illnesses to the general public. Jorm’s article clearly brings out the idea that it is not the media that is responsible for the negative perceptions in so many people but also the health system in so many states.

Though in most instances critics assert that more attention needs to be directed to a person’s physical health, the mental health of a person also counts. From the author’s argument, it is clear that the issue of mental health has been ignored for many years. Unlike the other authors, Jorm (2000) indicates that the problem of mental health literacy among so many people is attributed by the low level of literacy when it comes to mental disorder.

Read More