Depressed People Need Not Apply : Mental Health Stigma Decreases Perceptions of Employability of Applicants with Depression

Abstract

The purpose of the current research was to examine whether individuals with depression are perceived as less desirable for employment and, if so, whether this decreased employability is related to potentially legitimate job-related concerns or simply to the stigma associated with mental illness. In Study 1, we compared the effect of different labels of illness on employability and found that individuals with a label of depression are less likely to be recommended for hiring than individuals labelled as physically ill. In Study 2, we aimed to rule out the possibility that this differential employability results from concerns about decreased productivity by adding a label of hypothyroidism, a physical illness with symptoms similar to depression, and comparing how that affects employability. We found that depressed applicants were less likely to be hired than applicants with hypothyroidism, despite being evaluated similarly overall. This confirms that decreased employability is a result of the stigma associated with mental illness rather than concerns about decreased productivity and elucidates the need for interventions to reduce this stigma. Introduction In 1792, Philippe Pinel first proposed that individuals with mental illnesses should be not be view as “mad” and restrained, but should instead be treated with kindness and care (Weiner, 1992). While he personally helped to significantly decrease stigma against the mentally ill during the 18 century, many of the constraints associated with mental illness remain prevalent. Even today, an explicit stigma attached to individuals with mental illnesses persists, hindering these individuals’ personal and professional achievements. Indeed, being labelled as mentally ill is still often considered a “mark of disgrace” and is associated with marked discrimination (Brohan et al., 2012). Individuals with mental disorders often have to cope simultaneously with the sometimes debilitating symptoms associated with their disorder as well as the disapproval, rejection, and discrimination that result from the social stigmatization of mental illness (Ottati, Bodenhausen, & Newman, 2005). Of course, these social consequences can further exacerbate the original illness, resulting in a vicious and sometimes inescapable cycle. Unfortunately, the stigma attached to mental illness is particularly widespread in the environment where most individuals spend the majority of their day: the workplace. In the United States, mental disorders make up the second-most commonly cited basis for charges of discrimination and workplace harassment (Scheid, 1999). While recognition of mental illnesses may have increased in the twentieth century, many individuals living with mental illness report that they still would not disclose their illness to their manager due to the fear of negative consequences (Dewa, 2014). Given this reluctance, we sought to explore whether the stigma attached to a specific mental illness, depression, is associated with decreased perceptions of employability. Furthermore, we set out to Yale Review of Undergraduate Research in Psychology 85 examine whether the beliefs underlying such perceptions are related to concerns that the symptoms of the illness will interfere with work performance, or alternatively, if they are the product of the stigma associated with mental illness itself. We hypothesized that depressed individuals will continue to face discrimination and be perceived as less employable, despite contemporary efforts to eradicate the stigma surrounding mental illness. We also anticipated that the reduced perceived employability of individuals with depression is attributable to the stigma associated with mental illnesses rather than simply due to reservations about reduced productivity or other potentially relevant jobs-related factors. Mental Illness Stereotypes & Beliefs The stigmatization of mental illness is rooted in negative stereotypes, which precipitate prejudice and result in discrimination. Research on the stereotypes associated with mental health has revealed that these stereotypes often construe individuals with mental illnesses as violent and dangerous, dependent and incompetent, and irresponsible (Ottati, et al., 2005; Rusch, Angermeye & Corrigan, 2005). Such negative stereotypes are demeaning and isolating, and they significantly influence how individuals with mental illnesses are perceived by themselves and others. This is particularly true in workplace settings, where competence, independence, and conscientiousness are valued (Mendel, Kissling, Reichhart, Buhner & Hamann, 2015). Mental Health in the Workplace Employment discrimination against individuals with mental illnesses seems to be driven by two main factors: general stigma and specific fears about loss of productivity. Individuals with mental illnesses are often held accountable for their illness in that others often believe that mentally ill people have brought the illness on themselves, or that the illness is somehow simple to control. Such beliefs foster stigma and prejudice, which then drive discriminatory behaviours. For example, one study has demonstrated that job applicants with a “hidden disability” such as a mental illness may be treated worse than individuals with a self-evident disability such as paraplegia (Bordieri & Drehmer, 1986). In this same study, when an applicant’s disability was attributed to an internal cause, they were evaluated more poorly because they were seen as being responsible for their disability. Consequently, applicants with a physical disability are seven times more likely to be recommended for hiring than applicants with a mental illness (Koser, Matsuyama, & Kopelman, 1999). An individual with a mental illness may in fact be able to perform tasks more proficiently than an individual with a physical disability, yet stigmatization appears to put those with such disabilities at a disadvantage regardless of performance. In addition to the stigma surrounding mental illness, loss of productivity is a common concern for employers (Diksa & Rogers, 1996) and may explain why individuals with mental illnesses are less likely to be hired. While it is a valid concern and a realistic possibility that mental illness negatively influence productivity, many individuals with mental illnesses are in remission and are able to successfully cope with their illness. Yet, even candidates who have learned to cope with their illnesses are at a disadvantage, as employment decisions are often made based on past episodes of mental illness or on the possibility of future episodes (Stier & Hinshaw, 2007). Indeed, most individuals with a mental illness are willing and able to work (Macias, DeCarlo, Wang, Frey, & Barreira, 2001), and even those with severe mental illnesses, such as schizophrenia, are able to live and work independently once treated (Harding, Brooks, Ashikaga, Strauss, & Breier,, 1987). Unfortunately, despite this fact, false beliefs about lowered productivity were rampant and evident in the 20 century and resulted in reduced employability (Glozier, 1998). Yale Review of Undergraduate Research in Psychology 86 Depression in the Workplace In this paper we focus on depression, a mental illness that has been associated with job-related concerns including decreased work performance (Kessler et al., 2008) and absenteeism (Tsuchiya et al., 2012). Glozier (1998) conducted a survey of human resource officers in UK companies in order to determine whether negative attitudes about mental illness affected employment opportunities for those with depression. He found that, when employers were given a choice between two identical applicants whose only difference was either having depression or diabetes, the chances of employment significantly decreased for those with depression. This discrimination stemmed from perceptions that depression increases the potential for poor work performance and was more pronounced for jobs at the executive level. The present research project aims to update and extend these findings by examining whether lower employability ratings for applicants with depression is rooted in (potentially legitimate) concerns about productivity and absenteeism, or whether these concerns are more related to the stigmatization of depression. Recognition of mental health issues has increased in the twentieth century (Stuart, 2004). This paper provides an update on the present state of stigmas related to mental health in North American workplaces, and examines whether employment discrimination against employees with mental illnesses still persists. Furthermore, we explore whether the apparent discrimination is related to concerns about productivity loss or to the stigma associated with the mental illness itself. Overview of Studies The current investigation consists of two studies. The first aimed to replicate the Glozier’s study (1998) and investigate whether the label of depression still reduces employability in the contemporary employment context. In this study, we asked participants to evaluate job applications that indicated if the candidate had taken time off to deal with depression or diabetes. There was also a third, control condition, which did not provide an explanation for the gap in employment. We compared the impact of the disease labels (depression vs. diabetes vs. none) on perceptions of employability and employers’ overall evaluations of the applications. The study by Glozier (1998) employed a UK sample, did not include a control condition, and was conducted over 15 years ago. The current study updates and elucidates the present state of stigmas associated with mental health in North America, employs a much larger sample, and adds a control condition to the original study design in order to more comprehensively understand the study results. As with Glozier (1998), we expected that reductions in employability would be most pronounced among those with depression, and that th