Educating the Public about Mental Illness and Homelessness: A Cautionary Note
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the viewing of a video depicting the successful struggles of homeless persons with mental illness in finding and maintaining housing can have a positive impact on attitudes toward homeless persons with mental illness. METHOD: Five hundred and seventy-five high school students attending a brief educational session on mental illness participated in 1 of 3 comparison versions of the 2-hour program (control, video, video plus discussion). All completed an "Attitudes toward Homelessness and Mental Illness Questionnaire." Demographic and prior exposure variables were entered as a covariates in between-group analyses of variance. RESULTS: Females and subjects who had more prior encounters with homeless persons were found to have the most positive attitudes. After controlling for these effects, the video alone had a negative impact on attitudes relative to the other groups, while the video followed by a discussion with one of the people featured in it had a largely positive impact. CONCLUSIONS: The apparent immediacy and the evocative power of video presentations cannot substitute for direct contact for the purpose of promoting positive attitude change. The findings are consistent with prior research emphasizing the importance of direct interaction with members of stigmatized groups to reduce negative attitudes. Education programs trying to destigmatize mental illness and homelessness using videos should proceed with caution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".