Prosumers’ experiences of witnessed discrimination and internalized stigma: A moderated mediation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discrimination toward individuals with lived experiences of mental illness is widespread within the field of clinical psychology. Further, there is some presence of clinical psychologists who are both consumers and providers of mental health services, termed prosumers. However, no research has evaluated how witnessing discrimination as part of professional activities may influence prosumers' experiences with internalized stigma, anticipated stigma, and stigma resistance. This exploratory study aimed to establish associations and interactions between having witnessed discrimination toward others with lived experiences of mental illness and internalized stigma, anticipated stigma, and stigma resistance from the perspective of prosumers within the clinical psychology field. A cross-sectional quantitative approach was employed to understand these dynamics by utilizing descriptive, correlational, and multivariate regressions analysis. A total 175 prosumers (39 graduated doctoral-level clinical psychologists and 136 in training) completed survey measures pertaining to witnessed discrimination, internalized and anticipated stigma, and stigma resistance. Prosumers reported witnessing frequent subtle and overt discrimination by their colleagues, supervisors, and faculty members. Overt discrimination was reported as witnessed more frequently compared with subtle discrimination experiences or microaggressions. Our findings have implications for the prevalence of witnessed discrimination and how these may create cumulative experiences of stigma and stigma resistance among prosumers in clinical psychology. Further research should explore additional understanding of how clinical psychologists, including prosumers, may hold stigmatizing attitudes and perpetuate discrimination toward individuals with lived experiences of mental illness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".