Stigmatizing attitudes and endorsement of coercive interventions for hoarding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hoarding disorder is a stigmatized condition, but little research has examined the attitudes of professional service providers who encounter hoarding in homes they enter as part of their work. These providers have essential roles in identifying and intervening with hoarding, but the degree to which they hold stigmatizing attitudes has not been studied. Using an online questionnaire, the present study sought to compare hoarding service providers with non-professionals along several dimensions of hoarding stigma: blame, desire for social distance, stereotypes about incompetence, and the endorsement of coercive treatment methods were examined. Overall, members of the professional sample endorsed less blame and desire for social distance from hoarding clients. However, the samples did not differ in beliefs about the incompetence of hoarding clients or endorsement of coercive methods in hoarding interventions. Stigmatizing attitudes about mental illness in general consistently predicted hoarding stigma in both samples. Providers who expressed more professional confidence in working with hoarding endorsed less blaming attitudes and less desire for social distance, but providers who work in more enforcement-oriented roles endorsed desire for more social distance from hoarding clients. This study provides a first glimpse at hoarding-related stigma among professional service providers, and further insight into the general public’s perception of hoarding relative to other mental illnesses. Findings about the predictors of hoarding stigma provide potential directions for anti-stigma interventions. • Hoarding service providers endorse less blame stigma about hoarding • Stigma about other mental illnesses predicts hoarding stigma • Professional confidence predicts less client blame but also a preference for less social contact • Enforcement-based hoarding service providers show more social distance stigma
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".