How Emotions in Hearing Testimonies Shape Mental Health Policy-Making: An Application of the Social Construction Theory of Emotion to the Legislative Process

Mental health laws (MHLs) in America are designed to ensure the community integration of people with mental health disorders, the ethical construction of mental health care treatments, provision of high-quality care, and easy access to care at the community level.As the number of individuals diagnosed with mental health disorders in the United States continues to increase, the need to pass effective and sustainable mental health legislation becomes increasingly urgent.Efforts to pass such legislation rely heavily not only on political assemblies, but also on the emotions expressed within the statements made during the law-making process.This study uses a content analysis approach and the social construction theory of emotion to better understand how different emotional appeals used in state and federal testimonies are perceived and understood.The results of the content analysis primarily indicate that: (1) lawmakers cannot accurately detect and empathize with emotions in panelists' statements, (2) witnesses with mental illness providing testimonies at legislative hearings receive less engagement from lawmakers than their co-panelists, and (3) emotional appeals from family members were used to push psychiatric solutions for mental health while emotional appeals from consumers were used to push for policies that looked past medical solutions (e.g.housing and jobs).