Person-first language and stigma: evidence across health condition labels from two experimental studies

Abstract The stigmatization of mental health conditions remains a widespread problem. One proposed intervention involves reforming the language used to describe people with mental health conditions by using terminology that separates the individual from the label (i.e., person-first language) rather than language that defines the individual by the label (i.e., identity-first or identity-only language). Across two studies, we tested whether manipulating the language used to describe an individual alters multiple dimensions of stigma, including attitudinal stigma, trait-based stereotype judgments, and dehumanization, across a broad and intentionally heterogeneous set of labels spanning mental health and related conditions. In Study 1, language framing did not consistently influence attitudinal stigma across labels, with the exception of responses to psychopathy. In Study 2, language framing did not significantly influence perceived stereotype judgments or dehumanization for any label examined. Instead, the specific label used and, to a lesser extent, personal familiarity with mental health conditions showed the most consistent associations with stigma across both studies. These findings suggest that individual labels are embedded in distinct social schemas that shape perceptions independent of language framing, and that social or personal contact may be a more reliable pathway to reducing stigma than terminology reform.