Striking the golden section in stigma research

---

Such findings muted enthusiasm for Scheff’s theory, but also fitted with the shifting political winds. By the late 1970sand throughout the 1980s, the medical model of psychiatric diagnosis was reasserting itself. Interest in labelling diminished, and research studies on its impact became rare. The consensus was that folks like Scheff, Goffman, Szasz, and Laing had overstated the impact of labels. Diagnostic systems seemed better and more reliable, distinctions between deviance and disorder blurred, and –rather than not assigning labels in the first place – mental health professionals stressed educating people about their labels as the best way to reduce stigma. The authors of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders even chimed in, arguing that labelling people ‘with’ schizophrenia is less stigmatising than labelling them ‘schizophrenics’ because it distinguishes between people and the disorders with which they are diagnosed. Regardless, it seemed clear that the concerns of the antipsychiatrist shad been overstated. People got labelled because they engaged in deviancy, not vice versa.
But the story does not end there because just as it seemed silly to assume labelling alone leads to deviance, it also seemed ridiculous to insist that labels play no role in stigma. In recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in labelling research, led by social work researcher Bruce Link. Link’s research challenges the idea that labels are irrelevant (Link et al.,1989). Yes, behaviour is central, but it is not the whole story. Labels also matter. For example, Link and his colleagues have conducted many studies showing that people diagnosed with mental illnesses a reevaluated quite negatively by others – and not just by others unfamiliar with the mental health field. They have found that laypersons, the media and even mental health professionals respond negatively to those diagnosed with mental disorders (Alexander & Link, 2003; Link & Phelan,2006; Servais & Saunders, 2007; Stuart,2006). Combined with other studies suggesting that those diagnosed as mentally ill experience lower self-esteem(Corrigan & O’Shaughnessy, 2007; Kahng& Mowbray, 2005), Link’s work makes clear that both behaviour and labels are important in producing stigma.
Link and colleagues’ research sheds light on how the amount and kind of exposure to stigmatised people impacts responses to them. Interestingly, even without having ever encountered stigmatised people, others evaluate them negatively – as if people have a default way to organise information about others in the absence of direct exposure to them. It is here that the golden section hypothesis might prove useful in understanding how people organise their perceptions of stigmatised, as well as non-stigmatised, others.

Stigma and the golden section

Fascination with the golden section, or golden mean, can be traced all the way back to the Pythagoreans. What is the golden section? Most simply, it is a mathematical ratio – represented by the equation X/Y = Y/(X + Y) – that, for reasons unknown, people find most aesthetically pleasing. Evidence of the golden mean’s aesthetic desirability abound. Scholars have long debated its influence, with many arguing (some times controversially) that art, architecture and people consistently judged most beautiful incorporate dimensions consistent with the golden mean (Huntley, 1970; Livio,2002).
Intrigued by the golden section’s prevalence, psychologists like Jack Adams-Webber and John Benjafield began studying in the 1970s whether people use it to organise their perceptions of others. In psychological research, the golden section is the assignment of evaluations to phenomena in a manner consistent with the X/Y = Y/(X + Y) equation, which mathematically results in a ratio of 38.2per cent negative ratings to 61.8 per cent positive. ‘Positive’ and ‘negative’ should not be confused with ‘good’ and ‘bad’. Instead, they correspond to the ancient Chinese notions of Yin and Yang (Adams-Webber, 1977).In language, positive adjectives usually developed first. They also occur more often and are easier for children to master. The idea is that human cognition is organised in a ‘tension of opposites’ (Benjafield & Adams-Webber,1976), with one pole developing first and generally being seen as ‘positive’ – that is, rated more positively than negatively along dimensions of evaluation, potency and activity (Osgood, 1979).Knowing which terms are positive and negative tends to be intuitive, though people generally agree about it(Osgood, 1979). For example, the word ‘champion’ has positive connotations along all three dimensions, while the word ‘beggar’ has negative connotations across all three dimensions; other terms may only have positive or neutral connotations across one or two of the dimensions, but as long as the overall ratio remains positive, the term is experienced positively(Osgood, 1979).