Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-mhzq2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-01T06:32:05.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours towards schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, and epilepsy in Ireland: a national survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2026

Gerard Loughnane Open the ORCID record for Gerard Loughnane [Opens in a new window] ,
David Mothersill ,
Horacio Gonzalez-Velez ,
Mike Mulbah ,
Ikenna Ebuenyi ,
Benedict Dossen  and
April Hargreaves
Gerard Loughnane*
Affiliation:
Dublin City University, Ireland
David Mothersill
Affiliation:
Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Horacio Gonzalez-Velez
Affiliation:
National College of Ireland, Ireland
Mike Mulbah
Affiliation:
The Carter Center, Monrovia, Liberia
Ikenna Ebuenyi
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh, USA
Benedict Dossen
Affiliation:
The Carter Center, Monrovia, Liberia
April Hargreaves
Affiliation:
Institute of Child Education and Psychology Europe, Maynooth, Ireland
*
Corresponding author: Gerard Loughnane; Email: gerard.loughnane@dcu.ie
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

Stigma towards individuals with mental, neurodevelopmental, and neurological conditions is associated with problems accessing healthcare (e.g. schizophrenia) and gaining employment (e.g. epilepsy). In Ireland, stigma differs towards different conditions, with previous research showing that schizophrenia is viewed more negatively than bipolar disorder or autism. More detailed understanding of stigma in Ireland requires replication of these findings in a larger, population-representative sample.

Methods:

1,232 participants around Ireland completed a survey examining knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours towards schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, and epilepsy as a comparator. Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours towards these groups were compared using cumulative link mixed models.

Results:

Perception of others’ stigma and participants’ own self-reported behaviour were more negative towards schizophrenia compared to any of the other groups. Familiarity with mental health issues was associated with more positive self-reported behaviour towards those with schizophrenia. This improvement in behaviour was mediated by reduced perception of danger of this group. In contrast, greater mental health knowledge had no such impact on behaviour. Bipolar disorder was the second-most negatively perceived condition, followed by autism and epilepsy.

Conclusions:

These findings support our recent pilot study and provide further evidence that stigma differs towards different conditions in Ireland, with Irish people perceiving more negative societal attitudes, and self-reporting more negative behaviour, towards schizophrenia. The finding that familiarity with schizophrenia predicted more positive behaviour and that this was mediated by reduced perception of danger suggests targets for future anti-stigma interventions.

Keywords

Autismbipolar disorderIrelandmental health stigmaschizophrenia

Information

Type
Original Research
Information
Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine , First View , pp. 1 - 9
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of College of Psychiatrists of Ireland

Introduction

Public attitudes towards individuals with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism and epilepsy can vary widely in both nature and severity (Hargreaves et al. Reference Hargreaves, Loughnane, Grasso and Mothersill2024; Mothersill et al. Reference Mothersill, Loughnane, Grasso and Hargreaves2023). Stigma towards serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is well documented, while conditions such as autism and especially epilepsy are typically associated with less public fear or blame. This distinction allows epilepsy to serve as a useful baseline comparator for examining how stigma differs across diagnostic categories. Public stigma is associated with worse mental health outcomes and lower life expectancy (Corrigan Reference Corrigan2004; Gissler et al. Reference Gissler, Laursen, Ösby, Nordentoft and Wahlbeck2013; Link et al. Reference Link, Struening, Neese-Todd, Asmussen and Phelan2001; Nearchou et al. Reference Nearchou, Bird, Costello, Duggan, Gilroy, Long, McHugh and Hennessy2018; World Health Organization 2013).

Anti-stigma interventions, such as education and social contact programs, have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing public stigma towards mental health conditions (Thornicroft et al. Reference Thornicroft, Mehta, Clement, Evans-Lacko, Doherty, Rose, Koschorke, Shidhaye, O’Reilly and Henderson2016). A recent systematic meta-review of 19 meta-analyses by McCullock and Scrivano found that contact-based interventions were moderately effective in reducing stigmatizing attitudes, while education-based interventions also showed effectiveness, albeit with smaller reductions (McCullock and Scrivano Reference McCullock and Scrivano2023). However, most anti-stigma initiatives, such as Ireland’s See Change Green Ribbon campaign, focus on mental health stigma broadly (See Change 2021). Educational interventions aim to improve general mental health knowledge, which may in turn promote more positive attitudes and behaviours towards people with mental health conditions (Griffiths et al. Reference Griffiths, Carron-Arthur, Parsons and Reid2014; Corrigan et al. Reference Corrigan, Morris, Michaels, Rafacz and Rüsch2012). However, evidence on whether increased knowledge alone leads to behaviour change remains mixed (McCullock and Scrivano Reference McCullock and Scrivano2023), highlighting the need to test this relationship directly.

There also remains a need for targeted interventions addressing stigma towards specific groups, as different populations may face distinct forms of prejudice and discrimination. The perception that individuals with schizophrenia are dangerous is a well-documented driver of stigma (Mannarini et al. Reference Mannarini, Taccini, Sato and Rossi2022). This belief is inconsistent with evidence showing that people with schizophrenia are rarely violent and are, in fact, more likely to be victims rather than perpetrators of violence (Silverstein et al. Reference Silverstein, Del Pozzo, Roché, Boyle and Miskimen2020). Greater insight into these factors is essential for designing more nuanced and impactful interventions.

In Ireland, the prevalence of these conditions is notably high compared to other countries. For example, a recent nationally representative survey of 1,110 adults found that 42.5% met the criteria for at least one mental health disorder, and 11.1% reported having attempted suicide (Hyland et al. Reference Hyland, Vallières, Shevlin, Bentall, Butter, Hartman, Karatzias, Martinez, McBride, Murphy and Fox2022). Recent research by Mothersill et al. and Hargreaves et al. examined mental health stigma in a pilot study of 307 adults in Ireland, focusing on schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism (Hargreaves et al. Reference Hargreaves, Loughnane, Grasso and Mothersill2024; Mothersill et al. Reference Mothersill, Loughnane, Grasso and Hargreaves2023). Schizophrenia was included due to prior evidence suggesting it is one of the most heavily stigmatized psychiatric conditions, and stigma towards this group has increased in both Europe and the United States in recent decades (Pescosolido et al. Reference Pescosolido, Halpern-Manners, Luo and Perry2021; Schomerus et al. Reference Schomerus, Schindler, Sander, Baumann and Angermeyer2022). Bipolar disorder was selected for its overlap with schizophrenia in symptoms, familial patterns, genetic risk, outcomes, and treatment response, supporting the continuum theory that positions bipolar disorder closer to normal functioning and schizophrenia at the severe end (Yamada et al. Reference Yamada, Matsumoto, Iijima and Sumiyoshi2020). Autism was included as a comparator due to its genetic and molecular overlap with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder but as a non-psychotic condition, it provides a contrasting perspective (Carroll and Owen Reference Carroll and Owen2009; Gandal et al. Reference Gandal, Haney, Parikshak, Leppa, Ramaswami, Hartl, Schork, Appadurai, Buil and Werge2018). Autism is increasingly understood within the framework of neurodiversity, which views it as a natural variation in brain function (Silberman Reference Silberman2015).

The findings of these studies revealed notable differences in knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported behaviours towards these groups. Schizophrenia elicited more negative attitudes and behaviours compared to bipolar disorder and autism. Familiarity with any of these conditions was associated with more positive attitudes and behaviours and a lower perception of schizophrenia as dangerous. These results align with prior evidence on the effectiveness of social contact interventions in reducing stigma. Importantly, perceived danger is a critical factor driving stigmatizing attitudes, such as the desire to maintain social distance from individuals with schizophrenia (Mannarini et al. Reference Mannarini, Taccini, Sato and Rossi2022). However, a more comprehensive understanding of stigma towards mental, neurodevelopmental, and neurological conditions in Ireland requires larger, more diverse samples that represent various demographic groups, including differences in gender, location, and education.

The purpose of this study is to build on prior research by conducting a large-scale survey of over 1,200 participants in Ireland. This study examines knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours towards schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism to validate previous findings and explore the effects of both mental health familiarity and knowledge on these measures. Additionally, stigma toward epilepsy is included as a comparator. Although epilepsy shares genetic overlap with the other conditions and affects the brain, it is not classified as a psychiatric disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) (Vonberg and Bigdeli Reference Vonberg and Bigdeli2016). Although epilepsy is not typically associated with the same degree of stigma as psychiatric disorders, it has historically been subject to misunderstanding and social distance (Jacoby et al. Reference Jacoby, Snape and Baker2005). Including epilepsy therefore provides a useful neurological baseline for evaluating whether stigma towards mental and neurodevelopmental conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism is indeed distinct and more severe.

Based on prior research, the study tested the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Public perceptions of societal attitudes and self-reported behaviour are more negative towards schizophrenia compared to bipolar disorder, autism, or epilepsy.

Hypothesis 2: Personal familiarity with mental, neurodevelopmental, and neurological conditions predicts more positive self-reported behaviour towards schizophrenia and this relationship is mediated by perception of danger.

Hypothesis 3: Greater knowledge of mental health in general as measured by the Mental Health Knowledge Questionnaire (MHKQ) predicts more positive behaviours towards those with mental health conditions.

It is hoped that testing these hypotheses will provide a more detailed understanding of stigma in the Irish population, informing future anti-stigma interventions to reduce public stigma and improve health outcomes in this country.

Methods

Participants

1,232 participants were recruited across the Republic of Ireland between June and November 2022 by Qualtrics using representative non-probability sampling methods. Given the population of the Republic of Ireland of 5,149,139 in the year the survey was conducted, 2022, and assuming maximum variability in the sample, sample size calculation using Cochran’s sample size formula states that a sample of 1,067 participants is associated with a 95% confidence level and 3% margin of error as a representative sample (Cochran Reference Cochran1963; Central Statistics Office, 2022). Demographic information for participants is presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1.

Demographic breakdown of participants

Measures

Participants completed an online survey delivered over Qualtrics and adapted from research by Durand-Zaleski et al. Mothersill et al. and Hargreaves et al. (Durand-Zaleski et al. Reference Durand-Zaleski, Scott, Rouillon and Leboyer2012; Hargreaves et al. Reference Hargreaves, Loughnane, Grasso and Mothersill2024; Mothersill et al. Reference Mothersill, Loughnane, Grasso and Hargreaves2023). Firstly, participants were asked demographic questions to collect information on age, gender, year of birth, occupation, level of education, income level, living location, country of residency, and country of birth. Next, participants completed validated scales to measure knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour, towards individuals with mental, neurodevelopmental, and neurological conditions. Finally, participants completed individual questions on familiarity, knowledge, perception of danger, and intended behaviour, towards each of the conditions of interest.

The MHKQ consists of 20 items that examine participants’ knowledge about mental health, including questions such as, “Mental health is a component of health” (true) and “Mental disorders are caused by incorrect thinking” (false) (Chen et al. Reference Chen, Wang and Phillips2018; Wang et al. Reference Wang, He, Jiang, Cai, Wang, Zeng, Miao, Qi, Chen and Bian2013; Yin et al. Reference Yin, Wardenaar, Xu, Tian and Schoevers2020). Correct answers are added together to give a total score that ranges from 0 to 20, with higher score associated with higher mental health knowledge. Previous research on a sample of 1,237 participants suggests the MHKQ has high internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.73 reported, and high test–retest reliability (r = 0.68; p < 0.001) (Wang et al. Reference Wang, He, Jiang, Cai, Wang, Zeng, Miao, Qi, Chen and Bian2013). Internal consistency within the current sample was 0.84.

The Level of Contact Report consists of 12 items that examine situations in which a participant was in contact with mental health difficulties, e.g., “Never observed person with mental illness”, “Watched television documentary about mental illness”, etc. (Holmes et al. Reference Holmes, Corrigan, Williams, Canar and Kubiak1999). The rank score of the statement corresponding to the most intimate level of contact is the participant’s score.

The 5-Question Stigma Indicator-community stigma (5-QSI-CS) consists of five questions that examine perceptions of societal stigma towards a particular group and has previously been used to examine leprosy, (Hanoeman et al. Reference Hanoeman, Van Brakel, Arif and Waltz2017). Participants select “Never” (0), “Sometimes” (1), “Often/usually” (2), and “Don’t know” (0). Scores are added together to provide a total score that ranges from 0 to 10, with higher scores associated with higher levels of perceived societal stigma towards that group. Prior research on leprosy indicates that the 5-QSI-CS has a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.52. In our study, participants completed the 5-QSI-CS for each group of interest, with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.76, 0.79, 0.77, and 0.80, for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, and epilepsy, respectively.

To examine knowledge of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism, participants were given a score of 1 for each correct answer to the following questions (“Agree” or “Strongly agree” was deemed the correct answer if the statement was true, “Disagree” or “Strongly disagree” was deemed the correct answer if the statement was false, “Neutral” always received 0).

Schizophrenia/bipolar disorder/autism…:

  • … Is Contagious (false)

  • … Is a condition with which one can live normally, with treatments (true)

  • … Is hereditary (genetic) (true)

  • … First appears in young adults (true - schizophrenia/bipolar disorder, false - autism)

To examine perceived danger associated with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, and epilepsy, participants answered two questions on each of the four conditions, selecting “Strongly agree”, “Agree”, “Disagree”, or “Strongly disagree”.

  • A person with X represents a danger to themselves (suicide, prison, indebtedness…)

  • A person with X often represents a danger to others (murder, rape, violence …)

Answers were reverse-coded so that a higher score meant greater perceived danger.

To examine intended behaviour towards schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, and epilepsy, the following questions were used:

  • Would you work with someone who had X?

  • Would you allow your children to be in the same class as a child with X?

  • Would you accept to live under the same roof as a loved one if s/he had X?

“Yes happily” was rated as 3, “Yes if I had to” was rated as 2, and “Absolutely not” was rated as 1. These scores were added to give a total score associated with more positive intended behaviour towards the group in question, which ranged from three to nine.

Design

The study used a correlational, cross-sectional research design. To test our hypothesis that public perceptions of societal attitudes and self-reported behaviour are more negative towards schizophrenia compared to bipolar disorder, autism, or epilepsy, we examined condition of interest as the predictor variable (i.e., questions referring to schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, or epilepsy), and measures of public perceptions of societal attitudes and self-reported behaviour as criterion variables, in a series of statistical tests (see below). To test our hypothesis that personal familiarity with mental, neurodevelopmental, and neurological conditions predicts more positive self-reported behaviour towards schizophrenia and this relationship is mediated by perception of danger, we examined familiarity with mental, neurodevelopmental, and neurological conditions as the predictor variable, self-reported behaviour as the criterion variable, and perception of danger as the mediating variable, in a mediation analysis.

Procedure

Participants completed the survey online over Qualtrics, and responses were sent to the authors from Qualtrics as a Microsoft Excel. xlsx file, which we converted to an IBM SPSS Statistics. sav file for descriptive statistics and calculating variables of interest. Cumulative Link Mixed Models and mediation tests were performed in R. Full ethical approval for this research was provided by the National College of Ireland Research Ethics Committee on 24/08/2018 (Research Ethics Committee approval number: 2408201801).

Statistical analysis

Participants with missing values for over half of their questions were eliminated from the study, leaving 1,002 participants, 895 of whom had less than 10 missing values for all questions. Knowledge, Community Stigma, Behaviour and Danger to Others scores were calculated as noted in the relevant questionnaire sections above, and averaged for each score. The Level of Contact Report was used to calculate Familiarity, with levels 1 to 6 coded as No Experience, levels 9 to 11 as Family Member, and level 12 as Oneself. Levels 7 and 8, relating to working with people with mental health conditions, were excluded for low numbers and due to the fact they did not easily integrate thematically into any of the other coded groups. Finally, MHKQ scores were split into quartiles, with lower quartiles indicating less knowledge.

We then analysed effects of independent variables (IVs) Disorder and either Familiarity or MHKQ plus interactions on the four main dependent variable (DVs) measures Knowledge, Community Stigma, Behaviour and Danger to Others, each done separately. This was done using cumulative link mixed models using the ‘Ordinal’ package in R. Random intercepts were specified for Participants. Specifically, the models specified were of the form: DV ∼ IV1*IV2 + (1 | Participant). For example, the formula for the effect of Disorder and Familiarity on Knowledge was: Knowledge ∼ Familiarity*Disorder + (1 | Participant). Effects were tested by performing an ANOVA for the full model against that model minus the relevant effect being tested. If an interaction proved significant, post-hoc tests were performed across different levels of Disorder and considered significant if they passed a Bonferroni-corrected alpha threshold = 0.05*number of tests performed.

Finally, a mediation analysis was performed to focus in on the relationship between perceived Danger to Others and negative Behaviour towards those with Schizophrenia. The mediation model was specified as the effect of Disorder (specifically the contrast of EP (baseline) vs SZ) on Behaviour, as mediated by Danger to Others. This was done with linear mixed effects models using the ‘lmer’ package in R, in combination with the ‘mediation’ package.

Results

Knowledge, community stigma (Attitude), and stigma behaviour across condition

Knowledge scores differed slightly but significantly when referring to ASD, BD and SZ (χ2(df = 6) = 20.52, p = 0.002), specifically being greater for BD compared to both ASD (χ2(df = 3) = 16.22, p = 0.001), see Figure 1. Community Stigma scores differed more strongly, with strongest community stigma for SZ, followed by BD, ASD, then EP in that order (χ2(df = 9) = 473.16, p < 0.001, all pairwise comparisons p < 0.001). Finally, Behaviour scores differed strongly between condition (χ2(df = 9) = 653.67, p < 0.001, all pairwise comparisons p < 0.001), with SZ then BD having worst Behaviour scores compared to EP and ASD.

Figure 1.

(A) Knowledge scores about each disorder, ASD, BD and SZ. (B) Community stigma scores across disorder. Higher scores indicate more community stigma towards the cohort with that disorder. (C) Behaviour scores with respect to each disorder. Higher scores indicate better behaviour towards the cohort with that disorder.

Impact of familiarity with mental, neurodevelopmental, and neurological conditions on knowledge, community stigma (Attitude), and stigma behaviour across condition

Knowledge scores differed slightly according to familiarity, with lower familiarity scores indicating less knowledge (χ2(df = 6) = 14.09, p = 0.02), but no interaction between this effect and condition, see Figure 2. Community Stigma was lowest for those with least familiarity with MH issues (χ2(df = 8) = 27.61, p < 0.001), while an interaction between Condition and Familiarity (χ2(df = 6) = 19.12, p = 0.004) indicated this effect was strongest for ASD and BD (p < 0.001 and p = 0.026 respectively). Behaviour was impacted strongly by Familiarity across all conditions (χ2(df = 8) = 82.62, p < 0.001), with an Interaction between Familiarity and Condition showing a stronger effect of Familiarity for SZ, followed by BD, ASD then EP respectively (all p < 0.001).

Figure 2.

(A) Knowledge scores about each disorder, ASD, BD and SZ, split into three familiarity groups, no experience of mental health issues, family member with any mental health disorder, and oneself having a mental health disorder. (B) Community stigma scores across disorder and familiarity group. Higher scores indicate more community stigma towards the cohort with that disorder. (C) Behaviour scores with respect to each disorder and familiarity group. Higher scores indicate better behaviour towards the cohort with that disorder.

Impact of mental health knowledge (MHKQ) on knowledge, community stigma (Attitude), and stigma behaviour across condition

As a means of cross validating our Knowledge scores from our original questionnaire (specific to each Condition) versus the MHKQ (relating to knowledge of mental health in general), we looked at the relationship between each measure. Knowledge scores differed strongly according to MHKQ scores (χ2(df = 9) = 140.33, (p < 0.001, no interaction), with lower scores on MHKQ predicting lower Knowledge scores, see Figure 3. There was an interesting relationship between MHKQ and Community Stigma (interaction effect:) χ2(df = 9) = 144.37, p < 0.001), whereby lower MHKQ scores predicted greater Community Stigma with respect to EP (χ2(df = 3) = 34.76, p < 0.001), but lower MHKQ scores predicted lower Community Stigma for SZ (χ2(df = 3) = 43.57, p < 0.001), with no relationship between MHKQ and Community Stigma for ASD or BD. Finally, there was a strong relationship between MHKQ and Behaviour for EP, ASD and BD with lower MHKQ scores predicting worse Behaviour, but interestingly no such effect for SZ (interaction effect: χ2(df = 9) = 161.67, p < 0.001; all comparisons within Condition p < 0.001 except for SZ, p = 0.07).

Figure 3.

(A) Knowledge scores about each disorder, ASD, BD and SZ, split into four mental health knowledge questionnaire (MHKQ) groups, where a lower position group indicates lower MHKQ score. (B) Community stigma scores across disorder and MHKQ group. Higher scores indicate more community stigma towards the cohort with that disorder. (C) Behaviour scores with respect to each disorder and MHKQ group. Higher scores indicate better behaviour towards the cohort with that disorder.

Relationship between familiarity and mental health knowledge (MHKQ) on perception of danger to others across condition

Overall, there was a pattern whereby there was a greater perception of Danger to Others (i.e. lower scores on the Danger to Others scale) for SZ, followed by BD, then ASD and EP (χ2(df = 9) = 725.07, p < 0.001, all pairwise comparisons p < 0.001), see Figure 4. Greater Familiarity only seemed to mitigate the sense of Danger to Others with respect to SZ (χ2(df = 2) = 16.48, p < 0.001) and not for any of the other Conditions (interaction effect: (χ2(df = 6) = 26.67, p < 0.001). The opposite effect was found when looking at the relationship between MHKQ and Danger to Others, where greater MHKQ scores predicted less perception of Danger to Others for all Conditions except SZ (interaction effect:) (χ2)(df = 9) = 76.71, p < 0.001, all p < 0.001 except SZ, (p = 0.22).

Figure 4.

(A) Danger to others score relating to a given disorder, split by familiarity group. Higher danger to others score indicates greater perceived danger for that given disorder. (B) Danger to others score relating to a given disorder, split by MHKQ group. (C) Mediation analysis of disorder (EP vs SZ) relationship with behaviour, as mediated by sense of perceived danger to others.

Worse behaviour towards SZ is partially mediated by perception of greater danger to others in SZ

Given the above results, we hypothesized that the degree to which our participants may display worse Behaviour towards those with SZ (as compared to a baseline Condition of EP) could be mediated by their Perception of SZ Danger to Others. To test this, we ran a mediation analysis with contrast of SZ vs EP Conditions as the independent variable, Danger to Others score as mediator, and Behaviour as outcome. We found a significant and sizeable mediation, where the proportion of the total effect of Condition on Behaviour which was mediated was estimated at 32.1%, with a 95% confidence interval [27.7, 37%], p < 0.001) (Figure 4).

Discussion

This study aimed to investigate knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours towards schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, and epilepsy in Ireland, utilizing a large sample of adults. The primary objective was to compare community stigma, knowledge, and intended behaviours across these groups. Consistent with our pilot study, findings revealed significant disparities in community stigma and behaviours, with higher stigma and less favourable intended behaviours towards individuals with bipolar disorder and in particular schizophrenia compared to epilepsy and autism.

A secondary objective examined whether familiarity with these conditions predicted lower stigma and more positive behaviours. Increased familiarity was associated with more positive behaviours across all conditions, with the strongest effects observed for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. Interestingly, familiarity also correlated with perception of greater stigma among the community towards a particular group. So instead of this questionnaire measuring internal stigma projected onto society/community, it instead potentially reflects greater empathy and awareness of stigma among those more familiar with these conditions.

The third objective explored the influence of mental health knowledge on stigma and behaviour. Higher scores on the MHKQ predicted more positive behaviours for all conditions except schizophrenia, which appeared less responsive to increased knowledge.

Finally, the study examined perceptions of danger associated with each condition. Bipolar disorder and schizophrenia were linked to higher perceived danger. For schizophrenia, perceived danger was mitigated by familiarity but not by mental health knowledge, contrasting with other conditions that showed the opposite pattern. A mediation analysis further demonstrated that perceived danger contributed to worse intended behaviours towards individuals with schizophrenia. These findings highlight critical implications for anti-stigma policies and interventions in Ireland and comparable Western societies.

Stigma towards individuals living with schizophrenia in Ireland

The results indicate that adults in Ireland hold more negative attitudes and engage in less favourable behaviours towards individuals living with schizophrenia compared to those with other conditions. These findings corroborate our earlier pilot study (N = 307) and align with international research showing elevated stigma towards schizophrenia in Western countries (Durand-Zaleski et al. Reference Durand-Zaleski, Scott, Rouillon and Leboyer2012; Mothersill et al. Reference Mothersill, Loughnane, Grasso and Hargreaves2023; Pescosolido et al. Reference Pescosolido, Halpern-Manners, Luo and Perry2021; Schomerus et al. Reference Schomerus, Schindler, Sander, Baumann and Angermeyer2022; Wood et al. Reference Wood, Birtel, Alsawy, Pyle and Morrison2014). These findings have important implications for mental-health policy and service design in Ireland. The consistency of elevated stigma towards schizophrenia suggests that generic anti-stigma campaigns may not sufficiently address public fears and misconceptions specific to this condition. Targeted efforts may be needed, such as campaigns that humanize lived experience and directly challenge myths relating to unpredictability and dangerousness.

In France, Durand-Zaleski et al., observed similar trends, finding greater stigma towards schizophrenia compared to bipolar disorder and autism among 1,000 participants (Durand-Zaleski et al. Reference Durand-Zaleski, Scott, Rouillon and Leboyer2012). In the United States, Pescosolido et al. reported a decline in acceptance of schizophrenia between 1996 and 2018, in contrast to improved acceptance of depression (Pescosolido et al. Reference Pescosolido, Halpern-Manners, Luo and Perry2021). Schomerus et al. documented similar patterns in Germany, with attitudes towards depression improving over time while stigma towards schizophrenia worsened (Schomerus et al. Reference Schomerus, Schindler, Sander, Baumann and Angermeyer2022). Likewise, in the UK, schizophrenia was rated more negatively than depression or anxiety in a survey of 1,070 participants (Wood et al. Reference Wood, Birtel, Alsawy, Pyle and Morrison2014). Together, these studies reinforce the persistently high stigma surrounding schizophrenia across Western contexts.

Familiarity, knowledge and perception of danger

Familiarity with mental health issues, whether through personal diagnosis or a close relationship with someone diagnosed, predicted more positive attitudes and behaviours towards all conditions. This finding aligns with previous research suggesting that social contact interventions effectively reduce stigma (Corrigan and Nieweglowski Reference Corrigan and Nieweglowski2019; Hargreaves et al. Reference Hargreaves, Loughnane, Grasso and Mothersill2024; McCullock and Scrivano Reference McCullock and Scrivano2023). A slightly different pattern was found however with respect to mental health knowledge and behaviours, where greater knowledge predicted more positive behaviours towards all conditions except for schizophrenia, which appeared not to gain any benefit from greater knowledge. It is important to note here that knowledge as we have measured it refers to cumulative knowledge from life experience. One possible implication of these findings is that social contact interventions designed to increase familiarity might be more effective at reducing prejudice and discrimination towards schizophrenia compared to interventions without social contact (albeit these interventions might be effective for other groups). To examine this in more detail, more research is needed, and particularly research evaluating new social contact and educational interventions themselves.

Focusing on schizophrenia, we found that worse stigmatizing behaviours towards those with schizophrenia was mediated by a higher perception of danger. Schizophrenia is often perceived as more dangerous than conditions like depression or anxiety (Mannarini et al. Reference Mannarini, Taccini, Sato and Rossi2022; Wood et al. Reference Wood, Birtel, Alsawy, Pyle and Morrison2014). Perceived danger has been shown to predict stigmatizing attitudes, such as a desire to maintain social distance (Mannarini et al. Reference Mannarini, Taccini, Sato and Rossi2022). In the U.S., increased perceptions of danger have been accompanied by declining acceptance of schizophrenia over recent decades (Pescosolido et al. Reference Pescosolido, Halpern-Manners, Luo and Perry2021).

This perception may be influenced by biological explanations and media portrayals. For instance, Kvaale et al., found that biogenetic explanations for psychological conditions can increase perceptions of danger (Kvaale et al. Reference Kvaale, Haslam and Gottdiener2013). Western media frequently associates schizophrenia with violence, reinforcing public fears (Gwarjanski and Parrott Reference Gwarjanski and Parrott2018; Maletta and Vass Reference Maletta and Vass2023; Ross et al. Reference Ross, Morgan, Jorm and Reavley2019). While the role of Irish media remains unclear, there is an opportunity to challenge stigmatizing narratives. For example, 54.8% of respondents in our pilot study felt uninformed about mental illness by the media (Mothersill et al. Reference Mothersill, Loughnane, Grasso and Hargreaves2023). Furthermore, an analysis of 656 online news articles showed that while most avoided reinforcing stigma, few actively challenged it, such as by incorporating first-person perspectives (Godfrey et al. Reference Godfrey, Gavin, Haskins, O’Meara, O’Connor and Donohoe2024).

Autism and epilepsy, in contrast, were associated with substantially lower levels of community stigma and more favourable behavioural intentions. Individuals with autism were perceived as less dangerous than those with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, and mental health knowledge was associated with more positive behaviours towards this group – a pattern not observed for schizophrenia. This may partly reflect the growing influence of the neurodiversity framework, which positions autism as a natural variation in brain function rather than a disorder requiring correction (Silberman Reference Silberman2015). Epilepsy, included as a neurological comparator, attracted the lowest stigma of all four conditions. While epilepsy has historically been subject to misunderstanding and social exclusion (Jacoby et al. Reference Jacoby, Snape and Baker2005), our findings suggest that public attitudes have shifted considerably, consistent with its classification outside the realm of psychiatric disorders.

Strengths and limitations

This study’s key strength lies in its use of a large sample to examine stigma across four groups, providing robust comparisons and statistical power to detect various effect sizes. Additionally, this is the first large-scale investigation of stigma towards schizophrenia and other conditions in Ireland.

However, some limitations should be noted. First, while the overall sample size was large (N = 1,232), the subgroup analysis comparing the four groups was based on a slightly smaller sample (N = 847). Future research should confirm these findings in nationally representative samples. Second, as a correlational study, causal relationships between familiarity, stigma, and perceived danger cannot be established. Although prior studies suggest that social contact interventions reduce stigma, further research is needed to assess interventions targeting beliefs about danger specifically (McCullock and Scrivano Reference McCullock and Scrivano2023). For example, Amsalem et al. showed that brief video-based interventions could reduce stigma towards schizophrenia, but additional studies are required to explore their impact on perceptions of danger (Amsalem et al. Reference Amsalem, Yang, Jankowski, Lieff, Markowitz and Dixon2021).

Finally, the findings are specific to Ireland, and stigma is influenced by social and cultural factors. For instance, preliminary findings from a study in Liberia (N = 1,148) using the same survey indicate relatively higher acceptance of schizophrenia compared to other conditions. Direct comparisons between countries could provide valuable insights into the factors shaping stigma in different cultural contexts (Dossen et al. Reference Dossen, Mulbah, Hargreaves, Kumar, Mothersill, Loughnane, Byrd, Nyakoon, Quoi and Ebuenyi2024).

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study explored knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours towards schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism, and epilepsy in Ireland, using a large sample of 1,232 adults. The findings highlight more negative attitudes and behaviours towards schizophrenia, with familiarity associated with more positive outcomes but not greater mental health knowledge. Furthermore, worse behaviours towards schizophrenia were mediated by a higher sense of perceived danger. These results suggest that future national stigma-reduction strategies should consider condition-specific messaging, particularly for schizophrenia, rather than broad, undifferentiated mental-health campaigns. Evidence from other countries supports approaches using structured social-contact elements, recovery stories, and myth-busting educational components tailored to schizophrenia-related stereotypes. These results also emphasize the importance of targeted anti-stigma interventions with a focus on challenging perceptions of danger, increasing familiarity, and enhancing public understanding.

Data availability statement

Data reported in this paper are available upon request through Smardy: Marketplace for Technology Transfer of Research Data, Software, and Results (https://smardy-project.eu/).

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge all individuals who participated in this survey.

Funding statement

This research is generously funded by ESTHER Ireland (REF NUMBER_72939).

Competing interests

None.

Ethical standards

The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committee on human experimentation with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. The study protocol was approved by the ethics committee of each participating institution: HREC approval number 2408201801.

References

Amsalem, D, Yang, LH, Jankowski, S, Lieff, SA, Markowitz, JC and Dixon, LB (2021). Reducing stigma toward individuals with schizophrenia using a brief video: A randomized controlled trial of young adults. Schizophrenia Bulletin 47, 7–14.10.1093/schbul/sbaa114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, LS and Owen, MJ (2009). Genetic overlap between autism, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Genome Medicine 1, 102. https://doi.org/10.1186/gm102 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Central Statistics Office (2022). Census of Population 2022 – Summary Results. Available at https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cpsr/censusofpopulation2022-summaryresults/ Google Scholar
Chen, H, Wang, Z and Phillips, MR (2018). Assessing knowledge and attitudes about mental illness in Ningxia, China. Transcultural Psychiatry 55, 94–119.10.1177/1363461517748847CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cochran, WG (1963). Sampling Techniques. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Corrigan, P (2004) How stigma interferes with mental health care. American Psychologist 59, 614–625.10.1037/0003-066X.59.7.614CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corrigan, PW, Morris, SB, Michaels, PJ, Rafacz, JD and Rüsch, N (2012). Challenging the public stigma of mental illness: A meta-analysis of outcome studies. Psychiatric Services 63, 963–973.10.1176/appi.ps.201100529CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corrigan, PW and Nieweglowski, K (2019). How does familiarity impact the stigma of mental illness? Clinical Psychology Review 70, 40–50.10.1016/j.cpr.2019.02.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dossen, SB, Mulbah, JM, Hargreaves, A, Kumar, S, Mothersill, D, Loughnane, G, Byrd, E, Nyakoon, AT, Quoi, JS and Ebuenyi, ID (2024). Assessing stigma toward mental, neurological, and substance use disorders in Liberia: A population representative study. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 111, 93.10.4269/ajtmh.24-0203CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durand-Zaleski, I, Scott, J, Rouillon, F and Leboyer, M (2012). A first national survey of knowledge, attitudes and behaviours towards schizophrenia, bipolar disorders and autism in France. BMC Psychiatry 12, 1–8.10.1186/1471-244X-12-128CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gandal, MJ, Haney, JR, Parikshak, NN, Leppa, V, Ramaswami, G, Hartl, C, Schork, AJ, Appadurai, V, Buil, A and Werge, TM (2018). Shared molecular neuropathology across major psychiatric disorders parallels polygenic overlap. Science 359, 693–697.10.1126/science.aad6469CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gissler, M, Laursen, TM, Ösby, U, Nordentoft, M and Wahlbeck, K (2013). Patterns in mortality among people with severe mental disorders across birth cohorts: A register-based study of Denmark and Finland in 1982–2006. BMC Public Health 13, 1–11.10.1186/1471-2458-13-834CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godfrey, E, Gavin, C, Haskins, E, O’Meara, Á., O’Connor, K and Donohoe, G (2024). An evaluation of journalistic reporting on schizophrenia in the Irish news media. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine 41, 291–295.10.1017/ipm.2023.16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, KM, Carron-Arthur, B, Parsons, A and Reid, R (2014). Effectiveness of programs for reducing the stigma associated with mental disorders: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World Psychiatry 13, 161–175.10.1002/wps.20129CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gwarjanski, AR and Parrott, S (2018). Schizophrenia in the news: The role of news frames in shaping online reader dialogue about mental illness. Health Communication 33, 954–961.10.1080/10410236.2017.1323320CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanoeman, S, Van Brakel, W, Arif, M and Waltz, M (2017). Validation of the 5-Question Stigma Indicator as Part of the Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTD) Toolkit to Assess and Monitor NTD-Related Morbidity and Disability in Uttar Pradesh. India, Amsterdam, Netherlands: VU University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Hargreaves, A, Loughnane, G, Grasso, G and Mothersill, D (2024). The relationship between familiarity and stigma associated with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism in Ireland: A pilot study. Irish Journal of Applied Social Studies 24, 2.Google Scholar
Holmes, EP, Corrigan, PW, Williams, P, Canar, J and Kubiak, MA (1999). Changing attitudes about schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin 25, 447–456.10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033392CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyland, P, Vallières, F, Shevlin, M, Bentall, RP, Butter, S, Hartman, TK, Karatzias, T, Martinez, AP, McBride, O, Murphy, J and Fox, R (2022). State of Ireland’s mental health: Findings from a nationally representative survey. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences 31, e47.10.1017/S2045796022000312CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacoby, A, Snape, D and Baker, GA (2005). Epilepsy and social identity: The stigma of a chronic neurological disorder. The Lancet Neurology 4, 171–178.10.1016/S1474-4422(05)70020-XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kvaale, EP, Haslam, N and Gottdiener, WH (2013). The ‘side effects’ of medicalization: A meta-analytic review of how biogenetic explanations affect stigma. Clinical Psychology Review 33, 782–794.10.1016/j.cpr.2013.06.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Link, BG, Struening, EL, Neese-Todd, S, Asmussen, S and Phelan, JC (2001). Stigma as a barrier to recovery: The consequences of stigma for the self-esteem of people with mental illnesses. Psychiatric Services 52, 1621–1626.10.1176/appi.ps.52.12.1621CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maletta, RM and Vass, V (2023). A 20-year review comparing the use of ‘schizophrenia’ and ‘psychosis’ in UK newspapers from 2000 to 2019: Implications for stigma reduction. Schizophrenia Research 251, 66–73.10.1016/j.schres.2022.12.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mannarini, S, Taccini, F, Sato, I and Rossi, AA (2022). Understanding stigma toward schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research 318, 114970.10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114970CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCullock, SP and Scrivano, RM (2023). The effectiveness of mental illness stigma-reduction interventions: A systematic meta-review of meta-analyses. Clinical Psychology Review 100, 102242.10.1016/j.cpr.2022.102242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mothersill, D, Loughnane, G, Grasso, G and Hargreaves, A (2023). Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours towards schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism: A pilot study. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine 40, 634–640.10.1017/ipm.2021.81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nearchou, FA, Bird, N, Costello, A, Duggan, S, Gilroy, J, Long, R, McHugh, L and Hennessy, E (2018). Personal and perceived public mental-health stigma as predictors of help-seeking intentions in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence 66, 83–90.10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.05.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pescosolido, BA, Halpern-Manners, A, Luo, L and Perry, B (2021). Trends in public stigma of mental illness in the US, 1996–2018. JAMA Network Open 4, e2140202.10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.40202CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ross, AM, Morgan, AJ, Jorm, AF and Reavley, NJ (2019). A systematic review of the impact of media reports of severe mental illness on stigma and discrimination, and interventions that aim to mitigate any adverse impact. Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology 54, 11–31.10.1007/s00127-018-1608-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schomerus, G, Schindler, S, Sander, C, Baumann, E and Angermeyer, MC (2022). Changes in mental illness stigma over 30 years – Improvement, persistence, or deterioration? European Psychiatry 65, e78.10.1192/j.eurpsy.2022.2337CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See Change (2021) Green Ribbon Campaign Impact Report 2021. Maynooth, Co. Kildare: See Change/Shine.Google Scholar
Silberman, S (2015). NeuroTribes: The Legacy of Autism and the Future of Neurodiversity. New York: Avery Publishing.Google Scholar
Silverstein, SM, Del Pozzo, J, Roché, M, Boyle, D and Miskimen, T (2020). Schizophrenia and violence: Realities and recommendations. In Reviewing Crime, 181–202. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780429346927-12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornicroft, G, Mehta, N, Clement, S, Evans-Lacko, S, Doherty, M, Rose, D, Koschorke, M, Shidhaye, R, O’Reilly, C and Henderson, C (2016). Evidence for effective interventions to reduce mental-health-related stigma and discrimination. Lancet 387, 1123–1132.10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00298-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vonberg, FW and Bigdeli, TB (2016). Genetic correlation between schizophrenia and epilepsy. JAMA Neurology 73, 125–126.10.1001/jamaneurol.2015.3480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, J, He, Y, Jiang, Q, Cai, J, Wang, W, Zeng, Q, Miao, J, Qi, X, Chen, J and Bian, Q (2013). Mental health literacy among residents in Shanghai. Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry 25, 224.Google ScholarPubMed
Wood, L, Birtel, M, Alsawy, S, Pyle, M and Morrison, A (2014). Public perceptions of stigma towards people with schizophrenia, depression, and anxiety. Psychiatry Research 220, 604–608.10.1016/j.psychres.2014.07.012CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization. (2013). Mental Health Action Plan 2013–2020. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241506021 Google Scholar
Yamada, Y, Matsumoto, M, Iijima, K and Sumiyoshi, T (2020). Specificity and continuity of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: Relation to biomarkers. Current Pharmaceutical Design 26, 191–200.10.2174/1381612825666191216153508CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yin, H, Wardenaar, KJ, Xu, G, Tian, H and Schoevers, RA (2020). Mental health stigma and mental health knowledge in Chinese population: A cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry 20, 1–10.10.1186/s12888-020-02705-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Demographic breakdown of participants

Figure 1

Figure 1. (A) Knowledge scores about each disorder, ASD, BD and SZ. (B) Community stigma scores across disorder. Higher scores indicate more community stigma towards the cohort with that disorder. (C) Behaviour scores with respect to each disorder. Higher scores indicate better behaviour towards the cohort with that disorder.

Figure 2

Figure 2. (A) Knowledge scores about each disorder, ASD, BD and SZ, split into three familiarity groups, no experience of mental health issues, family member with any mental health disorder, and oneself having a mental health disorder. (B) Community stigma scores across disorder and familiarity group. Higher scores indicate more community stigma towards the cohort with that disorder. (C) Behaviour scores with respect to each disorder and familiarity group. Higher scores indicate better behaviour towards the cohort with that disorder.

Figure 3

Figure 3. (A) Knowledge scores about each disorder, ASD, BD and SZ, split into four mental health knowledge questionnaire (MHKQ) groups, where a lower position group indicates lower MHKQ score. (B) Community stigma scores across disorder and MHKQ group. Higher scores indicate more community stigma towards the cohort with that disorder. (C) Behaviour scores with respect to each disorder and MHKQ group. Higher scores indicate better behaviour towards the cohort with that disorder.

Figure 4

Figure 4. (A) Danger to others score relating to a given disorder, split by familiarity group. Higher danger to others score indicates greater perceived danger for that given disorder. (B) Danger to others score relating to a given disorder, split by MHKQ group. (C) Mediation analysis of disorder (EP vs SZ) relationship with behaviour, as mediated by sense of perceived danger to others.