Media & Mental Health: A Complex Relationship Worth Empirical Investigation

We are witnessing a sea change in the way the world views mental health. The subject was once largely confined to psychology journals, therapy sessions, and hush-toned conversations among relatives—formal and private places, rather than out in the open. However, the omnipresence of mass communication in modern life has shifted social conventions through the normalization of open dialogue concerning mental health and an increase in the prevalence of news, entertainment, and social media stories about mental health. Actors, musicians, athletes, and other influential people are using mass communication to openly discuss their own experiences with depression, anxiety, and other conditions. For modern mass communication scholars, two avenues of research are ripe for exploration: How does mass communication affect mental health? And how does mass communication affect the way people think and behave in relation to mental health?

This special issue of Mass Communication & Society was designed to advance scholarship in both areas of inquiry, contributing to academic and public dialogue about the relationship between mass communication and mental health. The timing, in our opinion, could not be better. Humans have access to more tools for mass communication than ever before, and mediated conversations about mental health appear to be increasing in both quantity and quality. The change is particularly interesting given how stagnant public perceptions and media representations have been for 75 years. We can go back to the 1950s, when television was changing the world, and see George Gerbner, the father of cultivation theory, asking Hollywood censors how they handled screenwriters’ proclivity for conflating mental illness and criminality (Gerbner, 1959). Scholarship largely followed a narrow path in subsequent decades as researchers analyzed media content and documented stigmatizing representations of mental illness (e.g., Diefenbach, 1997; Nairn, 2007; Wahl, 1995). Scholars also used surveys and experiments to investigate how exposure to stigmatizing portrayals nurtured problematic outcomes for individuals and society (e.g., Diefenbach & West, 2007; Holman & McKeever, 2017; Myrick & Pavelko, 2017; Wahl & Lefkowits, 1989). Unsurprisingly, stereotypes about mental illness appeared commonplace in mass media and reduced the amount of trust and affinity audiences held for people living with mental illness. Equally unsurprising, mental health largely remained a taboo subject of conversation, despite reminders from public health officials that 1 in 5 adults in the United States live with a mental illness (National Institute of Mental Health, 2023). An information gap emerges when people are hesitant to openly discuss a subject. When the mass media plug the hole with stereotypical nonsense, the implications can nurture stigma, misunderstanding, and unhealthy behavior.

Norms appear to be changing, both in society and the academy. With the negative content and effects well-documented, researchers are seeking to understand how mass communication might actually nurture societal understanding of mental health and what it means to live with mental illness (see Parrott, 2023, for a review). Media content is changing, too, and researchers have begun documenting shifts in the quantity and quality of mass media content concerning mental illness. Rather than focusing on violence and negative stereotypes, journalists, screenwriters, influencers, and other people are producing content that humanizes mental illness, challenges stereotypes, and educates the public about symptoms and treatment. Celebrities, including singers, actors, and athletes, have triggered public attention and conversations through widely broadcast disclosures, which generated scholarship concerning the content and its effects on audience thoughts, attitudes, and behavior (e.g., Hoffner, 2019; Hoffner & Cohen, 2018). Scholars have also examined how newer technology, especially social media, permit additional avenues by which people can seek and share information about mental health (e.g., Naslund et al., 2020). The rise in mass communication scholarship concerning mental health accompanied societal shifts, including life-altering events that helped normalize conversations about mental health: namely, COVID-19.

The pandemic affected the way many people view mental health. People were isolated, fearful of death, worried about loved ones, and uncertain about the future. The atmosphere was prime for depression and anxiety, and the world witnessed an uptick in the prevalence of the conditions during this period (Ettman et al., 2020; Madrigan et al., 2023). People also used media regularly during this period, marathoning television programs, using social media to connect with others, and tapping into audio-video programs for business meetings, classroom lessons, and other substitutes for in-person connection. Among other changes, the experience brought increased attention toward mental health and the potential role of mass communication in affecting people’s emotions, thoughts, and behavior.

In addition to the actual effects of media exposure on mood and thoughts, scholars are increasingly studying the relationships among mass media, stigma, and mental health. Stigma is a significant barrier to mental health because it shrouds the subject in silence, judgment, and fear (e.g., Corrigan, 2004). People might assume they are alone in experiencing depression or anxiety when others do not discuss the subject. People might hesitate to ask for help from loved ones because they do not want to be judged, or they cannot see themselves fitting the stereotypical mold of a person living with mental illness. One could argue that the mass media hold significant sway over public attitudes about mental health, given the silence surrounding stigmatized subjects and the mass media’s track record in perpetuating stereotypes. Therefore, a holistic conversation about mass communication/mental health should account for (a) exposure effects on thoughts and emotions, plus (b) exposure effects on thoughts, attitudes, and emotions concerning the broader subject of mental health.

Given this need, we were purposely broad when we issued the submission call for this special issue; manuscripts should address the relationship between mass communication and mental health, we wrote, whether it was a survey examining the relationship between news consumption and anxiety, an experiment illustrating the potential for celebrity testimonials in destigmatizing depression, or an examination of the persuasive appeal of medical advertisements on the potential for recovery. The significant response illustrated the diversity of research questions waiting to be answered, the number of researchers interested in the subject, and the talented scholars investigating the subject. It was a challenge reducing the manuscripts to a publishable number, and we sincerely thank the authors and reviewers who participated.

It should be noted we followed an abnormal approach to the editorial process for this special issue of Mass Communication & Society. We wanted to avoid the pitfall in which supported hypotheses dictate whether manuscripts see the light of day in our academic field. Therefore, we followed an open approach in which authors first submitted proposals—including research justifications, hypotheses, research questions, and theoretical foundations—for consideration. We solicited the help of volunteer reviewers, who critiqued the proposals, offered substantial feedback, and helped our editorial team identify projects that would help strengthen our understanding of the relationship between mass communication and mental health. Authors addressed any concerns from reviewers and proceeded with data collection and analysis. Within the pages that follow, the authors present the results of their scholarship. The articles contribute to our understanding of the relationship between media and mental health in unique ways.

In the first article, Najma Akhther and Elizabeth Stoycheff focus on the potential role of mental illness narratives in reducing the stigmatization of mental illness among marginalized college students in the United States. As the authors point out, marginalized groups face increased likelihood of experiencing mental illness because, in part, of intersecting risk factors related to society identity. The researchers used a between-subjects experiment to examine how different message formatting, point-of-view, and character similarity shape the anti-stigma persuasion process. The article illustrates key considerations that should be taken into account when attempting to challenge stigma among marginalized communities.

In the second article, Yuanfeixue Nan and colleagues explore the complex and often controversial relationship between social media use and social anxiety. The authors employ meta-analysis to help address a question that has troubled everyone from media effects scholars to lawmakers, public health practitioners to middle school parents.

Finally, Olivia Reed examines how young adults respond to mental health care posts by social media influencers. The study further contributes to our understanding of the potential prosocial effects of mass communication on individual attitudes about mental health.

Together, the manuscripts address key aspects of the relationship between mass communication and mental health, exploring both direct media exposure effects and stigma-related outcomes. As with many media effects, the relationship between mass communication and mental health is complex. Even the concept of mental health is complex and loaded with potential interpretations. Among other factors, the complexity of the problem, its societal significance, and the limited empirical literature all underscore the need for additional scholarship concerning how mass media inform our attitudes, emotions, and behavior related to mental health. We are hopeful the present volume will contribute and nurture additional attention toward the relationship between mass communication and mental health.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Scott Parrott

Scott Parrott is an associate professor in the Department of Journalism and Creative Media at the University of Alabama. He teaches courses in professional journalism, quantitative research methods, and mass communication theory. He is the author of the book “Media & Mental Health: Using Mass Media to Reduce the Stigma of Mental Illness,” and co-author of “Head Game: Mental Health in Sports Media,” with Andrew C. Billings.

Robert McKeever

Robert McKeever is an associate professor in the Department of Advertising and Public Relations at the University of Alabama. He teaches courses in consumer psychology, quantitative research methods, and mass communication theory. His research focuses on the effects of health, advocacy, and pro-social media content.