The concept of “person-first language” in relation to mental health literally puts the person first and the condition second. In other words, you say “people with mental illness” instead of “mentally ill”.
Since the 1990s, first-person language has been promoted by many advocacy groups and organizations. The argument goes that a person’s language is more respected and shows more dignity to a person. In addition, it focuses on the person and does not equate the person with his illness.
Given my long-standing interest in this topic, I found it very interesting to read about the groundbreaking research, which is the first to scientifically test the effects of using impersonal and impersonal language.
The research was simple but clever. Three groups of participants were used: 1) undergraduate college students; 2) residents of adult society; and 3) professional development consultants and advisors. Each of these three groups is divided into two. Half of each group completed a survey on attitudes toward “people with mental illness.” The other half of each group completed the same questionnaire, only using the phrase “mentally ill” instead.
The results were very interesting. College students and counselors with the “mentally ill” survey language had significantly higher scores on the subscale of the items it contained. authoritarianism. They said that people with mental illness need more control and discipline, that they should be hospitalized or locked up, that we need to protect the public from them, and that they were more in favor of things that reflected the feeling of being outcasts.
College students and counselors with “mentally ill” language in the survey also had significantly higher scores on subscales of the measurement items. social limitation. These things include isolating people with mental illness from society, keeping them out of the neighborhood, removing them from public office, and denying them their personal rights.
Adult community residents showed mixed results when given the “mentally ill” version of the survey. They scored significantly lower on the subscale of reflective items goodwill. In other words, they agreed more with items such as not spending more tax money on mental health services, not providing the best care for people with mental illness, not feeling that people with mental illness deserve sympathy, and not being more tolerant towards them.
Finally, adult community residents with “mentally ill” language also had significantly lower subscale scores. community mental health ideology. Their responses indicate that people with mental illness are not provided with neighborhood or local community services, that people with mental illness are perceived as a threat to the community, that they are feared in the neighborhood, and that they are not included as part of the community.
These findings are very worrying. As the authors conclude in their discussion, “no one was immune” to the negative effects of non-first-person language in a survey. When the phrase “mentally ill” was used in the survey, all three groups (students, senior community residents, and counselors) showed less tolerance for people with mental illness. The authors discuss how language about mental illness matters in a variety of contexts, including college textbooks, the media, and resources for health professionals.
This study is very illuminating and thought-provoking, but further research would be useful to explore this issue in more depth. How do other terms and expressions about people with mental illness affect our thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors? These are important questions to answer.
In the meantime, each of us can take steps to use first-person language in our everyday conversations to convey respect and affirmation to those who continue to struggle with mental health issues.
A version of this post also appears on davidsusman.com. Copyright 2026.
