Mental illness disclosure in organizations: defining and predicting (un)supportive responses

Employees with a mental illness regularly encounter situations where they must make decisions regarding the extent to which they discuss their stigma. Past research has found links between positive disclosure experiences and positive well-being and job-related outcomes for the individual disclosing. However, research on stigma disclosure has not yet defined what differentiates a supportive response from an unsupportive one, and there is evidence to suggest that people are unsure of how to best respond to a disclosure. In a series of three studies, we sought to develop a better understanding of mental illness disclosure at work. First, we created a typology of supportive and unsupportive responses to disclosure via critical incidents gathered from working adults with a mental illness. Second, we surveyed working adults with and without a mental illness to examine if they perceive the supportiveness of responses differently. Third, in an experimental study, we examined which methods of disclosure are most effective in eliciting a supportive response. This work identifies several types of supportive (e.g., providing emotional support) and unsupportive (e.g., denial of symptoms) responses to mental illness disclosure and finds that individuals without a mental illness have a reasonable understanding of what an individual with a mental illness would also identify as supportive/unsupportive responses. We also find that downplaying one’s mental illness will likely lead to a less supportive response.