ADHESIÓN AL PROGRAMA Y PERCEPCIÓN DE LOS PACIENTES

A small number across the museums were coded as being emotionally Distressed when looking at their entire interview (1.4% of the overall sample). They explicitly

acknowledged the difficult nature of the exhibition, found it personally upsetting and attempted to remove themselves or, at the very least, skip certain sections. This can be seen in the following transcript with a visitor from The Mind who highlights that they would have skipped the exhibition if they knew it discussed mental illnesses:

What part or parts of the exhibition did you enjoy most or find most interesting?

[VST 74] It’s actually quite a disturbing section. I found it quite… disturbing [laughs]

[VST 75] Yeah, I could have missed it all and kept on going if I’d known [that mental illnesses were discussed in the exhibition].

[VST 74] I don’t know why. It just doesn’t feel comfortable.

In a bad way?

[VST 74] No, no.

[VST 75] In a way, you don’t want to know.

[VST 74] Yeah, I don’t want to know what they used to… you know, some of the treatments that people used to… [use].

[VST 75] Yeah.

[VST 74] That kind of stuff, you’ve heard about it, but it’s a bit full on. When asked what they would take away, these visitors provided a basic response or simply highlighted that they would move on to another exhibition, with VST 75 stating that they, in fact, had ‘no interest’ in taking anything away:

[VST 75] For me, I’ll be moving on to other exhibitions. I have no interest, [I will be] moving on.

[VST 74] Yeah… I think it was interesting.

VST 74: Male, 35-44 years of age, carpenter, VST 75: Female, 45-54 years of age, insurance

These visitors had strong emotional reactions to the material. They explicitly identified the confronting nature of the material and managed to acknowledge their discomfort. In this sense, they demonstrated significant levels of emotional awareness. Yet, the deeply emotional nature of their responses impeded their ability to reflect further as they experienced the uncomfortable proximity discussed in Chapter Two (see Hoffman 2000: 197-200; Eisenberg et al. 1992, Eisenberg et al. 1994 and Battaly 2011). Such over arousal, where someone fails to maintain a separation between their sense of self and the other that they are viewing (for example, a person’s story about living with bipolar) can create intense desires to disengage (Hoffman 2000:197-200). This is unsurprising given that reflection upon mental health asks visitors to imagine the

difficulties that the mentally ill face and to empathise with their circumstances. This can ignite visceral fears about being unhealthy and prompt people into uncomfortable reflection about what it might be like to be deemed tainted by society, as those with mental illnesses often are (Hinshaw 2007: 81-83, 95-97, 123-124).

The desire of VST 74 and VST 75 above to avoid reflection forms part of a typical, stigmatised response to mental illnesses as outlined in Chapter Two and Three. Bos et al. (2013) argue that public stigma is made up of the cognitive, affective and

behavioural responses of those who stigmatise. Under a socio-cognitive model, affective (nervousness) and cognitive (discomfort) responses to stimuli lead to

subsequent behavioural outcomes (a decision to avoid a person or situation) (Corrigan

et al. 2003). In the case of VST 74 and VST 75, this behavioural response of avoiding reflection regarding the difficulties that face the mentally ill can be categorised as a stigmatised response. It does not equate to an active denigration or vilification of the mentally ill. However, it does lead to stigmatised outcomes, such as avoidance, for sufferers of mental health issues.

A different type of this explicit disengagement that was witnessed in this study can be seen in the excerpt of a visitor from The Wellcome whose visit raised difficult personal thoughts and emotions:

How did the museum/exhibition make you feel?

[VST 23] Disturbed.

Is it a good or a bad thing it raised those emotions?

[VST 23] In a good way. I know enough about the history of Bedlam the hospital to know we treated the insane appallingly in the past… um… and, to be personal about it, I came out quite quickly because I’m dealing with a friend in the early stages of dementia and I thought, “Do you know this might have not been the best day to come here!”. But that’s nothing to do with the exhibition. That’s more about me.

VST 23, Female, 55-64 years of age, author

VST 23 was reminded of unpleasant experiences currently occurring in her life. Mental health was recognised as an important issue and the confronting nature of the material was identified. However, the strong emotions aroused interfered with her ability to continue engaging with the exhibition. She experienced a form of empathetic over- arousal due to her fear of re-burdening herself with painful memories. Difficult exhibitions can evoke what Bonnell and Simon (2007: 67) describe as a heightened anxiety ‘that accompanies feelings of identification with the victims of violence’. This can lead to a ‘potential re-traumatization of those who have experienced past violence themselves’ (Bonnell and Simon 2007: 67).

There are differences between VST 23’s decision to cut her visit short and those at The Mind who commented they would have avoided the exhibition if they knew it discussed mental health. The physical and intellectual avoidance exhibited by those visitors at The Mind who explicitly disengaged from the exhibition formed part of an understandable but stigmatised cognitive and behavioural response to mental illness (Corrigan et al.

2003; Bos et al. 2013). VST 23 did not wish to avoid the issue of mental health. Her personal experiences with mental illnesses actually formed part of her motivation for visiting. Instead, she attempted to explore the topic but found that her friend’s struggle with dementia triggered emotions that she was incapable of handling at that point in time.