Recent research from across the world has found that stigma towards people with mental health diagnoses is either increasing or stagnant. While studies from the US have found that stigma towards people with a depression diagnosis has decreased, stigma towards other diagnoses such as schizophrenia and substance use has increased.
One US-based study found that although a majority of participants said they were comfortable talking about mental health, many also reported withholding information about their own mental health from friends and doctors. Another study out of the US found that “concerns about stigma” was a top three reason that participants did not seek help for mental health issues. Educational campaigns have largely failed to reduce mental health stigma, with some data indicating that mental health literacy interventions may make the problem worse.
The authors of a new study published in the American Psychologist argue that system justifying beliefs, and economic system justification in particular, may be a factor in the stubborn pervasiveness of mental health stigma. The current work, led by Jussi Valtonen of New York University, finds that belief in the legitimacy and fairness of the current US economic system was the strongest predictor of stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental health difficulties. This research additionally finds that participants reported less stigmatizing attitudes when the person displaying mental health symptoms was described as having high financial status.
“We found that the more people reported believing that the (current American) economic system works in a fair and just way, the more likely they were to have negative reactions toward individuals with mental health problems,” said Valtonen in an interview by email. “If you start mentally from the assumption that the economic system works in a fair and just way – i.e., people typically get what they deserve and deserve what they get – it’s much harder to consider how that same system could be to blame for anyone’s difficulties. So it may become easier to assume that the person has done something to cause the difficulties they’re in.”
The Effects of System Justification
Experts have argued that system justification serves several functions for people that adopt these beliefs. It can reduce uncertainty, social discord, and the perception of threat. It may also serve the “palliative function of increasing satisfaction with the status quo.” For example, research has found that system justifying beliefs were linked to lower levels of psychological distress and higher levels of subjective well-being and self-esteem in disadvantaged minority groups, as well as fewer mental health problems in girls. However, another study found that the increased well-being associated with system justification reverses over time, eventually leading to worse mental health outcomes.
These beliefs are likely most harmful for people from oppressed and disadvantaged groups. Research has linked system justifying beliefs to increased psychological distress in minority mothers, behavioral issues in minority children, as well as internalization of inferiority and reduced motivation for collective action in disadvantaged groups.
The current research, comprised of three separate studies, also associates these beliefs with mental health stigma, which previous studies have linked to discrimination in employment, housing, and social inclusion, reduced-help seeking behavior, and reduced quality of life.
Study One
The goal of the first study was to examine the role of system justification in stigmatizing beliefs towards people with mental “illness.” The authors recruited participants using Amazon’s crowdsourcing tool Mechanical Turk. Participants replied to an online, self-report survey around general system justification, economic system justification, negative stereotypes towards mental “illness,” desire for social distance from people with mental health problems, personal experience of mental health services, political orientation, and beliefs about genetic determinism. In total, the authors examined data from 368 participants. The majority of the participants were female (57.3%), white (78.8%), and college educated.
System justifying beliefs, economic system justification, and political conservatism were all associated with negative attitudes and perceptions of people with mental health issues, with economic system justification showing the strongest link. Further analysis found that economic system justification accounted for nearly all observed associations between general system justification, political conservatism, and stigma towards people with mental health struggles. This means that economic system justifying beliefs were the best, most consistent predictor of stigmatizing attitudes.
Personal experience with mental health services was linked to more tolerant attitudes and less stigma towards people that struggled with mental health. The authors note that surprisingly, belief in genetic determinism showed either weak or no links with negative attitudes towards people with mental health issues.
The observational nature of the study means this data cannot definitely say that economic system justification causes mental health stigma, only that they are related. The self-report nature of the survey makes the data susceptible to bias by misreporting or reporting what the participant believes is most socially acceptable rather than their true beliefs. The authors used a convenience sample, limiting generalizability to other populations within the US. The sample was composed entirely of US participants, limiting generalizability to other populations.
Study Two
The goal of this study was to see if the findings from study one could be replicated with a representative sample of people from the US. The authors used the research firm Cint to recruit a representative sample of participants. As in the first study, these participants answered online self-report surveys around general and economic system justification, political orientation, and stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental health struggles. Genetic determinism was omitted as it showed little to no association with stigma in the first study. In total, the researchers examined data from 1,028 participants.
Economic system justification was the factor most strongly linked to social intolerance, personal blame, negative stereotypes, recovery pessimism, and exclusionary sentiments towards people with mental health issues. As in study one, economic system justification was the variable most strongly and consistently linked to mental health stigma.
This study, like study one, could not speak to causes of mental health stigma, only linked factors. This study also had the same limitations in terms of self-report surveys and limited generalizability to populations outside the US.
Study Three
The goal of this study was to examine how a person’s position within the economic system may effect mental health stigma towards them. The authors recruited participants through the crowdsourcing platform Prolific and presented them with four vignettes to each participant describing a person with:
- Symptoms of depression and high financial status
- Symptoms of depression and low financial status
- Symptoms of social phobia and high financial status
- Symptoms of social phobia and low financial status
The subjects in the vignettes were not labeled as having a depression or social phobia diagnosis, but were described as presenting behaviors consistent with these diagnoses. The authors conveyed low financial status by describing the subject as earning little money and having financial problems. High financial status was conveyed with a description of the subject as earning very good money and having no financial problems.
After being presented with the vignettes, the participants answered questions concerning levels of social tolerance for the subjects from the vignettes. The participants also answered questions about their personal experiences with mental health issues and demographic characteristics. In total, the authors examined data from 118 participants.
Participants were more willing to live next door, socialize, and make friends with the subjects from the vignettes than to work closely with them or have them be married into their family. Participants showed the most resistance to having people with symptoms of depression and social phobia married into their families compared to the other forms of social acceptance. Participants also reported more social tolerance towards people with social phobia than depression.
Financial status was linked to all forms of social tolerance for both depression and social phobia, with participants reporting more tolerance for people with higher financial standing. While participants with experience of mental health issues generally showed more tolerance, they showed a similar pattern of being more socially accepting of wealthy subjects.
This study has similar limitations to the first two in terms of self-reporting data. This study also has limited generalizability due to the small sample size and the sample not being random or representative. Generalizability outside the US context is also limited.
The authors write:
“These results extend the findings from Studies 1-2, demonstrating that there is a causal association between economic factors and mental health stigmatization. For conditions such as depression and social phobia, an individual’s position in the economic system shaped how others responded to them, regardless of whether perceivers had experienced mental illness themselves. While participants with personal experiences of mental illness were more tolerant in general, even these participants were more likely to distance themselves from poorer (vs. wealthier) individuals suffering from mental illness. ”
System Justification Theory and Mental Health Stigma
System justification theory (SJT) is a framework developed by social psychologists to explain why people tend to defend and justify the social, economic, and political systems under which they live, even when they are disadvantaged and harmed by those systems.
“From an SJT perspective, if people are motivated to see the economic system as fair and legitimate, they are more likely to interpret suffering in ways that protect that belief,” said SJT expert Evan Valdes in an email interview. “That often means emphasizing individual responsibility rather than structural constraints. In that context, psychological distress can be framed as a personal failing rather than a predictable response to adversity. My interpretation is that when fairness and meritocracy are strongly endorsed, long-term distress can be seen as norm-violating, which increases blame and social distance.”
Tara Thiagarajan, neuroscientist and expert on how environments can impact brains and minds, argues that while system justification beliefs assume that everyone has a fair chance to succeed and flourish, in reality, our environments shape us in substantial ways.
“When people think our economic system is fair and legitimate they assume that these systems are giving everyone a fair chance of determining their own life and the environment they live in. Thus any problems are assumed to arise because of your own intrinsic make-up,” Thiagarajan said in an interview by email. “The current system assumes that the individual bears the responsibility for the mental health outcome. This causes people to ‘blame’ them for having the problems they do which is what creates the stigma. However evidence is mounting that the factors that drive these outcomes are largely environmental and out of our control – from a highly processed food system full of neurotoxic additives and more neurotoxins in the air and water to addictive smartphone algorithms and poor social structures.”
Valtonen points to the currently dominant biomedical model of mental “illness” as being largely implicated in mental health stigma. This model, the current status quo that would be protected by system justifying beliefs, places the cause of mental health struggles within individuals rather than within the often pathological environments where they live.
“Rather than helping us to see how we’re all profoundly affected by social and economic arrangements, the biomedical model guides us to ignore their role in mental health by suggesting that psychological distress is best understood as a problem solely in an individual’s mind/brain,” explains Valtonen. “In addition, the biomedical model may make things worse in terms of stigma by accentuating the difference between those seen as ‘healthy’ or ‘normal’ versus those who are seen as ‘ill’.”
Research corroborates this understanding of the shortcomings inherent in the biomedical model of mental “illness,” with multiple studies linking this model to increased mental health stigma.
Financial Status and Mental Health Stigma
The current work found that people had less stigmatizing attitudes when subjects displaying symptoms of depression and social phobia were described as having high financial status. SJT would point to “status cues” as one possible explanation for this finding.
“Status cues shape how identical behaviors are interpreted. Higher-status individuals are often perceived as more competent and trustworthy (a finding quite robust in the SJ literature), so their distress may be seen as temporary or situational,” explains Valdes. “Lower-status individuals are more likely to be judged as irresponsible, lazy, or deficient. This suggests that what looks like ‘mental illness stigma’ may partly reflect class-based stigma. Even people with lived experience can internalize these narratives, especially when they are culturally dominant.”
Thiagarajan has a similar take, pointing to faulty assumptions linking high financial status to competence as a possible reason participants were more socially accepting of high financial status individuals, even when they displayed the same symptoms as their low financial status counterparts.
“My guess would be the following: if you believe in the fairness of our economic institutions, then if you have high economic standing people assume you must be a smart person to get there and therefore any mental illness must be externally driven. In contrast when someone is poor then people assume they must be poor because they are not as mentally capable and therefore any mental illness must be their own fault.”
Reducing Stigma Beyond Educational Campaigns
Valdes believes anti-stigma campaigns often fail as a result of emphasizing the biomedical narrative around mental health. In order to combat stigma, he recommends systemic change, a focus on things that connect us, and an acknowledgment of the role of structural factors that contribute to mental health struggles.
“Purely informational campaigns often have mixed effects, particularly if they frame mental illness as chronic, biological, and immutable. Approaches that emphasize contact, shared vulnerability, and structural contributors to distress may be more promising. Reducing stigma may also require institutional changes — for example, minimizing coercion, increasing peer involvement, and reducing the scarcity logic that fuels deservingness judgments. Belief change alone is unlikely to be sufficient if institutional practices continue to signal that people in distress are risks or burdens.”
He also points to the centering of lived experience in both mental health research and clinical practice as important in combating stigma.
“In practical terms, it could mean co-producing research and services with people who have lived experience, embedding peer leadership in decision-making roles, and strengthening rights-based, voluntary care models. It also involves taking seriously how economic inequality, housing instability, and labor precarity shape mental health.”
Past research has found that an emphasis on systemic, social, and environmental causes of mental health struggles is linked to reduced stigma. Studies have also found improved clinical outcomes and reduced stigma as a result of centering lived experience in research.
Valtonen believes one problem with current efforts to reduce stigma is a narrow focus. He views stigma, and educational campaigns’ failures at reducing it, as a consequence of artificially separating mental health from larger questions about the human condition.
“I’m personally inclined to think that focusing on stigma itself is probably not a great idea. I don’t think the root of the problem is that we haven’t quite found the optimal stigma intervention yet, but that we’re asking the wrong questions. I think we’ve got a much broader question wrong as Western societies, namely that we’ve come to view mental health and forms of psychological distress through an overly narrow lens. It seems to me that a major obstacle in our efforts to respond both to stigma and to mental health problems is that we’ve come to disconnect mental health from larger questions about life and humanity, and this disconnect has created enormous societal blind spots, including the assumption that we can fix things like people’s reactions to each other by educational campaigns.”
For Valtonen, stigma reduction could be best achieved by focusing more broadly on the things that connect us as human beings.
“Instead of focusing on stigma, I think we would be wiser if we asked broader questions about what the things are that we all need as human beings to live meaningful and connected lives, and asked how we could all learn to treat each other with compassion and dignity. There are so many things that we all share and that connect us to each other, regardless of our individual struggles, and I believe that a deeper recognition of this could hopefully make it a little easier for us to understand each other.”
In addition to a broader approach, Valtonen emphasizes the importance of lived experience and mad studies in the future of mental health narratives.
“I see the emerging field of mad studies as a really important development in opening up new ways of thinking. Whatever our future ways of moving forward are, it’s crucial that people with lived experience – perspectives the mental health field has typically ignored – should be central to these efforts.”
Valtonen also believes the arts and humanities could lead to a more robust understanding of the human condition which can allow for a more nuanced view of the world and other people. He recently coauthored an article arguing the necessity of the arts and humanities in understanding mental health.
“Reading Chekhov will hardly solve anyone’s problems (especially economic ones) or make mental illness stigma disappear, but I think our questions regarding these and other challenges as a society would be wiser if our understanding of life were more informed by Chekhov than by the DSM.”
In terms of obstacles to the structural and systemic change that could help reduce stigma, Thiagarajan believes “the dominant ideology to challenge is individualism.” For Valdes “the main obstacles are power asymmetries within institutions, resource scarcity, and dominant cultural narratives that equate worth with productivity and self-reliance.”
****
Valtonen, J., Azevedo, F., & Jost, J. T. (2026). Economic system justification predicts stigmatization of mental illness in the United States. American Psychologist. (Link)
As a banker’s daughter, I will tell you that if you believe in a “fair economy,” you likely know next to nothing about the fraud of our current central banking/monetary system.
I agree with belief in “the importance of lived experience and mad studies in the future of mental health narratives,” and that “the arts and humanities could lead to a more robust understanding of the human condition …” since, of course, we all know “a picture paints a thousand words.”
Report comment
Very ambiguous & misleading title!
I couldn’t tell whether “belief in a fair economy” meant “belief that the economy SHOULD be fair” or “belief that the CURRENT economy IS fair” until I read the article & realized it was the latter.
I also couldn’t tell if “linked to greater mental health stigma” meant “linked to HOLDING more stigmatizing beliefs” or “linked to being on the RECEIVING end of more stigma” — again, had to read the article to realize it was the former.
Report comment
My first career job in banking after majoring in Biology from a small liberal arts college (where Wilbur Mills had attended along with a few others in the early stages of leather helmet football) was an initial search into values. The experience lead me into the darkest of darks and a turn around that if not analagous to climbing Jacob’s Ladder was akin as if the Kabbalah were alive in the Whole Moment! The idea of thermodyanamics, time is money (which currency is not) and being fired from the first career job followed by Lithium altered my life’s journey. Sear’s reporting mirrors the dimensions experienced in my early studies in city planning in Norman, OK. The social work professor, Wayne Chess would soon be having lunch with Jimmy Carter lobbing for funding for “The Mentally Ill”. And another guest professor, who had worked on the Manhattan Project but also a Eugenicist, would be teaching us about his book, “The Challenge of Man’s Future”.
One of the more difficult challenges has been the brutal, nightmarish reality of realizing the danger and power of aggregated data as in “the Mentally Ill” or those deemed “disabled” or “feeble-minded” whose brains could be used only for questionable experiments. Aggregating data for “science” screens out the experience of the unique way one can experience the verb of thought!
The jury is no longer out on this case, for to understand Robert Whitaker’s interview with Antonetta’s “The Devil’s Castle” is setting the stage for an accounting of our civilization! As a great man conveyed to the Masses, “I am… and We are some Beautiful Minds!
Thank you, Mad in America for the Awakening!
Report comment
A very interesting study on the difference in “mental illnesses” between the rich and the poor. 🙂 I asked the AI to explain the most controversial points of this article or why some researchers are critical of this finding. The conclusion it reached was also interesting.
*** *** ***
1. The Causality Problem
The research is correlational, not causal.
-This means the study cannot prove that believing the economic system is fair causes mental health stigma.
Other possibilities include:
-People who are already more judgmental or individualistic might both believe the system is fair and hold stigmatizing attitudes.
-A third variable (such as authoritarianism, moral values, or beliefs about personal responsibility) could influence both attitudes.
Therefore, the study shows a relationship, but not a definite cause.
2. Self-Report Bias
The data comes from self-report surveys, which can introduce bias.
Possible issues include:
-Participants may give socially desirable answers instead of their true opinions.
-Mental health stigma is a sensitive topic, so people may underreport negative attitudes.
-Individuals may also lack full awareness of their own biases.
3. Cultural Limitations
All participants in the study were from the United States. This raises questions such as:
Would the same relationship appear in:
-Europe
-Asia
-more collectivist societies?
In some cultures, mental health problems may be interpreted more through family, fate, or social context, rather than economic system beliefs.
4. The Role of Socioeconomic Status
The third study revealed a notable finding:
-When a person with mental health symptoms was described as financially wealthy, participants showed less stigma.
-When the same symptoms were paired with low financial status, stigma increased.
Critics might argue that:
-The reaction may not come purely from beliefs about economic fairness.
-People might simply assume that wealthy individuals have better access to treatment and resources, making them seem more likely to recover.
5. Tension with Mental Health Awareness Campaigns
The article also suggests that educational campaigns about mental health have largely failed to reduce stigma.
This claim can be controversial because:
-Many psychologists and policymakers invest heavily in mental health literacy programs.
-If stigma is partly rooted in ideological beliefs about fairness and personal responsibility, then education alone may not be enough to reduce it.
In summary: The study proposes that mental health stigma may be influenced not only by lack of knowledge or fear, but also by people’s ideological beliefs about fairness and the economic system.
However, important questions remain:
-Is this relationship causal or merely correlational?
-Would the findings apply outside the United States?
-Are reactions to wealthy vs. poor individuals driven by different psychological mechanisms?
*** *** ***
The results produced by artificial intelligence are really very interesting. Best regards.
With my sincerest wishes. 🙂 Y.E. Researcher blog writer (Blogger)
Report comment
It’s not real until a study has confirmed it. And the study, including its goals (no matter how rigged to be relevant if not real), is the product of controlling interests of Science, Inc., particularly those who gain profit and power from our reliance on their studies, our reduction of what we can know to their data. ‘Science’ (of social engineering) has become a vast industry for mass manufacturing such studies, showing remarkable consistency of inconsistency among claimed results as to indicate the overriding goal to be the disempowerment of autonomous judgment by means of mixed messages from authority and rule by expertise which amount to brainwashing. Meanwhile, the anything but fair and mentally healthy economy of rich and poor keeps on rolling over us. Alas, we can’t stop it until we have more information from our masters.
Report comment
This is in some ways an important subject, though not particularly related to psychiatry or mental health. It is certainly influenced by Critical Theory, which I believe is largely invalid.
This is more a theory of politics and of strategies used to gain political dominance. Though politics affects the lives of individuals, this is a secondary effect, except as it crosses with the subject of crime and criminal behavior, and psychopathy in particular.
When the effects of psychopaths on politics and economics are studied, as in Political Ponerology, then we are getting closer to a study that goes to the cause of traumatic events that may disrupt a person’s life (or future lives).
There is no doubt that crime exists in our world and has become “baked in” to various political and economic structures. It then becomes a practical as well as a moral problem for the individual how to navigate those structures. One can “join the club” and become a criminal (a sociopath), one can find one’s way through the structures, preserving one’s moral ideals as best as possible, or one can succumb to the criminality and try to escape from those structures entirely. From the point of view of the corrupted structure, the criminal is the most revered, while those who find ways to “play along” are at least tolerated. The others are condemned.
From the point of view of the sane, the criminals who run such structures are the most deeply crazy and most deserving of social stigma. The usual recommendation of Critical Theory is to eliminate all stigma (all moral systems) and so “liberate” the “oppressed.” But this idea caves in on itself if we desire to somehow curb the destructive behaviors of the criminals among us.
From the point of view of a person who stays physically well most of the time, someone who stays physically sick most of the time is resented. The physically well person pays into the insurance system, and the sick person gets all the benefits. And to the extent that “mental health” is seen in the same way. people will react in a similar way.
But if we leave it to a criminal system to judge who is “well” and who is “sick,” we might end up with a bunch of very sick people telling the healthy what they can and can’t do. That is a sure road to eventual rebellion.
The true situation, and a system that might actually work, is out of reach of most people simply because those ideas are never discussed and it is not known that anyone has ever discovered such truths or such a system. Such a system would spell the end of “fun and games” for the criminals of this planet. And they are unwilling (so far) to give that up.
We must move beyond the irrationality of Critical Theory to get something workable. I don’t see the point of spending hours trying to explain such ideas.
Report comment
This appears to me to be a hit peice on American values and Conservatism. And I think it is unwarranted. I’m also really disappointed at MIA’s continued marginalization of conservatives like myself, who was once a contributing author. Here’s AI’s crunch on the correlations between Liberalism and mental health disorders. Had this article been fair, at least some of this would be included. Research indicates a significant correlation between liberal political ideology and higher reported rates of mental health disorders, such as depression and anxiety, compared to conservatives, particularly in the United States. This gap has been observed across various demographics, with studies noting that the trend is most pronounced among young, female, and, in some cases, low-income individuals identifying as progressive.
Columbia University
Columbia University
+2
Key findings from research into this correlation include:
Worse Mental Health Outcomes: A 2025 analysis of Cooperative Election Study data showed that 45% of respondents with poor mental health identified as liberal, compared to 19% who identified as conservative.
Rising Trends: A study of high school seniors found that while depression increased across all groups from 2005 to 2018, the rise was most severe among progressive, or liberal, students.
“Extremely Liberal” Trends: Studies have shown that individuals identifying as “extremely liberal” are more likely to report mental health problems compared to moderates and conservatives, suggesting a gradient of worsening mental health further to the left.
Columbia University
Columbia University
+5
Why are liberals more prone to reported mental health issues?
Researchers propose several, often overlapping, reasons for this disparity:
Focus on Stressors: Liberals may spend more time focusing on and worrying about, complex, global, or systemic issues—such as climate change, inequality, and social justice—which can create higher levels of chronic stress.
Lower Religious Participation: Conservatism is often associated with higher religiosity, which is linked to better mental health in some studies, whereas liberalism is often associated with higher levels of neuroticism, a personality trait that predisposes individuals to emotional instability.
Increased Awareness/Diagnosis: Some researchers suggest that liberal spaces encourage greater openness and awareness about mental health, making liberals more likely to identify, report, or be diagnosed with a mental condition compared to conservatives, who may be more likely to stigmatize such issues or report them less frequently.
Political Events: Research suggests that political events, such as the election of Donald Trump or the shifting of the supreme court to the right, have had a greater negative impact on the reported emotional well-being of liberal individuals.
National Institutes of Health (.gov)
National Institutes of Health (.gov)
+4
Contextual Factors:
Gender: Female liberals often report worse mental health outcomes compared to all other political/gender groups, with a growing gap observed over time.
The “Happiness Gap”: Studies show that conservatives tend to report higher levels of happiness, which is a separate, yet related, finding to the lower rates of mental illness.
Socialization: Some analysts argue that conservatives’ focus on family, religion, and community serves as a buffer, whereas liberal focus on structural problems can lead to feelings of hopelessness.
National Institutes of Health (.gov)
National Institutes of Health (.gov)
+5
Why Depression Rates Are Higher Among Liberals
American adults who identify as politically liberal have long reported lower levels of happiness and psychological well-being than…
Columbia University
The politics of depression: Diverging trends in internalizing … – PMC
Conservatives reported lower average depressive affect, self-derogation, and loneliness scores and higher self-esteem scores than …
Just my opinion, but this is a hit piece on Conservatives. And it ignores significant data.
Report comment
Yes, I see these authors indulging in Critical Theory, which is anti-conservative.
But what I am seeing is that an article about stigma is not the same as an article about psychiatry or “mental health.” Although the stigmatization of “crazy” has been an issue, societies stigmatize all sorts of things, so I see that as a subject for sociology, not really “mental health.”
Most societies stigmatize whatever they see as “criminality.” Should they stop doing that, too?
In some cases, this sort of attitude almost seems like an attack on the whole concept of moral values. And that was actually an early target of some psychiatrists. They spoke or wrote about it openly. I suppose they still do.
Of course, the reason that Psychiatry wants there to be less stigma around “mental disorders” is so they can get more business. Well, that’s not a very sincere motivation. I see stigma as largely unavoidable as a social phenomenon, and far from the major problem when it comes to “mental health.”
Report comment
Life is not a thing! The forced or altered silence imposed by the industry is a injustice, even murder! But if one, one human speaks up, but also listens while being tuned in, think the lives going on to improve economies outweighs the material things! Thanks for your interesting insights!
Report comment
What do you think life is? What do you think we should be talking about here, Bill?
Report comment
Why do people keep posting AI copy and paste? It’s really annoying. Ok if you want to use it and say you have for your research, but please just edit it and put it naturally into your argument using quotations, like you would any other source. We can all put it into ChatGPT ourselves if we feel the need.
Report comment
Thank you for the advice.
Report comment