Institutional Context, Triggers and Symptoms of Mass Psychogenic Illness: A Literature-Based Content Analysis

Öz

Aim: This study aimed to investigate mass psychogenic illness (MPI) across various institutional settings worldwide, identifying its triggering factors and symptom profiles. Additionally, it sought to analyze the organizational and psychosocial factors contributing to MPI outbreaks and to propose recommendations for their prevention. Method: The research was based on a dataset comprising peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2025, written in English and documenting MPI cases within specific institutional contexts. A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Employing qualitative content analysis, 14 case studies were evaluated through descriptive and thematic approaches, focusing on institutional categories, triggering factors and symptom profiles. Results: The analysis revealed that 85.7% (12/14) of MPI cases occurred in school settings, while 7.1% (1/14) was reported to occur in a hospital and 7.1% (1/14) in an office environment. In schools, emotional vulnerability among adolescents, academic stress, misinformation dissemination and group interactions emerged as primary triggers. In contrast, environmental perceptions and dramatic interventions were prominent in hospital and office cases. The most frequently reported physical symptoms included nausea, headaches and dizziness, while psychical symptoms such as anxiety and panic were less common. Notably, MPI cases were more prevalent among female students. Conclusion: MPI is predominantly observed in school environments, driven by stress, misinformation and social contagion. Being less frequent in adult-oriented settings, its presence reflects distinct dynamics rather than immunity. The study highlights the critical role of organizational culture and leadership in preventing MPI. Strengthening psychosocial support systems, implementing stress management and fostering transparent communication within institutions can mitigate MPI risks.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mass psychogenic illness
• institutional setting
• stress management
• content analysis

Kitlesel Psikojenik Hastalığının Kurumsal Bağlamı, Tetikleyicileri ve Semptomları: Literatüre Dayalı İçerik Analizi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, dünya çapında çeşitli kurumsal ortamlarda kitlesel psikojenik hastalıkları (MPI) araştırmayı, tetikleyici faktörleri ve semptom profillerini belirlemeyi amaçlamıştır. Ayrıca, MPI salgınlarına katkıda bulunan organizasyonel ve psikososyal faktörleri analiz etmeyi ve bunların önlenmesi için öneriler sunmayı amaçlamıştır. Yöntem: Araştırma, 2000 ile 2025 yılları arasında yayınlanmış, İngilizce yazılmış ve belirli kurumsal bağlamlarda MPI vakalarını belgeleyen hakemli makalelerden oluşan bir veri setine dayanmaktadır. PubMed, Scopus ve Web of Science veri tabanları kullanılarak sistematik bir inceleme yapılmıştır. Nitel içerik analizi kullanılarak, 14 vaka çalışması kurumsal kategorilere, tetikleyici faktörlere ve semptom profillerine odaklanan tanımlayıcı ve tematik yaklaşımlarla değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular: Analiz, MPI vakalarının %85,7'sinin (12/14) okul ortamlarında meydana geldiğini ortaya koyarken, %7,1'inin (1/14) hastanede ve %7,1'inin (1/14) ofis ortamında meydana geldiği bildirilmiştir. Okullarda, ergenler arasındaki duygusal kırılganlık, akademik stres, yanlış bilgi yayma ve grup etkileşimleri birincil tetikleyiciler olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Buna karşılık, hastane ve ofis vakalarında çevresel algılar ve dramatik müdahaleler öne çıkmıştır. En sık bildirilen fiziksel semptomlar arasında mide bulantısı, baş ağrısı ve baş dönmesi yer alırken, anksiyete ve panik gibi psişik semptomlar daha az yaygındı. MPI vakalarının kız öğrenciler arasında daha yaygın olması dikkat çekicidir. Sonuç: MPI, stres, yanlış bilgilendirme ve sosyal bulaşma nedeniyle ağırlıklı olarak okul ortamlarında gözlemlenmektedir. Yetişkinlere yönelik ortamlarda daha az sıklıkta görülmesi, bağışıklıktan ziyade farklı dinamikleri yansıtmaktadır. Çalışma, MPI'nin önlenmesinde kurum kültürü ve liderliğin kritik rolünü vurgulamaktadır. Psikososyal destek sistemlerinin güçlendirilmesi, stres yönetiminin uygulanması ve kurumlar içinde şeffaf iletişimin teşvik edilmesi MPI risklerini azaltabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kitlesel psikojenik hastalık
• kurumsal ortam
• stres yönetimi
• içerik analizi

Kaynakça

1. 1. Bartholomew RE, Wessely S. Protean nature of mass sociogenic illness: From possessed nuns to chemical and biological terrorism fears. Br J Psychiatry. 2002;180:300-6.
2. 2. Smallman-Raynor M, Cliff AD. War epidemics: An historical geography of infectious diseases in military conflict and civil strife, 1850-2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2004.
3. 3. Colligan TW, Higgins EM. Workplace stress: Etiology and consequences. J Workplace Behav Health. 2006;21(2):89-97.
4. 4. Bartholomew RE, Goode E. Mass delusions and hysterias: Highlights from the past millennium. Skeptical Inquirer. 2000;24(3):20-8.
5. 5. Jacobsen P, Ebbehøj NE. Outbreak of mysterious illness among hospital staff: Poisoning or iatrogenic reinforced mass psychogenic illness? J Emerg Med. 2016;50(2):e47-52.
6. 6. Staudenmayer H, Christopher KL, Repsher L, Hill RH. Mass psychogenic illness: Psychological predisposition and iatrogenic pseudo-vocal cord dysfunction and pseudo-reactive airways disease syndrome. J Med Toxicol. 2011;7(2):109-17.
7. 7. Siamisang K, Phologolo T, Mukuhwa T, et al. Predictors of mass psychogenic illness in a junior secondary school in rural Botswana: A case control study. S Afr J Psychiatry. 2022;28:1671.
8. 8. Halvorson H, Crooks J, Lahart DA, Farrell KP. An outbreak of itching in an elementary school: A case of mass psychogenic response. J Schn Health. 2008;78(5):294-7.

9. 9. Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350-83.
10. 10. Cameron KS, Quinn RE. Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competing values framework. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass; 2006.
11. 11. Schein EH. Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1992.
12. 12. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101.
13. 13. Krippendorff K. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2018.
14. 14. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107-15.
15. 15. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994.
16. 16. Tarafder BK, Khan MA, Islam MT, et al. Mass psychogenic illness: Demography and symptom profile of an episode. Psychiatry J. 2016;2016:2810143. doi:10.1155/2016/2810143
17. 17. Jebessa S, Deksiso H, Tefera M, Bahretibeb Y. Mass hysteria among beneficiary students of the school-feeding program in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2022;32(3):563-8. doi:10.4314/ejhs. v32i3.12
18. 18. Huang WT, Hsu CC, Lee PI, Chuang JH. Mass psychogenic illness in nationwide in-school vaccination for pandemic influenza A(H1N1) 2009, Taiwan, November 2009-January 2010. Euro Surveill. 2010;15(21):19575. doi:10.2807/ese.15.21.19575-en
19. 19. Ajemu KF, Weldearegay TW, Bezabih NM, et al. Mass psychogenic illness in Haraza Elementary School, Erop District, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia: Investigation to the nature of an episode. Psychiatry J. 2020;2020:2693830. doi:10.1155/2020/2693830
20. 20. Haque F, Kundu SK, Islam MS, et al. Outbreak of mass sociogenic illness in a school feeding program in northwest Bangladesh, 2010. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e80420. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080420
21. 21. Peñas JA, de Los Reyes VC, Sucaldito MNL, et al. Epidemic hysteria following the National School Deworming Day, Zamboanga Peninsula, Philippines, 2015. Western Pac Surveill Response J. 2018;9(4):1-6. doi:10.5365/wpsar.2017.8.1.009
22. 22. Yang TU, Kim HJ, Lee YK, Park YJ. Psychogenic illness following vaccination: Exploratory study of mass vaccination against pandemic influenza A (H1N1) in 2009 in South Korea. Clin Exp Vaccine Res. 2017;6(1):31-7. doi:10.7774/cevr.2017.6.1.31
23. 23. Bartholomew RE, Wessely S, Rubin GJ. Mass psychogenic illness and the social network: Is it changing the pattern of outbreaks? J R Soc Med. 2012;105(12):509-12. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2012.120053
24. 24. Shakya R. Epidemic of hysteria in a school of rural eastern Nepal: A case report. J Indian Assoc Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2005;1(4):20-4. doi:10.1177/0973134220050404
25. 25. Amin M, Mahmood S, Rabbi S, Hossain A, Sharif H. Mass Psychogenic Illness among learners at Jaforabad High School, in Hathazari, Chittagong, Bangladesh. J Dhaka Med Coll. 2010;18(2):105-11. doi:10.3329/jdmc.v18i2.6267
26. 26. Jones TF, Craig AS, Hoy D, Gunter EW, Ashley DL, Barr DB, et al. Mass psychogenic illness attributed to toxic exposure at a high school. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(2):96-100. doi:10.1056/NEJM200001133420206
27. 27. Brizendine L. The female brain. New York: Broadway Books; 2006.
28. 28. Wessely S. Mass hysteria: Two syndromes? Psychol Med. 1987;17(1):109-20. doi:10.1017/S0033291700013027
29. 29. Colligan MJ, Murphy LR. Mass psychogenic illness in organizations: An overview. J Occup Psychol. 1979;52(2):77-90. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1979.tb00445.x
30. 30. Singer N, Leff B, Rife S. The role of social media in mass psychogenic illness: A modern twist on an old phenomenon. J Behav Sci. 2016;12(3):45-59.
31. 31. Colloca L, Miller FG. The nocebo effect and its relevance for clinical practice. Psychosom Med. 2011;73(7):598-603. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e3182294a50
32. 32. Pennebaker JW. The psychology of physical symptoms. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1982.