Olaf von dem Knesebeck1, Christopher Kofahl2, Anna Christin Makowski2. 1. Department of Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany. Electronic address: o.knesebeck@uke.de. 2. Department of Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ethnic minorities and people with a low socio-economic status (SES) are often mentioned groups potentially affected by double stigma when faced with the burden of mental illness. Against this background we examine differences in public attitudes towards a) migrant vs. non-migrant persons with depression and b) low vs. high SES persons with depression. METHOD: Analyses are based on data of a representative cross-sectional telephone survey among the adult population in Germany (N=2013). To compare the four groups, different depression vignettes were presented to the respondents. Three components of stigma were assessed in the survey: (1) characteristics ascribed to persons with a depression, (2) emotional reactions to people afflicted by depression, and (3) desire for social distance. RESULTS: Respondents less often felt annoyed when the person in the depression vignette was a migrant coming from Turkey. However, differences are not statistically significant in the vast majority of the analyzed items. In terms of the comparison between high and low SES persons, analyses reveal small and inconsistent differences in public depression stigma. LIMITATIONS: The study focusses on two deprived groups (ethnic minorities and people with a low SES) and is restricted to Germany. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with a low SES (compared to those with a high SES) and migrants (compared to non-migrants) with depression do not seem to be confronted with double public stigma in terms of stereotypes, emotional reactions, and desire for social distance.
BACKGROUND: Ethnic minorities and people with a low socio-economic status (SES) are often mentioned groups potentially affected by double stigma when faced with the burden of mental illness. Against this background we examine differences in public attitudes towards a) migrant vs. non-migrant persons with depression and b) low vs. high SES persons with depression. METHOD: Analyses are based on data of a representative cross-sectional telephone survey among the adult population in Germany (N=2013). To compare the four groups, different depression vignettes were presented to the respondents. Three components of stigma were assessed in the survey: (1) characteristics ascribed to persons with a depression, (2) emotional reactions to people afflicted by depression, and (3) desire for social distance. RESULTS: Respondents less often felt annoyed when the person in the depression vignette was a migrant coming from Turkey. However, differences are not statistically significant in the vast majority of the analyzed items. In terms of the comparison between high and low SES persons, analyses reveal small and inconsistent differences in public depression stigma. LIMITATIONS: The study focusses on two deprived groups (ethnic minorities and people with a low SES) and is restricted to Germany. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with a low SES (compared to those with a high SES) and migrants (compared to non-migrants) with depression do not seem to be confronted with double public stigma in terms of stereotypes, emotional reactions, and desire for social distance.