| Literature DB >> 28646873 |
Louise Dolphin1, Eilis Hennessy2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of illness labels on the stigma experiences of individuals with mental health problems is a matter of ongoing debate. Some argue that labels have a negative influence on judgments and should be avoided in favour of information emphasising the existence of a continuum of mental health/illness. Others believe that behavioral symptoms are more powerful influencers of stigma than labels. The phenomenon has received little attention in adolescent research, despite the critical importance of the peer group at this developmental stage. This study employs a novel experimental design to examine the impact of the depression label and continuum information on adolescents' responses to peers with depression.Entities:
Keywords: Gender; Labelling; Peers; Stigma
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28646873 PMCID: PMC5483288 DOI: 10.1186/s12888-017-1389-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Psychiatry ISSN: 1471-244X Impact factor: 3.630
Fig. 1Categorisation index: Between-category and within-category pairs
Descriptive statistics for between category accentuation and within category assimilation scores
| Variable | Condition | Time | Between category accentuation | Within category assimilation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Min-Max |
|
| Min-Max |
|
| |||
| Mental health | Control | 1 | 0–4 | 1.55 | 1.01 | 0.00–3.00 | 1.28 | 0.58 |
| 2 | 0–4 | 1.75 | 1.08 | 0.00–3.00 | 1.25 | 0.62 | ||
| 3 | 0–4 | 1.90 | 1.03 | 0.00–3.00 | 1.14 | 0.67 | ||
| Mental health | Label | 1 | 0–4 | 1.71 | 0.98 | 0.50–3.00 | 1.34 | 0.58 |
| 2 | 0–4 | 1.90 | 1.05 | 0.50–2.50 | 1.35 | 0.60 | ||
| 3 | 0–4 | 1.94 | 1.05 | 0.50–3.50 | 1.41 | 0.66 | ||
| Mental health | Continuum | 1 | 0–4 | 1.59 | 0.91 | 0.00–2.50 | 1.24 | 0.54 |
| 2 | 0–5 | 1.90 | 1.10 | 0.00–3.50 | 1.16 | 0.67 | ||
| 3 | 0–5 | 1.82 | 1.11 | 0.00–3.00 | 1.25 | 0.69 | ||
| Sympathy | Control | 1 | 0–4 | 1.50 | 1.03 | 0.00–3.00 | 1.20 | 0.67 |
| 2 | 0–5 | 1.59 | 1.25 | 0.00–3.50 | 1.17 | 0.70 | ||
| 3 | 0–5 | 1.40 | 1.27 | 0.00–4.00 | 1.19 | 0.77 | ||
| Sympathy | Label | 1 | 0–4 | 1.76 | 1.04 | 0.00–4.00 | 1.27 | 0.88 |
| 2 | 0–5 | 1.50 | 1.22 | 0.00–3.50 | 1.15 | 0.73 | ||
| 3 | 0–5 | 1.50 | 1.21 | 0.00–3.00 | 1.22 | 0.74 | ||
| Sympathy | Continuum | 1 | 0–5 | 1.55 | 1.12 | 0.00–2.50 | 1.23 | 0.69 |
| 2 | 0–5 | 1.50 | 1.40 | 0.00–4.50 | 1.21 | 0.93 | ||
| 3 | 0–5 | 1.48 | 1.32 | 0.00–3.00 | 1.23 | 0.85 | ||
| Anger | Control | 1 | 0–2 | 0.63 | 0.79 | 0.00–2.50 | 0.61 | 0.75 |
| 2 | 0–4 | 0.62 | 0.95 | 0.00–2.50 | 0.47 | 0.64 | ||
| 3 | 0–3 | 0.56 | 0.83 | 0.00–3.00 | 0.65 | 0.75 | ||
| Anger | Label | 1 | 0–3 | 0.81 | 1.01 | 0.00–2.50 | 0.60 | 0.61 |
| 2 | 0–5 | 0.63 | 0.95 | 0.00–2.50 | 0.58 | 0.62 | ||
| 3 | 0–4 | 0.60 | 0.89 | 0.00–4.00 | 0.52 | 0.75 | ||
| Anger | Continuum | 1 | 0–3 | 0.79 | 0.89 | 0.00–4.00 | 0.93 | 0.83 |
| 2 | 0–5 | 1.11 | 1.27 | 0.00–5.00 | 0.89 | 1.06 | ||
| 3 | 0–5 | 0.88 | 1.14 | 0.00–4.00 | 0.97 | 1.01 | ||
| Discomfort | Control | 1 | 0–4 | 1.38 | 1.14 | 0.00–3.50 | 0.76 | 0.80 |
| 2 | 0–4 | 1.17 | 1.09 | 0.00–2.50 | 0.60 | 0.56 | ||
| 3 | 0–4 | 0.92 | 1.20 | 0.00–2.50 | 0.78 | 0.63 | ||
| Discomfort | Label | 1 | 0–4 | 1.32 | 1.04 | 0.00–3.50 | 1.15 | 0.97 |
| 2 | 0–4 | 1.13 | 1.15 | 0.00–3.50 | 1.05 | 0.82 | ||
| 3 | 0–4 | 1.17 | 1.07 | 0.00–2.50 | 0.83 | 0.73 | ||
| Discomfort | Continuum | 1 | 0–5 | 1.38 | 1.41 | 0.00–2.50 | 1.09 | 0.85 |
| 2 | 0–5 | 1.59 | 1.53 | 0.00–5.00 | 1.10 | 0.99 | ||
| 3 | 0–5 | 1.46 | 1.48 | 0.00–3.50 | 0.88 | 0.82 | ||
M mean, SD standard deviation