Center for Public Mental Health, Untere Zeile 13, A-3482 Gösing/Wagram, Austria.
Institute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public Health, University of Leipzig, Philipp-Rosenthal-Str. 55, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany.
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Feb;103:60-66. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.014.
Public attitudes and beliefs are relevant to both individual and structural discrimination. They are a reflection of cultural conceptions of mental illness that form a reality that people must take into account when they enact behavior and policy makers must confront when making decisions. Understanding and keeping track of these attitudes is critical to understanding individual and structural discrimination. Theories of stigma posit that both forms of discrimination are distinct phenomena. Practically nothing is known about how attitudes regarding individual and structural discrimination relate. Our study addresses this gap by examining how attitudes toward allocating financial resources to the care of people with depression (structural discrimination) have developed over the last decade in Germany, compared to the public's desire for social distance from these people (individual discrimination). Previous studies have shown the public being more ready to accept cutbacks for the care for mentally ill persons than for medically ill persons. These preferences could have changed with regard to depression, since there is a growing awareness among the German public of an "epidemic of depression". The idea of a high prevalence of depression may have led to a heightened perception of personal susceptibility for this disorder, making the public become more reluctant to accept cutbacks for the care of people with depression. On the other hand, there is reason to assume that the growing awareness of high prevalence of depression among the general public has not affected individual discrimination of persons suffering from this disorder. The two assumptions were tested comparing data from population surveys conducted in Germany in 2001 and 2011. Within ten years, the proportion of respondents who opposed cutting money from depression treatment tripled from 6% to 21%. In contrast, the public's desire for social distance from persons with depression remained unchanged. Moreover, both trends proved to be independent from each other. Our findings suggest that attitudes relevant to structural and individual discrimination are not necessarily linked together and may lead to divergent results. This means that a comprehensive understanding of stigma must consider both forms of discriminating attitudes together. Studying both simultaneously may deepen our understanding of each and point to novel ways to produce change.
公众的态度和信念与个人和结构性歧视都有关。它们反映了对精神疾病的文化观念,形成了人们在实施行为和决策者在做出决策时必须面对的现实。了解和跟踪这些态度对于理解个人和结构性歧视至关重要。污名化理论认为,这两种形式的歧视是不同的现象。实际上,人们对个人和结构性歧视态度之间的关系知之甚少。我们的研究通过考察过去十年来德国公众对分配财政资源治疗抑郁症患者(结构性歧视)的态度的发展,与公众对这些人的社会距离(个人歧视)的渴望进行了比较,从而解决了这一差距。以前的研究表明,公众更愿意接受减少对精神病人的护理,而不是减少对身体疾病患者的护理。由于德国公众对“抑郁症流行”的认识不断提高,这些偏好可能会有所改变。“抑郁症流行”的观念可能会导致人们对这种疾病的个人易感性的认识提高,从而使公众更不愿意接受减少对抑郁症患者的护理。另一方面,人们有理由认为,公众对抑郁症普遍存在的认识不断提高,并没有影响到对患有这种疾病的人的个人歧视。通过比较 2001 年和 2011 年在德国进行的两项人口调查的数据,对这两种假设进行了检验。在十年内,反对从抑郁症治疗中削减资金的受访者比例从 6%增加到了 21%,翻了三倍。相比之下,公众对与抑郁症患者保持社会距离的愿望保持不变。此外,这两种趋势相互独立。我们的研究结果表明,与结构性和个人歧视相关的态度不一定相互关联,可能会导致不同的结果。这意味着对污名的全面理解必须同时考虑到这两种歧视态度。同时研究这两种态度可能会加深我们对每一种态度的理解,并为产生变化指明新的途径。