Abstract
Background: Stigmatizing attitudes toward persons with mental disorders is a well-established and global phenomenon often leading to discrimination and social exclusion. Although previous research in the United States showed that conservative ideology has been related to stigmatizing attitudes toward mental disorders, there is reason to believe that this mechanism plays a different role in the context of a universal welfare state with a multi-party system such as Sweden. Furthermore, "mental disorders" may signify severe psychotic disorders, which may evoke more negative attitudes. This suggests the importance of specific studies focusing on the more common phenomenon of depression. This paper investigates the relationship between political ideology and stigmatizing attitudes toward depression in Sweden. Methods: This study is part of the New Ways research program. Data were collected by the Laboratory of Opinion Research (LORE) at the University of Gothenburg in 2014 (N = 3246). Independent variables were political ideology and party affiliation. The dependent variable was the Depression Stigma Scale (DSS). Data were analyzed with linear regression analyses and analyses of variance. Results: More conservative ideology (B = 0.68, standard error [SE] = 0.04, P<.001) and more conservative party affiliation (F(8 2920) = 38.45, P<.001) showed more stigmatizing attitudes toward depression. Item-level analyses revealed a difference where the supporters of the conservative party differed (P<.05) from supporters of the liberal party, with a higher proportion agreeing that "people could snap out of " depression if they wanted to; the populist right-wing party differed from the conservative party with a higher proportion agreeing on items displaying people with depression as "dangerous" and "unpredictable." Even self-stigma was highest among the populist right-wing party with 22.3% agreeing that "if I had depression I wouldn’t tell…." Conclusion: Political ideology was associated with stigmatizing attitudes toward depression in Sweden. The results also confirm the need to distinguish between different forms of conservatism by observing social distance as being a more important driver among voters for the populist right-wing party compared with personal agency and responsibility among voters for the more traditional conservative party.
Highlights
Stigmatizing attitudes toward people with mental disorders are a well-established and global phenomenon often leading to discrimination and social exclusion.[1]
A recent literature review found that population-based studies of attitudes toward depression in relation to political ideology are a neglected topic in favor of studies of the more generic “mental disorders.”[6]. Results, mostly from research in the United States, indicate that political conservatism is associated with stigma around mental disorders; people to the right of the ideological spectrum tend, more than others, to agree “that a person with mental illness is a danger to others” and decline “to live nearby someone with a mental health problem.”[3] the impact of political ideology appears in analysis of negative stereotypes, an attitudinal component of stigma, as well as in analysis of social distance, a behavioral component
We found support for both hypotheses, ie, (1) that conservative ideology was associated with higher scores on stigmatizing attitudes toward depression even in a universal welfare state such as Sweden, and (2) that there were differences between different types of conservative supporters emphasizing either personal agency or responsibility and more populist right-wing supporters emphasizing predictability and fear
Summary
Stigmatizing attitudes toward people with mental disorders are a well-established and global phenomenon often leading to discrimination and social exclusion.[1]. The overall aim of this study was to move research forward regarding the relationship between political ideology and stigmatizing attitudes toward depression. Considering the interdisciplinary nature of this issue, the present study was a collaboration between public health researchers and political scientists, in line with a previous call from Gagnon et al[7] in the International Journal of Health Policy and Management. To fulfil our overall aim, we make 2 main contributions to the literature
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
