Mental health related stigma and discrimination is a universal phenomenon and a contributor to the adversity experienced by people with schizophrenia. Research has produced inconsistent findings on how discrimination differs across settings and the contextual factors that underpin these differences. This study investigates the association between country-level Human Development Index (HDI) and experienced and anticipated discrimination reported by people with schizophrenia.

This study is a secondary data analysis of a global cross-sectional survey completed by people living with schizophrenia across 29 countries, between 2005 and 2008. Experienced and anticipated discrimination were assessed using the Discrimination and Stigma Scale (DISC-10). Countries were classified according to their 2006 HDI. Negative binomial and Poisson regression analyses with a robust standard errors approach were conducted to investigate associations between country-level HDI and discrimination.

In the regression analyses, no evidence was found for a linear association between HDI and experienced or anticipated discrimination. Further exploratory analyses showed a significant non-linear association between HDI ratings and experienced discrimination. Participants in “high” and “very high” HDI countries reported more experienced discrimination compared to those in “medium” HDI countries.

HDI does, to some extent, appear to be associated with how far discrimination is experienced across different contexts. More high-quality cross-national research, including research focused on “medium” and “low” countries, is needed to substantiate these findings and identify underlying factors that may explain the pattern observed for experienced discrimination, including generating new datasets that would enable for these analyses to be repeated and contrasted with more recent data. An in-depth understanding of these factors will further aid the adaptation of cross-cultural and context specific anti-stigma interventions in future.

Large efforts have been made to erase the stigma of mental illness, but it is unclear whether they have succeeded on a population level. We examine how attitudes toward people with depression or schizophrenia have evolved in Germany since 1990, and whether there are different developments for both disorders.

Using data from the three decades, four wave repeated cross-sectional representative population study in the “old” (western) states in Germany with surveys in 1990 (n = 2,044), 2001 (n = 4,005), 2011 (n = 1,984), and 2020 (n = 2,449), we calculate time-trends for social distance and emotional reactions toward someone with major depression or acute schizophrenia.

Social distance worsened in six out of seven situations for schizophrenia, whereas improving in two out of seven situations for depression. Emotions related to fear and uneasiness increased for schizophrenia, whereas tending to decrease for depression. Pro-social reactions like the desire to help increased for depression, but decreased for schizophrenia. Initially observed differences, favoring depression over schizophrenia, widened over the 30-year study period. For schizophrenia, the biggest negative changes occurred between 1990 and 2001, whereas some improvements with regard to depression occurred more recently.

Contrary to expectations, stigma has become more severe regarding acute schizophrenia in Germany over the last 30 years, whereas only slightly improving for depression. The apparent normalization of mental health problems seems not to directly translate into improving attitudes toward people with severe mental illness. Re-focusing of anti-stigma efforts on people with severe mental illness seems necessary.

Previous studies didn’t find any connection between Neuroticism and authoritarian personality or social dominance orientation, but xenophobic attitudes might be hold even apart from these constructs.

In our study we compared subjects with high Neurtoticism score with controls with a focus on racism and social distance.

The Bogardus Social Distance Scale (BSDS) is a measure of perceived social distance of a subject towards concrete outgroups. Modern Racism Scale (MRS) and The Blatant and Subtle Prejudice Scales (BSRS) are scales measuring racism. For our study we used the Neuroticism scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ). Also, we asked about personal conflicts with outgroup members and how subjects perceived their unpleasantness and importance. We measured the attitudes towards Romani, Vietnamese, foreigners, homeless people, migrants, people with mental disease and people with a physical disability.

People with the high neuroticism score (SD≥1; N=48) showed significantly higher scores in racism. In comparison to control group (CG; N=96), their social distance differed significantly towards Romani, Vietnamese and migrants. Effect sizes were however on the threshold between weak and moderate. After Bonferroni correction, only the social distance towards migrants remained significant. People with the high neuroticism score didn’t report higher rate in conflict with outgroup members than HC.

People with the high neuroticism score showed different pattern in attitudes towards outgroup members, but not in conflict with them, which might point at higher need of internalization of negative attitudes.

The idea that personality can influence our perception of ‘otherness’ is widely accepted within the literature of social sciences. Undoubtedly, the principle of dehumanization played an important role in genocides during the 20th and 21st centuries. In totalitarian or post-totalitarian regimes ‘otherness’ may present a challenge to the absolute power. Recent studies showed that negative attitudes toward ‘otherness’ – also known as xenophobia – are on a rise in the Czech Republic.A deeper analysis of the personality in relation with perception of otherness is still missing.

The presentation analyse the personality variables associated with the perception of otherness and compare the differences between various age groups, genders, individuals with different levels of education, and above all, the differences between various groups. Several contrast groups are compared - general population, high neuroticism sample, personality disorder sample, xenophobic and xenophilic sample.

Bogardus Scale of Social Distance as a measure of perception of otherness is compared with in-depth analysis of personality functioning (Semi-Structured Interview for Personality Functioning DSM–5, STiP-5.1).

We analyze the results of five samples with respect to demographic variables, variables of personality functioning and try to point out the relationship between more attitudes and underlying personality functioning. The importance of some demographic variables (as age) and connections between personality functioning (Self and Interpersonal) and social distance is emphasized and discussed.

The project help us to understand perception of otherness in light of demographic and relative power of personality factors.

Promulgating a continuum model of mental health and mental illness has been proposed as a way to reduce stigma by decreasing notions of differentness. This systematic review and meta-analysis examines whether continuum beliefs are associated with lower stigma, and whether continuum interventions reduce stigma.

Following a pre-defined protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019123606), we searched three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO) yielding 6726 studies. After screening, we included 33 studies covering continuum beliefs, mental illness, and stigma. Of these, 13 studies were included in meta-analysis.

Continuum beliefs are consistently associated with lower stigma. Interventions were effective at manipulating continuum beliefs but differ in their effects on stigmatising attitudes.

We discuss whether and to what extent attitudes towards people with mental illness can be improved by providing information on a mental health-mental illness continuum. It appeared to be relevant whether interventions promoted a feeling of ‘us’ and a process of identification with the person with mental illness. We discuss implications for the design of future interventions.

There is growing evidence that mental health literacy has improved in western countries in recent years. The question arises as to whether this trend is paralleled by an improvement of attitudes towards people with mental illness.

To examine the development of mental health literacy and the desire for social distance towards people with schizophrenia and major depressive disorder in Eastern Germany over a time period of eight years.

A trend analysis was carried out using data from two population surveys conducted in the eastern part of Germany in 1993 and 2001. By means of a fully structured interview psychiatric labelling, causal beliefs, help-seeking and treatment recommendations as well as the desire for social distance was assessed.

While there was an increase in the mental health literacy of the public, the desire for social distance from people with major depression and schizophrenia remained unchanged or even increased.

The assumption underlying a number of anti-stigma campaigns, namely that educating people about mental disorders may automatically lead to the improvement of their attitudes towards the mentally ill, appears questionable.

Firstly, to assess and, secondly, to compare experts' and lay attitudes towards community psychiatry and the respective social distance towards mentally ill people.

Comparison of two representative Swiss samples, one comprising of 90 psychiatrists, the other including 786 individuals of the general population.

The psychiatrists' attitude was significantly more positive than that of the general population although both samples have a positive attitude to community psychiatry. The statement that mental health facilities devalue a residential area has revealed most agreement. Psychiatrists and the public do not differ in their social distance to mentally ill people. Among both samples, the level of social distance increases the more the situation described implies ‘social closeness’.

The strategy to use psychiatrists as role models or opinion leaders in anti-stigma campaigns cannot be realised without accompanying actions. Psychiatrists must be aware that their attitudes do not differ from the general public and, thus, they should improve their knowledge about stigma and discrimination towards people with mental illnesses.