Background
Mental health-related stigma is a multidimensional problem, which imposes a great burden on those affected. The stigma of mental illness can be defined as a process in which labeling, stereotyping, status loss and discrimination co-occur in a situation where power is exercised [
1]. Public stigma of mental illness can be assessed by different components such as the ascription of attributes (stereotypes), emotional response upon meeting a person with mental disorder (e.g. anger, fear or pity) or the desire to socially distance oneself. Almost half of all public attitude research in Western countries focuses on depression [
2]. In comparison to schizophrenia, public attitudes toward depression tend to be more positive [
3]. Nevertheless, depression stigma has been found to be stable over the past two decades [
4].
Referring to the ‘stigma complex’ as described by Pescosolido and Martin [
5], interrelated structures and different social conditions have to be considered in order to gain a better understanding of the complicated nature of mental illness stigma. However, there are barely any studies which compare public beliefs and attitudes regarding psychiatric disorders across different cultures [
2]. Furthermore, migration in relation to mental illness stigma has rarely been examined. This association can be considered from two perspectives. On the one hand, little is known about the prevalence and magnitude of mental illness stigma among migrants and in how far there might be differences when compared to non-migrants. On the other hand, it has rarely been explored whether migrants who are affected by mental illness are possibly exposed to double stigma.
Tabassum, Mackaskill, and Ahmad [
6] attended to the mental illness stigma prevalent in a Pakistani community living in the United Kingdom. They found that none of the respondents would consider marriage to a person with mental illness, and only half agreed to socialize with such a person. A review of studies on stigma in Muslim communities came to the conclusion that there seems to be a pronounced mental illness stigma [
7]. Due to concerns regarding the family’s social standing, disclosure of mental disorders is often considered ‘shameful’ [
8], and there is an endorsement of stereotypes as well as support for segregation of psychiatric facilities from the community [
9]. Regarding differences in mental illness stigma depending on the perceiver’s origin, Corrigan and Watson [
10] explored the influence of ethnicity on the stigma of psychiatric disorders using vignettes. Compared to whites, the non-white group showed decreased likelihood to pity the health conditions and was more inclined to perceive someone with a mental health condition as dangerous. In the framework of an antistigma intervention, Rao, Feinglass, and Corrigan [
11] also examined ethnic differences in stigmatizing attitudes. There were similar patterns prior and after the intervention, with Asians and African Americans perceiving a person with mental illness as more dangerous and expressing greater need for segregation than Caucasians.
In a prior study, von dem Knesebeck, Kofahl, and Makowski attended to the aspect of the potential burden of double stigma [
12]. Following the concept of ‘layered stigma’ [
13] or ‘multiple stigma’ [
14] a person can belong to one or more possibly stigmatized groups, e.g. being mentally ill and of migrant background. This, in turn, might have additive effects on the individual [
15]. The study [
12] examined differences in attitudes toward migrants and non-migrants afflicted by depression. The respondents less often felt annoyed or pitiful when the person in the depression vignette was a migrant, and overall, migrants with depression did not seem to be confronted with double stigma. However, possible differences in public stigma depending on migrant status have not yet been examined in Germany.
Public stigma of mental illness has been found to be positively associated with self-stigma [
16]. Furthermore, a non-disclosure out of fear of being stigmatized or due to self-stigma can lead to insufficient utilization of treatment, which in turn bears the risk of more serious courses of disease or chronification [
17,
18].
Against this background, this study strives to explore attitudes regarding depression among migrants and non-migrants in Germany. In terms of migration status of the respondents, we use a definition by the Federal Office of Statistics, which includes all foreigners as well as people born in Germany with at least one foreign, naturalized or immigrated parent [
19]. According to recent data, the share of individuals with migration background in Germany is 21% [
20]. Regarding this current study, around 18% of all respondents had a migration background. One can assume that people with a migration background born in Germany display a relatively high level of acculturation when compared to those not born in Germany. Acknowledging this, we stratified our sample in three groups: non-migrants, migrants born in Germany and foreign-born migrants. First, differences between these three groups regarding three components of public stigma are analyzed: ascription of stereotypes, emotional responses, and desire for social distance [
1,
21]. Furthermore, we test for variation in attitudes between migrants and non-migrants depending on the migration status in the vignette. Finally, the anticipated self-stigma of depression is compared between migrants and non-migrants.
Results
Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents according to their migrant status are shown in Table
1. There were significant differences between the three groups regarding level of education and age. Respondents of migrant background were younger and had a higher educational level when compared to non-migrants. The groups did not differ with respect to gender. The subsequent analyses (results displayed in Tables
2,
3,
4 and
5) were adjusted for gender, age, and education level.
Table 1
Sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents split by migrant status
Sex (female) (%) | 51.4 | 51.2 | 58.6 | 50.2 | 0.078 |
Level of education (%) |
≤ 9 years
| 36.1 | 28.3 | 35.3 | 36.8 |
0.032
|
10 years
| 32.1 | 34.1 | 29.0 | 32.4 |
≥ 12 years
| 31.8 | 37.6 | 35.7 | 30.8 |
Age (Mean (SD)) | 50.6 (18.3) | 43.9 (18.9) | 46.5 (19.1) | 51.8 (17.9) |
<0.001
|
Table 2
Mean values (standard errors) of ascription of stereotypes towards someone with depression depending on respondents’ migration background and migration status in the depression vignette
Ascription of stereotypesb The person in the vignette is… |
…in need of help |
Non-migrant vignette | 3.30 (0.04) | 3.62 (0.13) | 3.35 (0.10) | F(2,429) = 2.772, η2 = 0.013, p = 0.064 |
Migrant vignette | 3.32 (0.03) | 3.55 (0.10) | 3.45 (0.09) | F(2,469) = 2.846, η2 = 0.012, p = 0.059 |
…unpredictable |
Non-migrant vignette | 2.52 (0.05) | 2.54 (0.16) | 2.32 (0.13) | F(2,419) = 0.983, η2 = 0.005, p = 0.375 |
Migrant vignette | 2.49 (0.05) | 2.39 (0.15) | 2.46 (0.09) | F(2,426) = 0.224, η2 = 0.001, p = 0.799 |
…scary |
Non-migrant vignette | 1.96 (0.05) | 2.07 (0.15) | 2.21 (0.12) | F(2,419) = 2.090, η2 = 0.010, p = 0.125 |
Migrant vignette | 1.82 (0.04) | 1.98 (0.12) | 2.28 (0.11)
c
| F(2,452) = 8.179, η2 = 0.035, p < 0.001
|
…dangerous |
Non-migrant vignette | 1.97 (0.04) | 2.26 (0.15) | 1.77 (0.12)d
| F(2,419) = 3.539, η2 = 0.017, p = 0.030
|
Migrant vignette | 2.02 (0.04) | 2.03 (0.12) | 2.24 (0.12) | F(2,446) = 1.643, η2 = 0.007, p = 0.195 |
…brilliant |
Non-migrant vignette | 2.20 (0.05) | 2.25 (0.16) | 2.37 (0.13) | F(2,393) = 0.796, η2 = 0.004, p = 0.452 |
Migrant vignette | 2.09 (0.04) | 2.42 (0.13)
c
| 2.07 (0.12) | F(2,420) = 3.212, η2 = 0.015, p = 0.041
|
…sensitive |
Non-migrant vignette | 3.33 (0.04) | 3.60 (0.13) | 3.40 (0.10) | F(2,426) = 2.091, η2 = 0.010, p = 0.215 |
Migrant vignette | 3.34 (0.03) | 3.53 (0.10) | 3.34 (0.09) | F(2,465) = 1.694, η2 = 0.007, p = 0.185 |
Table 3
Mean values (standard errors) of emotional reactions towards someone with depression depending on respondents’ migration background and migration status in the depression vignette
Emotional reactions Upon meeting this person… |
…I react angrily.b
|
Non-migrant vignette | 1.45 (0.03) | 1.59 (0.11) | 1.33 (0.09) | F(2,427) = 1.839, η2 = 0.009, p = 0.160 |
Migrant vignette | 1.43 (0.03) | 1.49 (0.10) | 1.59 (0.09) | F(2,461) = 1.433, η2 = 0.006, p = 0.240 |
…I feel annoyed.b
|
Non-migrant vignette | 1.87 (0.04) | 2.00 (0.15) | 1.73 (0.12) | F(2,426) = 1.090, η2 = 0.005, p = 0.337 |
Migrant vignette | 1.73 (0.04) | 1.78 (0.12) | 1.64 (0.11) | F(2,449) = 0.412, η2 = 0.002, p = 0.662 |
…I react with incomprehension.b
|
Non-migrant vignette | 1.64 (0.04) | 1.79 (0.14) | 2.04 (0.11)d
| F(2,425) = 5.796, η2 = 0.027, p = 0.003
|
Migrant vignette | 1.63 (0.04) | 1.51 (0.12) | 2.00 (0.11)d,e
| F(2,462) = 5.923, η2 = 0.025, p = 0.003
|
Scale Angerc
|
Non-migrant vignette | 4.96 (0.09) | 5.37 (0.31) | 5.05 (0.25) | F(2,428) = 0.835, η2 = 0.004, p = 0.435 |
Migrant vignette | 4.79 (0.08) | 4.77 (0.26) | 5.16 (0.24) | F(2,460) = 1.093, η2 = 0.005, p = 0.336 |
…I feel pity.b
|
Non-migrant vignette | 3.09 (0.04) | 3.08 (0.14) | 3.36 (0.11) | F(2,428) = 2.709, η2 = 0.012, p = 0.068 |
Migrant vignette | 3.01 (0.04) | 3.28 (0.13) | 3.19 (0.12) | F(2,466) = 1.871, η2 = 0.008, p = 0.155 |
…I feel sympathy.b
|
Non-migrant vignette | 2.68 (0.05) | 2.82 (0.16) | 2.64 (0.12) | F(2,396) = 0.433, η2 = 0.002, p = 0.649 |
Migrant vignette | 2.67 (0.04) | 2.83 (0.13) | 2.56 (0.11) | F(2,428) = 1.223, η2 = 0.006, p = 0.295 |
…I feel the need to help.b
|
Non-migrant vignette | 3.20 (0.04) | 3.14 (0.13) | 3.47 (0.11)d
| F(2,426) = 3.099, η2 = 0.014, p = 0.046
|
Migrant vignette | 3.12 (0.03) | 3.22 (0.11) | 3.13 (0.09) | F(2,467) = 0.345, η2 = 0.001, p = 0.708 |
Scale Prosocialc
|
Non-migrant vignette | 9.01 (0.09) | 9.04 (0.31) | 9.43 (0.24) | F(2,430) = 1.350, η2 = 0.006, p = 0.260 |
Migrant vignette | 8.83 (0.08) | 9.43 (0.25) | 8.83 (0.22) | F(2,465) = 2.542, η2 = 0.011, p = 0.080 |
…I feel uncomfortable.b
|
Non-migrant vignette | 2.03 (0.05) | 1.94 (0.16) | 1.97 (0.13) | F(2,420) = 0.221, η2 = 0.001, p = 0.802 |
Migrant vignette | 2.00 (0.04) | 1.70 (0.15) | 2.50 (0.13)d,e
| F(2,451) = 9.339, η2 = 0.040, p < 0.001
|
…he/she scares me.b
|
Non-migrant vignette | 1.69 (0.04) | 1.51 (0.14) | 1.74 (0.11) | F(2,426) = 0.844, η2 = 0.004, p = 0.431 |
Migrant vignette | 1.55 (0.03) | 1.57 (0.11) | 1.63 (0.09) | F(2,465) = 0.327, η2 = 0.001, p = 0.721 |
…I feel insecure.c
|
Non-migrant vignette | 1.89 (0.05) | 1.87 (0.17) | 2.03 (0.13) | F(2,429) = 0.490, η2 = 0.002, p = 0.613 |
Migrant vignette | 1.85 (0.04) | 1.74 (0.13) | 1.94 (0.12) | F(2,465) = 0.664, η2 = 0.003, p = 0.515 |
Scale Fearb
|
Non-migrant vignette | 5.61 (0.12) | 5.37 (0.39) | 5.67 (0.30) | F(2,439) = 0.211, η2 = 0.001, p = 0.810 |
Migrant vignette | 5.39 (0.10) | 5.04 (0.31) | 5.89 (0.27) | F(2,469) = 2.349, η2 = 0.010, p = 0.097 |
Table 4
Mean values (standard errors) of desire for social distance from someone with depression depending on respondents’ migration background and migration status in the depression vignette
Desire for Social Distance |
Tenantb
|
Non-migrant vignette | 2.40 (0.05) | 2.56 (0.18) | 2.31 (0.14) | F(2,420) = 0.592, η2 = 0.003, p = 0.554 |
Migrant vignette | 2.48 (0.05) | 2.15 (0.16) | 2.51 (0.14) | F(2,452) = 2.145, η2 = 0.009, p = 0.118 |
Neighborb
|
Non-migrant vignette | 1.69 (0.04) | 1.65 (0.14) | 1.72 (0.11) | F(2,427) = 0.071, η2 = 0.000, p = 0.931 |
Migrant vignette | 1.67 (0.04) | 1.71 (0.12) | 1.93 (0.10) | F(2,462) = 2.943, η2 = 0.013, p = 0.054 |
Colleagueb
|
Non-migrant vignette | 1.67 (0.04) | 1.43 (0.13) | 1.68 (0.10) | F(2,429) = 1.650, η2 = 0.008, p = 0.193 |
Migrant vignette | 1.67 (0.04) | 1.81 (0.13) | 1.67 (0.10) | F(2,460) = 0.786, η2 = 0.003, p = 0.456 |
Childcareb
|
Non-migrant vignette | 3.05 (0.05) | 2.78 (0.16) | 3.08 (0.13) | F(2,420) = 1.321, η2 = 0.006, p = 0.268 |
Migrant vignette | 2.88 (0.05) | 2.89 (0.14) | 3.23 (0.13)d
| F(2,448) = 3.897, η2 = 0.017, p = 0.021
|
In-lawb
|
Non-migrant vignette | 2.25 (0.05) | 2.27 (0.16) | 2.65 (0.13)d
| F(2,403) = 4.284, η2 = 0.021, p = 0.014
|
Migrant vignette | 2.18 (0.05) | 2.37 (0.14) | 2.89 (0.13)d,e
| F(2,426) = 13.316, η2 = 0.059, p < 0.001
|
Introduce a friendb
|
Non-migrant vignette | 2.14 (0.05) | 2.17 (0.16) | 2.20 (0.12) | F(2,421) = 0.105, η2 = 0.000, p = 0.900 |
Migrant vignette | 2.21 (0.05) | 2.21 (0.15) | 2.40 (0.13) | F(2,454) = 0.988, η2 = 0.004, p = 0.373 |
Job recommendationb
|
Non-migrant vignette | 2.59 (0.05) | 2.54 (0.16) | 2.56 (0.13) | F(2,407) = 0.049, η2 = 0.000, p = 0.952 |
Migrant vignette | 2.57 (0.05) | 2.46 (0.14) | 2.62 (0.13) | F(2,454) = 0.361, η2 = 0.002, p = 0.697 |
Desire for Social Distance Scalec
|
Non-migrant vignette | 15.75 (0.21) | 15.39 (0.72) | 16.24 (0.57) | F(2,214) = 0.487, η2 = 0.002, p = 0.615 |
Migrant vignette | 15.65 (0.20) | 15.52 (0.62) | 17.23 (0.54)d
| F(2,462) = 3.979, η2 = 0.017, p = 0.019
|
Table 5
Self-Stigma of Depression Scale: Single items and scales according to respondents’ migration background [mean values (standard errors)]
Subscale Social Inadequacy | 2.57 (0.02) | 2.61 (0.06) | 2.67 (0.05) | F(2,1728) = 1.645, η2 = 0.002, p = 0.193 |
Feel inferior to other people
| 2.55 (0.03) | 2.50 (0.09) | 2.61 (0.07) | F(2,1726) = 0.574, η2 = 0.001, p = 0.563 |
Feel like a burden to other people
| 2.82 (0.02) | 2.94 (0.08) | 2.82 (0.06) | F(2,1737) = 1.057, η2 = 0.001, p = 0.348 |
Feel inadequate around other people
| 2.31 (0.02)b
| 2.46 (0.08) | 2.47 (0.07) | F(2,1683) = 3.539, η2 = 0.004, p = 0.029
|
Feel I couldn’t contribute much socially
| 2.59 (0.02)b
| 2.58 (0.08) | 2.79 (0.07) | F(2,1728) = 4.236, η2 = 0.005, p = 0.015
|
Subscale Own Responsibility | 2.76 (0.02)b
| 2.89 (0.06) | 3.02 (0.05) | F(2,1667) = 11.295, η2 = 0.013, p <
0.001
|
Think I should be able to pull myself together
| 2.77 (0.02)b
| 2.89 (0.08) | 3.07 (0.07) | F(2,1733) = 7.411, η2 = 0.008, p = 0.001
|
Think I should be able to cope with things
| 2.75 (0.02)b
| 2.86 (0.08) | 2.97 (0.06) | F(2,1698) = 6.179, η2 = 0.007, p = 0.002
|
Subscale Help-Seeking Inhibition | 2.03 (0.02) | 2.06 (0.06) | 2.14 (0.05) | F(2,1767) = 2.213, η2 = 0.002, p = 0.110 |
Wouldn’t want people to know that I wasn’t coping
| 2.24 (0.02) | 2.24 (0.08) | 2.37 (0.07) | F(2,1765) = 2.146, η2 = 0.002, p = 0.117 |
See myself as weak if I took antidepressants
| 2.14 (0.13) | 2.35 (0.09) | 2.18 (0.07) | F(2,1727) = 2.886, η2 = 0.003, p = 0.056 |
Feel embarrassed about seeking professional help
| 1.79 (0.02) | 1.79 (0.08) | 1.93 (0.07) | F(2,1766) = 2.157, η2 = 0.002, p = 0.116 |
Feel embarrassed if others knew I was seeking professional help
| 1.97 (0.03) | 1.88 (0.09) | 2.06 (0.07) | F(2,1757) = 1.340, η2 = 0.002, p = 0.262 |
Regarding the six items that capture stereotypes ascribed to someone with depression (Table
2), there was one significant difference between the subsamples when presented with a non-migrant vignette. Foreign-born migrants perceived such a person as less dangerous than migrants born in Germany. If the person presented in the depression vignette was from Turkey, foreign-born migrants significantly more often rated her or him as being scary when compared to non-migrants. The ascription of brilliance was more pronounced among migrants born in Germany.
Emotional reactions upon meeting an individual with depression are displayed in Table
3. Regardless of the depression vignette presented, respondents who were foreign-born stated they would react with incomprehension significantly more often than non-migrants or migrants born in Germany. When presented with a migrant vignette, foreign-born migrants displayed significantly greater feelings of discomfort than the other two subgroups. Regarding the depression vignette presenting a person from Germany, foreign-born migrants expressed more feelings to help this person.
Regarding desire for social distance (Table
4), respondents with migrant background born in Germany and those without migrant background did not differ significantly when presented with the two depression vignettes. However, when presented with a depression vignette depicting someone from Turkey, those of migrant background born abroad displayed significantly greater desire for social distance. This held true for the sum score as well as for the item childcare. Greatest desire for social distance was elicited by the hypothetical situation to accept a person with depression as an in-law. Compared to the other two subgroups, foreign-born migrants would not accept a German person with depression; the vignette depicting someone from Turkey induced even greater reluctance.
In terms of anticipated self-stigma, five statistically significant differences emerged (Table
5). In comparison to non-migrants, foreign-born migrants rather agreed to the feeling of inadequacy when around others as well as to the inability to contribute socially. Moreover, they tended to show greater self-blame in all aspects. There were no statistically significant differences between migrants born in Germany and non-migrants.
As displayed in Tables
2,
3,
4 and
5, the effect sizes of the statistically significant results were small to moderate.
Discussion
The present study analyzed differences in stigmatizing attitudes towards a person with depression depending on the respondent’s migration background as well as migration status presented in the vignette.
When presented with a non-migrant vignette of a person suffering from depression, there were only few significant differences between respondents depending on their migration status with respect to the ascription of stereotypes and desire for social distance. In comparison with the other two subgroups, those of migrant background born abroad perceived a non-migrant with depression as less dangerous, and they were more reluctant to accept such a person as an in-law. Regarding emotional reactions, foreign-born migrants displayed significantly more incomprehension. When presented with a depression vignette depicting someone from Turkey, further statistically significant differences emerged. Regardless of the vignette, non-migrant respondents displayed relatively similar attitudes and largely this was true for migrants born in Germany as well. However, respondents of migrant background born abroad tended to hold more stigmatizing views. They agreed more often to the stereotype of a person with depression being ‘scary’ and displayed greater feelings of discomfort. Furthermore, pronounced differences emerged in the desire to distance oneself from someone with depression who is of migrant background. With respect to the anticipated self-stigma of depression, those of migrant background born abroad showed more feelings of inadequacy and especially greater self-blame when compared to non-migrants.
Previous international research has shown that the stigma of mental illness is highly prevalent among some groups of migrants [
10,
11]. A study among a Muslim community found prejudices, which may hinder the disclosure of mental illness, as it is regarded very shameful [
8]. Furthermore, there is a great reluctance to socially engage with individuals with mental illness, as it has been shown by Tabassum, Macaskill, and Ahmad [
6]. This also holds true for the sample in the present study. To our knowledge, this is the first study in Germany examining differences in stigmatizing attitudes not only between migrants and non-migrants, but also depending on the migrant status in a vignette used as stimulus for the interview.
Many people of migrant background have been living in Germany for decades, e.g. based on recruitment contracts in the 1960s, concluded to encounter a deficit in workforce. Those migrants settled in Germany for good, and their descendants are living here in second or third generation. With reference to the present study, one could argue that many respondents of migrant background identify as members of the majority population, as they have been born or living here for the better part of their lives. This implies that their primary socialization has taken place in Germany. Although one can assume that their parents may have retained large parts of the heritage culture, values and norms passed on to their children could have already been adjusted to those of the receiving culture. During secondary socialization, friends, teachers, colleagues or media additionally shape attitudes, values and behaviors. Regarding attitudes toward persons with depression, this may explain why those of migrant background born in Germany do not substantially differ from non-migrants. Deviations from sociocultural or behavioral norms constitute the basis of labeling a condition as mental illness, which shows that mental illness is deeply rooted in culture and may vary between cultures [
11]. Research has shown that the German public is informed quite well about depression [
33], and that depression is less stigmatized than other psychiatric disorders (e.g. schizophrenia) [
23]. However, people with migrant background born abroad may have been socialized with different beliefs of mental illness. A review by Fabrega [
34] has shown that already in preindustrial Arab cultures, ‘insanity’ was a highly private matter handled by and rather kept within the family. Furthermore, studies have shown that in some cultures, explanatory models of mental illness include beliefs in supernatural causes or spirits [
9,
35], which shape attitudes toward those affected by mental illness and reinforce their exclusion.
In the present study, most pronounced differences emerged with regard to desire for social distance. This corroborates findings of previous studies, which indicate a strong social stigma surrounding mental illness among migrant communities. Especially acceptance of a person with depression as an in-law was relatively low, and other studies have also found that revealing mental illness can jeopardize a marital relationship [
9]. These social aspects of mental illness stigma are also expressed in levels of self-stigma among migrants in this study. The significant differences between subgroups underline the perceived shame related to depression, expressed in greater feelings of inadequacy around others. Furthermore, respondents of migrant background were more likely to see personal responsibility for the disorder, indicating self-blame.
As there are significant differences between the subsamples regarding sociodemographics (age and level of education), the analyses of depression attitudes have been adjusted for these variables. Stigmatizing attitudes have been found to display positive associations with age [
36] as well as negative associations with educational attainment [
37]. Interestingly, the migrant respondents are on average younger than the non-migrants. Moreover, in comparison to the non-migrant group, a greater share of migrant respondents attained the highest level of education. Nevertheless, stigmatizing attitudes persist.
When evaluating our findings, some limitations have to be mentioned and discussed. The response rate in this survey was about 50%. This is considered quite good for telephone surveys in Germany [
38], however, we cannot rule out a selection bias due to non-response. Nevertheless, the comparison of sociodemographic data of our sample with official German statistics is satisfactory and supports the study’s validity [
12]. A further limitation is related to the assessment of migrant background in our sample. We are not able to ascertain for how long respondents born abroad have been living in Germany, or from which country they originate. This aspect is not negligible in terms of acculturation and social identification. Furthermore, we presented a vignette displaying someone of Turkish background. Although this constitutes the largest group of migrants in Germany, countries of origin of the respondents (or their parents) certainly vary. The attitudes elicited by the vignette may also be influenced by other factors than solely by the diagnosis of depression. Regarding the vignette, it has to be mentioned that only the first sentence was varied to describe the different personal backgrounds of the persons displayed (see Additional file
1). Maybe this stimulus was not strong enough to convey the group affiliation, or the vignette was too short for respondents in order to develop a holistic picture of the person displayed. However, research has shown that vignettes should be kept rather short [
39]. In terms of statistical analyses, it can be regarded critically that Likert scales were tested using parametric measures. However, non-parametric measures do not allow testing for variation between adjusted mean values, which we thought important regarding the differences obtained in sociodemographic variables between subsamples. Previous studies by Glass et al. [
38] showed that the F-test is extremely robust to violations of its assumptions, and controls the Type I error rate well under conditions of skewness, kurtosis and non-normality. However, this does not apply for the assumption of homogeneity of variance, which was tested using Levene’s test. In those cases where the assumption was violated, non-parametrical Kruskal-Wallis-tests (results not displayed) were used to crosscheck the results. With one exception concerning the item ‘incomprehension’, we were able to verify the results obtained in ANOVA, which contributed to the decision to report these instead of the results of non-parametrical tests.