Explore the vast range of titles available.

There has been little research exploring the relationship between personality traits, self-esteem, and stigmatizing attitudes toward those with mental disorders. Furthermore, the mechanisms through which the beholder’s personality influence mental illness stigma have not been tested. The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between Big Five personality traits, self-esteem, familiarity, being a healthcare professional, and stigmatization. Moreover, this study aims to explore the mediating effect of perceived dangerousness on the relationship between personality traits and desire for social distance. We conducted a vignette-based representative population survey ( N  = 2207) in the canton of Basel-Stadt, Switzerland. Multiple regression analyses were employed to examine the associations between personality traits, self-esteem, familiarity, and being a healthcare professional with the desire for social distance and perceived dangerousness. The mediation analyses were performed using the PROCESS macro by Hayes. Analyses showed associations between personality traits and stigmatization towards mental illness. Those who scored higher on openness to experience ( β  = − 0.13, p  < 0.001), ( β  = − 0.14, p  < 0.001), and those who scored higher on agreeableness ( β  = − 0.15, p  < 0.001), ( β  = − 0.12, p  < 0.001) showed a lower desire for social distance and lower perceived dangerousness, respectively. Neuroticism ( β  = − 0.06, p  = 0.012) was inversely associated with perceived dangerousness. Additionally, high self-esteem was associated with increased stigmatization. Personal contact or familiarity with people having mental disorders was associated with decreased stigmatization. Contrarily, healthcare professionals showed higher perceived dangerousness ( β  = 0.04, p  = 0.040). Finally, perceived dangerousness partially mediated the association between openness to experience (indirect effect = −  .57, 95% CI [− .71, − 0.43]) as well as agreeableness (indirect effect = − 0.57, 95% CI [− 0.74, − 0.39]) and desire for social distance. Although the explained variance in all analyses is < 10%, the current findings highlight the role of personality traits and self-esteem in areas of stigma. Therefore, future stigma research and anti-stigma campaigns should take individual differences into consideration. Moreover, the current study suggests that perceived dangerousness mediates the relationship between personality traits and desire for social distance. Further studies are needed to explore the underlying mechanisms of such relationship. Finally, our results once more underline the necessity of increasing familiarity with mentally ill people and of improving the attitude of healthcare professionals towards persons with mental disorders.

Background: Psychiatric patients are subjected to considerable stigmatization, in particular, because they are considered aggressive, uncontrollable, and dangerous. This stigmatization might influence the approval of coercive measures in psychiatry by the public and healthcare professionals and might have an influence on the clinical practice of coercive measures. We examined whether the general approval of coercive measures for psychiatric patients with dangerous behaviors differs from case-specific approval. Method: We conducted a representative survey of the general population (n = 2207) in the canton of Basel-Stadt, Switzerland. In total, 1107 participants assessed a case vignette depicting a fictitious character with a mental illness and indicated whether they would accept coercive measures (involuntary hospitalization, involuntary medication, and seclusion) for the person in the vignette. It was explicitly stated that within the last month, the fictitious character displayed no dangerous behavior (Vignette ND) or dangerous behavior (Vignette D). Another 1100 participants were asked whether they would approve coercive measures (involuntary hospitalization, involuntary medication, and seclusion) for psychiatric patients with dangerous behavior in general (General D), i.e., without having received or referring to a specific case vignette. Findings: The logistic regression model containing all variables explained 45% of the variance in approval of any type of coercive measures. Assessment of case vignettes without dangerous behavior (Vignette ND) was associated with significantly reduced approval of coercive measures compared to assessment of a case vignette with dangerousness (Vignette D), while approval for coercive measures in a person with mental health disorder with dangerous behavior in general (General D) was significantly higher than for the case vignette with dangerousness. Conclusions: The general approval of coercive measures for people with mental disorders seems to differ depending on if the respondents are asked to give a general assessment or to examine a specific and detailed clinical case vignette, indicating an increased role of stigmatization when asking about generalized assessments. This may contribute to diverging findings on the acceptance of coercive measures in the literature and should be considered when designing future studies.