↓ Skip to main content

Stigmatization in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey experiment using attribution theory and the familiarity hypothesis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Stigmatization in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey experiment using attribution theory and the familiarity hypothesis
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s12889-023-15234-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastian Sattler, Dina Maskileyson, Eric Racine, Eldad Davidov, Alice Escande

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has created a global health crisis, leading to stigmatization and discriminatory behaviors against people who have contracted or are suspected of having contracted the virus. Yet the causes of stigmatization in the context of COVID-19 remain only partially understood. Using attribution theory, we examine to what extent attributes of a fictitious person affect the formation of stigmatizing attitudes towards this person, and whether suspected COVID-19 infection (vs. flu) intensifies such attitudes. We also use the familiarity hypothesis to explore whether familiarity with COVID-19 reduces stigma and whether it moderates the effect of a COVID-19 infection on stigmatization. We conducted a multifactorial vignette survey experiment (28-design, i.e., NVignettes = 256) in Germany (NRespondents = 4,059) in which we experimentally varied signals and signaling events (i.e., information that may trigger stigma) concerning a fictitious person in the context of COVID-19. We assessed respondents' cognitive (e.g., blameworthiness) and affective (e.g., anger) responses as well as their discriminatory inclinations (e.g., avoidance) towards the character. Furthermore, we measured different indicators of respondents' familiarity with COVID-19. Results revealed higher levels of stigma towards people who were diagnosed with COVID-19 versus a regular flu. In addition, stigma was higher towards those who were considered responsible for their infection due to irresponsible behavior. Knowing someone who died from a COVID infection increased stigma. While higher self-reported knowledge about COVID-19 was associated with more stigma, higher factual knowledge was associated with less. Attribution theory and to a lesser extent the familiarity hypothesis can help better understand stigma in the context of COVID-19. This study provides insights about who is at risk of stigmatization and stigmatizing others in this context. It thereby allows identifying the groups that require more support in accessing healthcare services and suggests that basic, factually oriented public health interventions would be promising for reducing stigma.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 18%
Unspecified 1 9%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Other 2 18%
Unknown 3 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 18%
Social Sciences 2 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%
Arts and Humanities 1 9%
Unspecified 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 3 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2023.
All research outputs
#15,058,486
of 23,915,168 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,915
of 15,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,392
of 428,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#190
of 366 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,915,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,711 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 428,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 366 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.