‘Love comes first,and it is ahead of any different political partisanism’: How political polarizations compare to other forms of discrimination in Buenos Aires (Argentina)

Abstract

Background:

Affective polarization and stigma toward individuals with schizophrenia and toward immigrants in Argentina are not new despite its importance and dissemination. However, no research has been conducted taking into consideration political partisanship and attitudes toward these groups.

Aims:

Political polarization and attitudes toward socialization across party lines are studied in conjunction with attitudes toward immigrants and toward individuals with schizophrenia.

Method:

Individuals from Buenos Aires (n = 712) were surveyed for their political partisanship and their attitudes toward Peruvian and Bolivian immigrants, people with schizophrenia and partisans from the opposing political party. A modified version of the Bogardus scale was used.

Results:

Social distance was from highest to lowest toward people with schizophrenia, political opponents, and immigrants. Individuals with schizophrenia were strongly discriminated against by most participants: 86% would definitely or probably not want them to take care of their children, 83% would not want them to be their healthcare provider, and 81% would not want to marry them. Immigrants were comparatively not discriminated against: 10% would not want them to take care of their children, 8% would not want to receive health care from them, and 28% would not want to marry them. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner partisans showed the lowest level of discrimination toward these two groups, compared to Mauricio Macri partisans and to independent voters. However, the former group had greater discriminatory attitudes toward Mauricio Macri partisans than the latter.

Conclusions:

As compared to other discriminatory attitudes, discrimination toward persons with schizophrenia is widespread and pervasive. Lower levels of discrimination toward people with schizophrenia and toward immigrants would not predict attitudes toward the opposing political partisans.

Keywords

Discrimination stigma affective polarization schizophrenia immigrants partisanship

Introduction

Through the social media Twitter community in Argentina, a young citizen with no prior political or media exposure made it known to the public that in June 2019 she had spoken to former president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (CFK) (2007–2015), when meeting her by chance in an airport, to seek her advice on loving matters. Subsequently, the story went viral (Mauricio Luna, 2020). Despite being a CFK partisan, she had fallen in love with a partisan of Mauricio Macri (MM), the president (2015–2019) who replaced CFK and represented the opposite political ideology. In overly simplified terms, CFK represented a left-wing populism political stance, supported strong state interventionism, and advocated for solidarity; MM represented neoliberalism and advocated for greater private initiatives and individualistic efforts. CFK offered her partisan clear and convincing advice: love comes first, and it is ahead of any different political partisanism. If she loved a MM partisan, she should not be deterred from moving forward and starting a relationship by any political reason. At first, this story may sound irrelevant; but, in consideration of many similar situations in other countries, the importance of this story becomes clear.

Globally, intergroup discrimination and political polarizations are not rare and certainly not new (Boxel et al., 2020; Handlin, 2018; Tajfel, 1970). These political differences not only exude different political ideologies, but they may also represent different socioeconomic backgrounds or cultural values – alleged to be ‘moral’ differences which give way to an ‘affective polarization’ (Iyengar et al., 2012). This last term refers to the extent to which citizens feel more negatively toward people supporting another political party than toward those supporting their own political party (Iyengar et al., 2012). The mere act of identifying with a political party may be sufficient to trigger negative evaluations of the opposing partisans, whereby exposure to specific media-based campaigns would reinforce such predispositions. These feelings may develop into attitudes that translate into not just dislike but into hate toward the opposing partisan. In the USA, for example, the divide between Republicans and Democrats has deepened over the last few decades. While only 4% to 5% of Americans were upset by their child marrying someone from a different political party in the 1960s, this figure jumped to one-third of Democrats and one-half of Republicans in 2010 (Iyengar et al., 2019, p. 132).

Discrimination based on political identity may be considered among other intergroup discrimination processes. A simple definition of discrimination proposed by Quillian (2006) states: ‘Discrimination is the difference between the treatment that a target group actually receives and the treatment they would receive if they were not members of the target group but were otherwise the same’ (p. 302). Immigrants and individuals with schizophrenia have typically been considered discriminated against and stigmatized groups (Angermeyer & Matschinger, 1996; Bogardus, 1925; Phelan et al., 1998). Moreover, these two populations can more precisely be considered stigmatized groups since they are markedly disadvantaged and disempowered in comparison to those who discriminate against them (Becker, 1963).

Political polarization, on the other hand, should not be considered a stigmatizing process, even when harsh discrimination and a similar ‘us versus them’ are involved. Political discrimination may be indicative of and contribute to other forms of discrimination. It could be expected that political partisans who discriminate the most against those outside their political party would discriminate against other non-political populations as well. In concordance, political partisans who discriminate the least would discriminate less against other groups. Younger and more educated people, for example, have been associated with less stigmatizing attitudes (Corrigan & Watson, 2007).

Previous studies have demonstrated that citizens from different political parties have dissimilar prejudice on immigrants (Schaefer, 1973) or on individuals with mental illness (DeLuca & Yanos, 2016; Gonzales et al., 2016; Löve et al., 2019). However, such differences have not been crossed with political polarization attitudes.

With regards to other forms of discrimination, in particular toward individuals with schizophrenia and immigrants, studies have shown that both populations are typically targets of discrimination (Cumming & Cumming, 1957; Davidov & Semyonov, 2017; Jorm & Oh, 2009). International studies showed that the general population widely shares negative stereotypes of – and a great desire for social distance toward – people with schizophrenia. In a study of six German cities in 2001, 77% of participants said they would not marry someone with schizophrenia, 23% would not be friends with them, and 16% would not work with someone with schizophrenia (Goebel et al., 2002). A Canadian study showed only slightly better figures: 75% of participants would not marry someone with schizophrenia, 18% would not be friends with them, and 16% would not work with them (Stuart & Arboleda-Flórez, 2001). Even mental health professionals are both prone to desiring social distance from individuals with schizophrenia (Des Courtis et al., 2008; Mittal et al., 2014) and are targets of discrimination (Persaud, 2000; Thornicroft, 2006).

Since Bogardus’s (1925) pioneering work, numerous studies have investigated the extent, dynamics, and consequences of discrimination against immigrants (Parrillo & Donoghue, 2005). Alleged reasons for discrimination of immigrant people vary. In economic terms, immigration would theoretically affect the size and composition of the receiving country’s labor force (Scheve & Slaughter, 2001) and natives may also resent the claims made on health and education services by immigrants who are perceived as not having contributed adequately to their funding (Card et al., 2005). According to these authors, immigrant people would be more (or less) discriminated against due to their ‘education, work skills, linguistic ability and, most importantly, commitment to a country’s way of life’ (p. 19). In addition, immigrants may be perceived as a wider collective threat to social and cultural institutions due to racial, religious or cultural backgrounds (Blalock, 1967). Hipp and Boessen (2012) studied such dynamics in Southern California throughout a 50-year span and concluded that there were no real negative economic impacts of immigrants on neighborhoods. However, as shown by Card et al. (2005), communities may still resist immigrants from poorer countries more so than from richer countries, allowing for alternative explanations.

Research in Argentina has confirmed many of these results. Leiderman et al. (2011) found that among 1,254 inhabitants of Buenos Aires, Argentina, aged 18 years and older, 77% would not marry and 28% would not be friends with individuals with schizophrenia. However, participants of this study presumed that most people would discriminate against those with schizophrenia even more than themselves. Almost 95% of the participants believed that most people would not let an individual with schizophrenia take care of their children. These results are in line with the pioneering study in Argentina by Colombo (1964), where 51% of participants would not be friends with someone with mental illness and 90% would not let them take care of their children. Druetta et al. (2013) showed that mental health professionals in Argentina shared a great desire for social distance toward individuals with schizophrenia: 83% would not marry someone with schizophrenia, 69% would not let them take care of their children, and 11% would not be friends with a person with schizophrenia. Notably, 34% would agree to revoke the driving license of someone with schizophrenia and 18% would not allow them to vote in general elections.

Furthermore, little is known about the similarities and differences when comparing social distance toward individuals with mental health disorders, immigrants, and political opponents. Despite the fact that greater social distance is expected with a higher degree of intimacy, it is not known if this pattern behaves similarly toward different discriminated against or stigmatized groups.

While CFK was offering her wise and tolerant advice to her partisan, we were conducting a study on attitudes toward immigrants, individuals with schizophrenia, and different political partisans in three different groups (CFK supporters, MM supporters, and independent voters). Her advice can be compared to her partisans’ disposition to interact with different social groups. This study may shed some light on social discrimination affecting individuals living with mental illness as well as supporters of a political leader in intense dispute with another political leader. In light of how political polarization has recently affected how people live and make sense of the COVID-19 pandemic and accept or oppose protective measures established by countries administrations (Bol et al., 2020; Rothgerber et al., 2020), affective polarization, and other forms of discrimination may have renovated importance.

With this study we aim to: (1) (a) Understand people’s attitudes toward individuals with schizophrenia, immigrants, and opposing partisans in Buenos Aires, Argentina; (b) Analyze patterns of discrimination toward different groups; (2) (a) Compare the attitudes of two opposite political partisans toward individuals with schizophrenia and immigrants; (b) Compare their attitudes toward each other.

Methods

A quantitative cross-sectional study was conducted between April and June 2019 in Buenos Aires City and the Metropolitan Area. Sampling adopted an intentional strategy, actively seeking for CFK and MM partisans. The study received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board of Proyecto Suma, Buenos Aires (Argentina).

Procedures and instruments

Ten different young interviewers approached people in the streets, bus stops, train stations, and shopping centers seeking answers with regards to their attitudes toward individuals who: (a) had migrated to Argentina from Bolivia or Perú (i.e. typical migrants from these two countries would have low and middle academic qualifications and, according to prejudice, these migrants would show observable characteristic native features); (b) had a diagnosis of schizophrenia (i.e. presented with, at some point in life, delusional ideas and/or hallucinations); (c) supported CFK; and (d) supported MM.

An adaptation of Bogardus scale with eight items was used for all four groups (see Figure 1). A four-point Likert scale was used for responses ranging from 0 (definitely yes) to 3 (definitively not). A global score was made with the sum of the points of each response.

Figure 1.

Adapted version of Bogardus scale.

In line with the suggestion that group identity requires both positive sentiment for one’s own group and negative sentiment toward those identifying with opposing groups (Iyengar et al., 2012), respondents were assigned to three different groups according to two initial questions: (a) In terms of political ideas, how close (or distant) to CFK do you feel?; (b) In terms of political ideas, how close (or distant) to MM do you feel? Answers could range from +5 to −5 for both questions. Participants were then assigned to: Group A, when they had at least +2 toward CFK and −2 toward MM; Group B, when they had at least +2 toward MM and −2 toward CFK; or Group C, when they were not included in Group A or Group B.

Three hundred respondents from Groups A and B were sought. Participants that pertained to Group C were interviewed as a control group for specific variables (e.g. experienced discrimination and desired social distance toward individuals with schizophrenia and toward immigrant people). Only 100 from this last group were sought.

Age and both maternal and participant’s education level (i.e. total years of study) were also requested from participants. In addition, participants were asked if they had been discriminated against because of their political ideas and if they had ended any type of relationship because of political partisanship.

Participants

Seven hundred and twelve individuals answered the complete questionnaire. Three hundred and one belonged to Group A (CFK supporters), 304 belonged to Group B (MM supporters), and 107 belonged to Group C (independent voters). Females accounted for 53.2% of the sample, mean age was 36.3 (SD 16.3) years, 52.5% had experiences of being discriminated against, and 45.5% had ended social relationships because of political ideologies. Political opponents were similar in gender and maternal education level, but not in age or personal educational level (see Table 1).

Table 1.

General characteristics of CFK supporters, MM supporters, and independent voters.

Independent variable/group	CFK supporters (N = 301)	MM supporters (N = 304)	Independent voters (N = 107)	All (N = 712)	Statistical tests/p
Age ± SD (years)	34.2 ± 15.5	39.1 ± 16.6	34.3 ± 16.3	36.3 ± 16.3	F = 8/.001
Female	55.6%	51.8%	52.8%	53.2%	X²(2) = 0.91/.6
Education: college or higher	20.2%	32.6%	22.4%	25.8%	X²(10) = 16.7/.07
Education: high school	72.1%	60.2%	65.4%	66.0%
Education: elementary school	7.3%	6.9%	12.1%	7.9%
Unfinished elementary school	0.3%	0.3%	0.0%	0.3%
Maternal education: college or higher	35.9%	40.1%	34.6%	37.5%	X²(12) = 17.6/.1
Maternal education: high school	44.5%	39.8%	45.8%	42.7%
Maternal education: elementary school	14.3%	16.4%	19.6%	16.0%
Maternal education: unfinished elementary school	4.3%	3.0%	0.0%	3.1%
Missing data	1.0%	0.6%	0.0%	0.7%
Had been discriminated against	61.8%	44.2%	49.5%	52.5%	X²(2) = 19.1/<.001
Ended a relationship bc of political ideologies	55.1%	39.5%	35.5%	45.5%	X²(2) = 20/<.001

Analysis

Scores were analyzed for each group (CFK supporters, MM supporters, and Independent voters) regarding individuals with schizophrenia, immigrant people, and CFK and/or MM supporters. The global score ranged from 0 to 24, with 0 representing the least desired social distance and 24 the greatest desired social distance.

For further analysis the four possible responses were dichotomized into two (definitively and probably yes vs. definitively and probably not). Relative frequencies of the answers were calculated. Scores and percentages were compared between groups using Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests for two or more independent variables, respectively. Spearman correlation coefficients between scores were used. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed. Statistical tests were carried out using SPSS version 20.0.

Results

General attitudes toward people with schizophrenia, immigrants, and opposing partisans

CFK partisans showed both greater support toward their leader (3.5) and greater disdain against the opposite leader (−4.4) compared to MM partisans (3.1 and −4.1 respectively).

More than half of participants from the study have felt discriminated against at some point during their life, and 45% had ended a relationship because of ideological political reasons. No significant differences for having been discriminated against were found by gender (X²(1) = 1.7; p = .1) or education level (X²(3) = 7; p = .07). However, we found differences between groups according to ideological partisanism; CFK partisans have been more discriminated against than MM partisans or independent voters (X²(2) = 19.1; p < .001).

We performed a linear regression and found that having been discriminated against did not predict social distance toward individuals with schizophrenia, immigrants, or opposing partisans (Adjusted R² = 0.001, F = 1.82; p = .1; Adjusted R² = 0.002, F = 2.7; p = .1 and Adjusted R² = 0.001, F = 0.3; p = .5 respectively) (see Table 1).

Social distance toward persons with a diagnosis of schizophrenia

Participants from the study showed the greatest desired social distance toward individuals with schizophrenia, compared to immigrants and opposing partisans (see Figure 2). Eighty-six percent of respondents would not trust individuals with schizophrenia to take care of their children; 83% would not accept receiving medical care from someone with schizophrenia; and 81% would definitely or probably not marry someone with schizophrenia.

Figure 2.

A comparison of desired social distance toward individuals with schizophrenia, immigrant people, and the opposing partisans.

Over one-third (34%) of respondents would not be friends with someone with schizophrenia and 37% would not like to work with someone with schizophrenia.

Women endorsed less social distance toward persons with schizophrenia than men (men 14 ± 5.2 vs. women 12.9 ± 5.6 t(705) = 2.5; p = .01). We also found a statistically significant difference by education level (F(3): 3.3; p = .01) that was at the expense of the difference between those who completed elementary school and completed high school (15.3 ± 6.6 vs. 12.6 ± 5.4 Post hoc Tukey p = .02), where lower education level implied greater desired social distance.

There was also a significant difference by ideological group (F(2) = 13.5; p = .001) between MM partisans and CFK partisans and between MM partisans and independent voters (14.6 ± 5.1 vs. 12.4 ± 5.6 vs. 12.6 ± 5.3, respectively; Post hoc test of Tukey p = .001 and p = .003).

After performing a multiple linear regression analysis with social distance scores toward persons with schizophrenia as the dependent variable and age, gender, personal and maternal education level, and ideological group as the independent variables, we found that social distance was poorly predicted by those factors (adjusted R² = 0.13, F(5) = 22.1; p < .001), with maternal education level as the only non-significant predictor variable. The other factors, ranked by strength of association (β coefficient), were: (1) age, (2) ideological group, (3) personal education level, and (4) gender.

Social distance toward immigrant people

Immigrants received a much ‘milder rejection’: only two hypothetical situations showed percentages above 10% of rejection. Fifteen percent of respondents would definitely or probably not rent a room to an immigrant from Bolivia or Perú, and 28% would not definitely or probably marry someone from Bolivia or Perú.

There were significant differences by education level (F(2) = 47.5; p < .001) and by partisanship (F(2) = 6; p = .001), but not by gender.

The multiple linear regression, with social distance score toward immigrants as the dependent variable and the demographic and partisanship variables as independent factors, showed that social distance was poorly predicted by age, partisanship, personal and maternal education level, but not gender (as ranked by β coefficients). Adjusted R² was 0.191 (F(3) = 56.7; p < .001).

Individuals with schizophrenia, despite being country fellows, were rejected 3 to 10 times more than immigrants. Receiving health care from an individual with schizophrenia or from an immigrant had the greatest difference (83% vs. 8% [McNemar test X² = 520.1; p < .001]).

There was a significant correlation between social distance toward individuals with schizophrenia and toward immigrant people (Spearman rho = 0.24; p < .001).

Social distance toward opposing partisans

Opposing partisans had a moderate rejection: The percentages of the desired social distance varied from 20% to 60%. Getting married was the most rejected (60%), followed by being friends with (30%) and renting a room to (28%) an opposing partisan. There were no statistically significant differences by sex (Z = 1.7; p = .07) or education level (X²(3) = 6.2; p = .1), but there was by partisanship (X²(2) = 21.5; p < .001).

The multiple linear regression, with social distance score toward opposing partisan as the dependent variable, and age, gender, partisanship, personal and maternal education as independent factors, demonstrated that social distance was poorly predicted by age and individual education level (β coefficients = .13 and .09 respectively) while it was not by gender or maternal educational level (adjusted R² was 0.027; F(5) = 4.9; p < .001).

Social distance toward opposing partisans was associated with social distance toward people with schizophrenia and immigrants (Spearman rho = 0.1; p = .002 and rho = 0.2; p < .001, respectively).

A comparison of different patterns of discrimination

The analysis of discrimination toward different groups showed that they are more than just quantitatively different. Not only are individuals with schizophrenia more discriminated against than the other groups, but also different aspects of a hypothetical relationship are rejected according to each group (see Table 2). While respondents were reluctant to be friends with an opposing partisan (which was the second worst situation, after getting married to an opposing partisan), they considered being friends with an individual with schizophrenia to be the least problematic situation.

Table 2.

Ranking of desired social distance toward different populations.

	Individuals with schizophrenia	Immigrants	Opposing partisan
Marry	3	1	1
Friends with	8	6	2
Rent a room to	4	2	3
Receive health care from	2	4	8
Have your children cared for by	1	3	4
Move by	6	7	7
Work with	7	8	6
Recommend for a job	5	5	5

In addition, while respondents would avoid receiving health care from an individual with schizophrenia, they considered this the least problematic situation with an opposing partisan.

Working with and moving near individuals pertaining to any of these groups were consistently considered among the least problematic situations.

Marrying an individual from these three groups was consistently one of the most resisted situations, ranking as the least desired situation with immigrants or opposing partisans and third least for individuals with schizophrenia. Comparatively, friendship, the least desired social distance from a person with schizophrenia, was third to last from immigrants and second greatest toward opposing partisans.

Comparison of CFK partisans to MM partisans

CFK and MM partisans’ attitudes toward individuals with schizophrenia and toward immigrants

CFK and MM partisans both showed greater stigmatizing attitudes toward people with schizophrenia than toward immigrants (Wilcoxon test Z = 19.7; p < .001). In addition, CFK partisans showed less stigmatizing attitudes toward immigrants and toward people with schizophrenia than MM partisans (Z = 7.6; p < .001 and Z = 5.1; p < .001, respectively) (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Categorical responses of social distance toward individuals with schizophrenia and toward immigrant people according to political ideology.

Partisan group	Probably or definitely not want to. . .	Individual with schizophrenia (%)	Immigrant (%)
MM partisan	Marry a. . .	87	40
CFK partisan		76	17
Ind voter		77	24
MM partisan	Be friends with. . .	43	10
CFK partisan		28	2
Ind voter		24	5
MM partisan	Rent a room to. . .	69	27
CFK partisan		51	5
Ind voter		46	10
MM partisan	Receive health care from. . .	89	14
CFK partisan		78	3
Ind voter		78	5
MM partisan	Have your children cared for by. . .	90	16
CFK partisan		82	6
Ind voter		81	5
MM partisan	Move by. . .	47	8
CFK partisan		33	3
Ind voter		39	3
MM partisan	Work with. . .	44	6
CFK partisan		32	3
Ind voter		29	3
MM partisan	Recommend for a job a. . .	51	9
CFK partisan		39	4
Ind voter		35	6

Note. Ind voter accounts for Independent Voter. Decimals have been suppressed for a better comprehension.

There was a statistically significant difference between MM partisans and CFK partisans or independent voters (6.21 ± 5.5 vs. 2.72 ± 4 vs. 2.75 ± 4.2, respectively; Kruskal Wallis X²(2) = 98; p < .001).

Importantly, the majority of both MM and CFK partisans expressed hesitancy when asked if they would be willing to marry someone with schizophrenia (87% and 76% probably or definitely would not, respectively). However, the difference between these two groups is illustrated by those who definitely would not, with 44% of MM partisans saying they definitely would not marry someone with schizophrenia versus 33% of CFK partisans.

On the other hand, 28% of CFK partisans would definitely or probably not be friends with someone with schizophrenia compared to 43% of MM partisans.

The largest difference between CFK and MM partisans with regard to people with schizophrenia was in connection to renting them a room. While 69% of MM partisans would definitely or probably not want to rent a room to someone with schizophrenia, 51% of CFK partisans endorsed the same unwillingness.

The same trend, but with even higher differences between the two groups, is shown with regard to immigrant people. Highly significant differences were found between CFK and MM partisans with regards to their attitudes toward renting a room to, marrying, being friends with, receiving healthcare from, and having their children cared for by an immigrant. Overall, CFK partisans showed much less desire for social distance toward immigrants than MM partisans did (Z = 7.6; p < .001).

CFK partisans and MM partisans’ reciprocal attitudes

Despite CFK partisans holding a less general stigmatizing attitude than MM supporters, CFK partisans showed higher stigmatizing attitudes toward MM partisans than did MM partisans toward CFK partisans (Z = 3.1; p = .001) (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Desired social distance toward opposing partisans among CFK and MM partisans.

	Probably or definitely not want to. . .	Opposing partisan	Statistics
MM partisan	Marry a. . .	57% (CFK)	X²(1) = 20.3; p = .001*
CFK partisan	Marry a. . .	74% (MM)	X²(1) = 20.3; p = .001*
MM partisan	Be friends with. . .	26% (CFK)	X²(1) = 15.6; p = .001*
CFK partisan	Be friends with. . .	41% (MM)	X²(1) = 15.6; p = .001*
MM partisan	Work with. . .	19% (CFK)	X²(1) = 4; p = .045*
CFK partisan	Work with. . .	26% (MM)	X²(1) = 4; p = .045*
MM partisan	Receive health care from. . .	12% (CFK)	X²(1) = 0.4; p = .5
CFK partisan	Receive health care from. . .	14% (MM)	X²(1) = 0.4; p = .5
MM partisan	Have your children cared for by. . .	24% (CFK)	X²(1) = 1; p = .3
CFK partisan	Have your children cared for by. . .	26% (MM)	X²(1) = 1; p = .3
MM partisan	Move by. . .	18% (CFK)	X²(1) = 0.3; p = .5
CFK partisan	Move by. . .	16% (MM)	X²(1) = 0.3; p = .5
MM partisan	Recommend for a job a. . .	22% (CFK)	X²(1) = 2.21; p = .1
CFK partisan	Recommend for a job a. . .	27% (MM)	X²(1) = 2.21; p = .1
MM partisan	Rent a room to. . .	34% (CFK)	X²(1) = 1.1; p = .29
CFK partisan	Rent a room to. . .	30% (MM)	X²(1) = 1.1; p = .29

Denotes statistically different.

The majority (74%) of CFK partisans rejected the idea of marrying a MM partisan. Many also rejected the idea of becoming friends (41%) and working (26%) with a MM partisan. Conversely, 57% of MM partisans rejected the idea of marrying a CFK partisan, 26% rejected the idea of becoming friends, and 19% rejected the idea of working with a CFK partisan.

The sole two items that received a greater rejection from MM partisans than from CFK partisans were renting a room to and moving by the antagonist political partisan, though this was not statistically significant.

Interestingly, according to such responses, CFK partisans would ‘prefer’ to be friends with someone with schizophrenia than with someone from the opposing party (28% would definitely or probably not be friends with someone with schizophrenia vs. 41% with a MM partisan).

A quarter of both CFK and MM partisans would definitely or probably not want an opposing partisan to take care of their children. A very similar percentage expressed an unwillingness to recommend an opposing partisan for a job.

Discussion

Our findings suggest that there are different patterns of discrimination. What is targeted for discrimination is different according to the population. Immigrants and opposing partisans are mostly discriminated against with regards to marrying them. Renting a room (especially for MM partisans) and becoming friends (especially toward opposing partisans) are next as situations desired to be avoided by our respondents. However, respondents showed a different pattern of discrimination toward individuals with schizophrenia. Having their children cared for by someone with schizophrenia received an overwhelming rejection, as well as receiving health care from or marrying them.

While the original Bogardus scale was designed on the premise that greater intimacy uniformly generates greater desired social distance (Bogardus, 1925), our findings suggest that different populations may evoke different patterns of rejection and may not follow an identical pattern of expected greater intimacy and avoidance. Similar to what Reavley and Jorm (2012) found regarding different stigmatizing patterns for different mental disorders, participants from this study showed that opposite partisans would still trust the other’s professional knowledge despite a lack of desire to marry or be friends with them, while individuals with schizophrenia were uniformly more discriminated against.

Having a diagnosis of schizophrenia in Buenos Aires means that more than 80% of highly educated people are unlikely to be willing to marry you, have you care for their children, or receive medical care from you. At a greater extreme, more than 35% of people endorsed that they are certain they would not be willing to engage in any of the above actions, with an astonishing 50% reporting they definitely do not want someone with schizophrenia caring for their children. By comparing these numbers with immigrants or with people with the opposite political ideology, it becomes clear how pervasive the prejudice against people with schizophrenia is. Given these findings, it is not surprising that these individuals are likely to maintain secrecy around such a diagnosis, or that families will not disclose that they have a relative with schizophrenia, or even that mental health professionals avoid giving a diagnosis of schizophrenia in Argentina (Druetta et al., 2013). Considering that 83% of participants would avoid receiving health care from someone with schizophrenia, strategies of employing individuals with schizophrenia to provide peer support to other mental health service users may need to overcome an initial severe discrimination.

These results are consistent with a previous study in Argentina (Leiderman et al., 2011) which found that many would not marry or be friends with someone with schizophrenia. Independent voters and CFK partisans had almost the exact same percentage of desired social distance toward individuals with schizophrenia as in that previous study, and very close to studies conducted in Canada (Stuart & Arboleda-Flórez, 2001) and Germany (Gaebel et al., 2002).

Our findings suggest that discrimination against individuals with schizophrenia could predict discrimination of immigrant people, but discrimination against opposing partisans would not. In other words, those who discriminated less against individuals with schizophrenia would also discriminate less against immigrants, but not against opposing partisans.

Partisanship showed that one in five fellow compatriots may not want to work together, one in three would not be friends, and two out of three would not marry an opposing partisan. These numbers were even higher for CFK partisans, who otherwise discriminated less against people with schizophrenia and immigrants compared to MM partisans.

It is important to mention that CFK supporters had a significantly larger experience of being discriminated against and ending relationships because of political ideology. However, none of these experiences were associated with greater desire for social distance toward others.

Strengths and limitations

In this study we compare different targets of discrimination in Argentina, including individuals with schizophrenia, immigrants from Perú and Bolivia, and political partisans with opposing political ideologies. The same instrument is used to evaluate the desired social distance toward four different groups.

CFK and MM partisans had significant differences in terms of age, education, closeness to their political leader, and general rejection toward the opposite political leader. These differences may have affected the results regarding the disposition to interact between CFK and MM partisans.

It is important to acknowledge that president MM was in power when this study was conducted, and it may be possible that being in power (especially with a general low level of approval) contributes to higher levels of rejection by non-supporters compared to the rejection caused in non-supporters by someone who is not in power. Were this same study to be performed at the present time, with CFK as the current Argentine vice-president, MM supporters might conceivably show higher discriminatory attitudes toward CFK supporters.

Some researchers have noted that participants from attitudinal face to face surveys may be affected by the need to please the interviewer, casting some doubt on whether such an approach may really convey information on the real preferences and disposition of participants to act upon (i.e. social desirability effect) (Bowling, 2005). By asking participants about different groups, the social desirability effect can also be compared.

Because of the intentional sampling strategy of the survey, we can not presume the results are representative of the Argentinian population. However, the number of people haphazardly surveyed surely decreased the difference of results with a representative sample.

Conclusions

Individuals with schizophrenia are targeted as a highly stigmatized population in Argentina, even among those who discriminate against them the less. Peruvian and Bolivian immigrants are scarcely discriminated against, but some groups still show considerable discriminatory attitudes against them.

Political polarization follows a different pattern of social avoidance compared to discrimination toward individuals with schizophrenia or immigrant people. Individuals with low general level of discrimination against other people may show higher levels of discrimination toward opposing political partisans. Tolerance toward different social groups may not predict tolerance toward a different political partisan.

In order to increase acceptance of other groups, consideration may need to be given to specific patterns of discrimination and specific prejudices against each group. Given that universal tolerance is not feasible, anti-stigma campaigns would have greater success in targeting specific populations and stereotypes, particularly if they were to consider innovative strategies for each pattern of discrimination.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Martín Agrest

References

Angermeyer

M. C.

Matschinger

(1996) The effect of violent attacks by schizophrenic persons on the attitude of the public towards the mentally ill. Social Science & Medicine, 43, 1721–1728.

Becker

H. S.

(1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Macmillan.

Blalock

H. M.

(1967). Towards a theory of minority group relations. Wiley.

Bogardus

E. M.

(1925). Measuring social distance. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 299–308.

Bol

Giani

Blais

Loewen

P. J.

(2020). The effect of COVID-19 lockdowns on political support: Some good news for democracy? European Journal of Political Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/7hpj9

Bowling

(2005) Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. Journal of Public Health, 27, 281–291.

Boxel

Gentzkow

Shapiro

J. M.

(2020). Cross-country trends in affective polarization (Working Paper No. 26669). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w26669

Card

Dustmann

Preston

(2005). Understanding attitudes to immigration: The migration and minority module of the first European Social Survey. https://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_03_05.pdf

Colombo

(1964). La asistencia psiquiátrica y las actitudes colectivas ante la enfermedad mental. Revista de Psicología, 1, 27–32.

10.

Corrigan

P. W.

Watson

A. C.

(2007). The stigma of psychiatric disorders and the gender, ethnicity, and education of the perceiver. Community Mental Health Journal, 43, 439–458. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-007-9084-9

11.

Cumming

(1957). Closed ranks: An experiment in mental health education. Harvard University Press.

12.

Davidov

Semyonov

(2017). Attitudes toward immigrants in European societies. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 58(5), 359–366.

13.

DeLuca

J. S.

Yanos

(2016). Managing the terror of a dangerous world: Political attitudes as predictors of mental health stigma. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 62(1), 21–30.

14.

Des Courtis

Lauber

Trujillo-Costa

Cattaplan-Ludewig

(2008). Beliefs about the mentally ill: A comparative study between healthcare professionals in Brazil and in Switzerland. Journal of Review of Psychiatry, 20(6), 503–509.

15.

Doherty

(2014). Seven things to know about polarization in America. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/

16.

Druetta

Ceresa

Leiderman

(2013). Actitudes de los profesionales de la salud mental hacia las personas con esquizofrenia. [Attitudes of mental health workers toward people with schizophrenia] Vertex, Revista Argentina de Psiquiatría, 24(110), 245–252.

17.

Gaebel

Baumann

Witte

A. M.

Zaeske

(2002). Public attitudes towards people with mental illness in six German cities. European Archives of Psychiatry & Clinical Neuroscience, 252, 278–287.

18.

Gonzales

Chan

Yanos

(2016). Individual and neighborhood predictors of mental illness stigma in New York State. Stigma and Health, 2(3), 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000043

19.

Handlin

(2018). The logic of polarizing populism: State crises and polarization in South America. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 75–91.

20.

Hipp

J. R.

Boessen

(2012). Immigrants and social distance: Examining the social consequences of immigration for Southern California neighborhoods over fifty years. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 641, 192–219.

21.

Mauricio Luna

. (2020). El consejo de amor que le dio Cristina Kirchner a una joven que le dijo “me gusta un macrista” [Loving advice provided by Cristina Kirchner to a youngster telling her “I’m in love with a Macri partisan”] https://www.infobae.com/sociedad/2020/07/03/el-consejo-de-amor-que-le-dio-cristina-kirchner-a-una-joven-que-le-dijo-me-gusta-un-macrista/

22.

Iyengar

Lelkes

Levendusky

Malhotra

Westwood

S. J.

(2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129–146.

23.

Iyengar

Sood

Lelkes

(2012). Affect, not ideology. A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.

24.

Jorm

(2009). Desire for social distance from people with mental disorders: A review. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 183–200.

25.

Leiderman

Vazquez

Berizzo

Bonifacio

Bruscoli

Capria

J. I.

Ehrenhaus

Guerrero

Lolich

Milev

(2011). Public knowledge, beliefs and attitudes towards patients with schizophrenia: Buenos Aires. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 46, 281–290.

26.

Löve

Bertilsson

Martinsson

Wängnerud

Hensing

(2019). Political ideology and stigmatizing attitudes toward depression: The Swedish case. International Journal of Health Policy & Management, 8(6), 365–374.

27.

Mittal

Corrigan

Sherman

M. D.

Chekuri

Han

Reaves

Mukherjee

Morris

Sullivan

(2014). Healthcare providers’ attitudes toward persons with schizophrenia. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 37(4), 297–303.

28.

Parrillo

V. N.

Donoghue

(2005). Updating the Bogardus social distance studies: A new national survey. The Social Science Journal, 42(2), 257–271.

29.

Persaud

(2000). Psychiatrists suffer from stigma too. Psychiatric Bulletin, 24(8), 284–285.

30.

Phelan

J. C.

Bromet

E. J.

Link

B. G.

(1998). Psychiatric illness and family stigma. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 24, 115–126.

31.

Quillian

(2006). New approaches to understanding racial prejudice and discrimination. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 299–328. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123132

32.

Reavley

N. J.

Jorm

A. F.

(2012). Stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental disorders: Findings from an Australian National Survey of Mental Health Literacy and Stigma. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 45, 1086–1093. https://doi.org/10.3109/00048674.2011.621061

33.

Rothgerber

Wilson

Whaley

Rosenfeld

Humphrey

Moore

Bihl

(2020). Politicizing the COVID-19 pandemic: Ideological differences in adherence to social distancing. PsyArXiv. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/k23cv

34.

Schaefer

R. T.

(1973). Party affiliation and prejudice in Britain. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2(3), 296–299.

35.

Scheve

K. F.

Slaughter

M. J.

(2001). Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. Review of Economics and Statistics, 83(1), 133–145.

36.

Stuart

Arboleda-Flórez

(2001). Community attitudes toward people with schizophrenia. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46(3), 245–252.

37.

Tajfel

(1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223(5), 96–103.

38.

Thornicroft

(2006). Shunned: Discrimination against people with mental illness. Oxford University Press.