Skip to main content

Table 3 Results of the multiple regression analyses with emotional, behavioral, and cognitive public caregiver stigma as outcomes and gender and working status of the caregivers as main independent variables, adjusted for the sociodemographic background of the participants

From: Are informal family caregivers stigmatized differently based on their gender or employment status?: a German study on public stigma towards informal long-term caregivers of older individuals

Outcome variables Devaluing feelings Appreciative feelings Regretful and anxious feelings Social distance Accusing statements Devaluing statements Appreciative statements
Model (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Caregiver’s gender (Ref. female) 0.02 −0.02 −0.00 0.13** 0.04 0.01 −0.05
  (0.03) (0.05) (0.06) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04)
Caregiver’s working status (Ref. no, non-working) −0.04 0.09+ 0.07 −0.11* −0.02 − 0.00 0.12**
  (0.03) (0.05) (0.06) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04) (0.04)
Constant 1.74*** 3.20*** 3.14*** 2.07*** 1.96*** 2.14*** 4.05***
  (0.07) (0.12) (0.14) (0.11) (0.10) (0.11) (0.10)
Observations 1028 1027 1031 1033 1027 1032 1033
R2 0.053 0.050 0.050 0.025 0.011 0.028 0.056
  1. Unstandardized regression coefficients and robust standard errors in parentheses. Emotional reactions to informal caregiving (devaluing feelings, appreciative feelings, regretful and anxious feelings), Range 1–5, higher scores indicating higher agreement with the emotions; behavioral reactions to informal caregiving (social distance), Range 1–5, higher scores indicating higher social distance; cognitive reactions to informal caregiving (accusing statements, devaluing statements, appreciative statements), Range 1–5, higher scores indicating higher agreement with the statements. Sociodemographic information on the participants was included as covariates (age, gender, education, and marital status). Level of significance: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, + p < 0.10