Skip to main content

Table 4 Results of the multiple regression analyses with emotional, behavioral, and cognitive public caregiver stigma as outcomes, stratified by caregiver’s working status, with caregiver’s gender as main independent variables and 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
working non-working working non-working working non-working working non-working working non-working working non-working working non-working
Model (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
Caregiver’s gender (Ref. female) 0.02 0.01 −0.04 −0.01 − 0.02 0.00 0.14* 0.11+ 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.00 −0.10+ −0.01
  (0.04) (0.04) (0.07) (0.07) (0.08) (0.08) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06) (0.05) (0.06)
Constant 1.63*** 1.81*** 3.19*** 3.30*** 2.94*** 3.41*** 1.97*** 2.08*** 1.83*** 2.07*** 1.95*** 2.32*** 4.12*** 4.11***
  (0.10) (0.10) (0.17) (0.16) (0.20) (0.20) (0.15) (0.16) (0.14) (0.15) (0.16) (0.16) (0.13) (0.14)
Observations 515 513 512 515 514 517 516 517 511 516 516 516 516 517
R2 0.071 0.076 0.048 0.076 0.058 0.068 0.037 0.022 0.027 0.016 0.026 0.054 0.055 0.066
  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