Page 114 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 114 of 128 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Table 4.3: Descriptive statistics (adjusting for spousal depression severity)
(spouse's self assessment: non-depression vs. depression)
characteristics denial acceptance
CES-D score of spouses: 0 5 (N = 6469) (N = 69)
CES-D score 3.23 (3.67) 3.56 (3.04)
CES-D score (spouse) 1.93 (1.79) 3.06 (1.74)
CES-D score of spouses: 6 10 (N = 7052) (N = 185)
CES-D score 7.27 (3.30) 7.14 (4.21)
CES-D score (spouse) 7.20 (1.42) 8.18 (1.46)
CES-D score of spouses: 11 15 (N = 1720) (N = 194)
CES-D score 10.12 (4.50) 8.95 (4.77)
CES-D score (spouse) 12.35 (1.29) 12.96 (1.38)
CES-D score of spouses: 16 20 (N = 313) (N = 150)
CES-D score 13.21 (5.77) 9.67 (6.22)
CES-D score (spouse) 17.43 (1.36) 17.87 (1.37)
CES-D score of spouses: 21 30 (N = 81) (N = 91)
CES-D score 13.98 (7.00) 14.33 (8.07)
CES-D score (spouse) 23.16 (2.47) 24.35 (3.00)
Note. CES-D score of 10 or higher is screened to be potentially having a clinical depression.
105
Object Description
| Title | Three essays on behavioral economics approaches to understanding the implications of mental health stigma |
| Author | Kim, Daehyun |
| Author email | kimdaehy@usc.edu;kimdaehy@usc.edu |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Economics |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2020-05-26 |
| Date submitted | 2020-08-07 |
| Date approved | 2020-08-07 |
| Restricted until | 2020-08-07 |
| Date published | 2020-08-07 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Coricelli, Giorgio |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Nugent, Jeff Doctor, Jason |
| Abstract | In the first essay (chapter 2), Based on the ‘optimal expectation model’ by Brunnermeier and Parker (2005), I build a decision theoretical model of optimal mental health belief formation. The model assumes individuals optimally choose their subjective belief about their own mental health state by taking into consideration both the psychological felicity of believing they are mentally fit and the potential future health cost from holding such optimistic view. Also, I add a component such that the relative importance of psychological felicity during this process is increasing in the individual level stigmatic attitude toward having mental illness. The implication is that individuals with high degree of mental health stigma develop positively biased subjective belief about their mental health state and tend to avoid knowing the true state in order to maintain the biased belief. The second essay (chapter 3) experimentally examines how individual level mental health stigma affects self-evaluation of mental fitness and demand for diagnostic information. In my randomized priming experiment, to generate exogenous variation in stigmatic affect, two groups of subjects read some facts about depression with either negative or positive connotations. Next, they were asked to report their self-assessment of their own depression severity and willingness to receive the diagnostic information. Among some demographic group (married and also employed as a full time worker), under-assessment of symptom severity and avoidance of diagnostic information were more likely to be observed among those who read negative messages about depression compared to those who read positive messages. The results tentatively support a theory in which individuals are motivated to hold positively biased beliefs about their mental fitness by being selectively acquire information, and mental health stigma increases these behavioral tendencies. These findings provide a potential explanation regarding simultaneous manifestation of denial about their depression and reluctance in help-seeking among depressed individuals. In the third essay (chapter 4), using a panel data which consists of nationally-representative samples of Korean elderly, I analyze the relationship between denial of having depression and its impact on the spousal mental health state. The result implies that there is significant association between denial of depression and their spouses' development of depression. Also, this association is stronger if the spouse is categorized as having a clinical depression. The potential mechanisms include first, the direct negative emotional impact of being in denial on one's care-givers. Second, if couples share similar attitudes such as mental health stigma, these shared attitudes may cause one partner's depression and another partner's denial. |
| Keyword | mental health; mental health stigma; information preference; disappointment aversion; family |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Kim, Daehyun |
| Physical access | The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given. |
| Repository name | University of Southern California Digital Library |
| Repository address | USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 7002, 106 University Village, Los Angeles, California 90089-7002, USA |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-KimDaehyun-8896.pdf |
| Archival file | Volume13/etd-KimDaehyun-8896.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 114 |
| Full text | Table 4.3: Descriptive statistics (adjusting for spousal depression severity) (spouse's self assessment: non-depression vs. depression) characteristics denial acceptance CES-D score of spouses: 0 5 (N = 6469) (N = 69) CES-D score 3.23 (3.67) 3.56 (3.04) CES-D score (spouse) 1.93 (1.79) 3.06 (1.74) CES-D score of spouses: 6 10 (N = 7052) (N = 185) CES-D score 7.27 (3.30) 7.14 (4.21) CES-D score (spouse) 7.20 (1.42) 8.18 (1.46) CES-D score of spouses: 11 15 (N = 1720) (N = 194) CES-D score 10.12 (4.50) 8.95 (4.77) CES-D score (spouse) 12.35 (1.29) 12.96 (1.38) CES-D score of spouses: 16 20 (N = 313) (N = 150) CES-D score 13.21 (5.77) 9.67 (6.22) CES-D score (spouse) 17.43 (1.36) 17.87 (1.37) CES-D score of spouses: 21 30 (N = 81) (N = 91) CES-D score 13.98 (7.00) 14.33 (8.07) CES-D score (spouse) 23.16 (2.47) 24.35 (3.00) Note. CES-D score of 10 or higher is screened to be potentially having a clinical depression. 105 |
