LAUSR

Scholars have warned that mental health anti-stigma campaigns targeting the general public can possibly be detrimental to some who are stigmatized. Scholars also have noted that people with depression respond to some public service announcements (PSAs) differently than those without. Accordingly, the current study explored whether anti-stigma PSAs targeting the general public could cause problematic outcomes for people with depression. Participants with (n = 55) and without (n = 133) heightened depressive symptomatology viewed two mental health anti-stigma PSAs. Participants provided thoughts about the PSAs through a single, open-ended question. To allow for an assessment of convergence, participants rated overall favorability toward each PSA through a close-ended item. Results indicated that most qualitative responses were favorable; however, 23.6% of respondents with heightened depressive symptomatology, compared to 1.5% without, provided responses coded as indicating that at least one PSA caused unintended negative affect, χ2(1) = 25.96, p < .001. Evidence of untoward effects primarily came from the Friend PSA and the qualitative responses indicate how this occurred. Moreover, complementing the qualitative coding, the Friend PSA was rated less favorably by participants with heightened depressive symptomatology (M = 5.00, SD = 1.67), than those without (M = 5.64, SD = 1.44), F(1, 186) = 6.99, p = .009, ηp2 = .036. There were no significant differences in quantitative favorability ratings regarding the Labeling PSA. Indicating that further investigation is warranted, results suggest it is possible for an anti-stigma PSA targeting the general public to cause unintended negative affect among some people with depression.