Depression Lit Review
Depression: How does the marketing of depression affect public stigma of depression?
Introduction
Depression is increasingly recognized as a mental disorder by much of the world’s population.
According to the World Health Organization, depression is expected to be the world’s second
largest health problem, just after heart disease, by 2020 (Gordon). Also, the National Institute
of Mental Health estimates that fourteen million Americans suffer from major depression, and
more than three million suffer from minor depression (Menand). Although its causes are
unknown, general practitioners usually associate depression with psychological causes, mainly
stressors; medical causes, such as a chemical imbalance; and external causes, such as time of
year (“You’re depressed…” 123). Increasingly, there has been a shift towards recognizing
depression as a chemical imbalance in the brain by populaces across the globe, contributing to
a huge increase in antidepressant sales over the last twenty years. Menand acknowledges that
one out of every ten Americans holds a prescription for antidepressants, meaning there are
thirty-one million prescriptions in the United States alone. This suggests over-prescription of
antidepressant drugs. This over-prescription, and shift in public thinking can be contributed to
drug corporations that partake in “direct-to-consumer” advertising, and demonstrates the
ability large corporations have to influence public opinion (Menand).
Public Recognition/Stigma
There have been numerous studies completed throughout the world on how depression is
perceived by the public. Link (1330) and Jorm agree that about 70% of the American and
Australian public recognize depression as a mental illness. Other than recognition, public
surveys commonly ask about negative and positive perceptions of depressed people. According
to Crisp, Link, and Peluso, there were differences in whether the public viewed depressed
people as dangerous, ranging from 22.9% (Crisp et al. 5) to 56.8% (Peluso and Blay 204). In
addition, Wang (192), Angermeyer (180) and Crisp (5) claim that about half of the public in
Canada, Germany, and Britain respectively, saw depressed people as unpredictable and felt
uneasy around them. Also, according to Link, half the population of the United States wishes to
maintain social distance from people with depression (1332), including not renting a depressed
person a room, not introducing to friends, not recommending for a job, not wanting someone
with depression to marry into the family, and not leaving a depressed person in charge of
children (Angermeyer and Matschinger 180).
Although many surveys show negative stigma towards individuals with depression,
Angermeyer and Matschinger concluded that 60% of the German public has more nurturing
reactions towards depressed people, showing a desire to help (180).
Causes
There is disagreement among the public, those with depression, and even among professionals
about what actually causes depression. There were four main categories of causes that
appeared throughout surveys of the public and general practitioners: stressors, life events,
constitutional, and character related. Stressors, such as work, family, unemployment, and the
economy, were the most commonly cited causes by the public, ranging from 68.8% of the
Swedish public (Hansson, Chotai, and Bodlund 56) to a huge 94.8% of the American public (Link
et al. 1330). The next most cited causes were past life events, and similar discrepancies were
discovered in the data, where the United States always had a higher percentage of the
population citing these factors as causes (Hansson, Chotai, and Bodlund 56; Link et al1330)
(Crisp 5). The biggest discrepancies however were in the citing of more constitutional causes.
According to Hansson, a minority of people in Sweden cited constitutional causes (56), but a
majority of Americans claimed depression was hereditary, with a very high 72.8% believing
depression to be a chemical imbalance in the brain (Link et al. 1330).
Treatment
There are many types of treatment options for depression, including both pharmacological and
non-pharmacological treatments. Jorm conducted an Australian public survey, and collected
data on what people thought would be most helpful in terms of treating depression, and who
would be more beneficial to turn to for help. Surprisingly, he discovered most people thought
that counselors and family and friends would be most helpful, while only half the population
cited psychiatrists and psychologists. Jorm’s survey reported that more people thought nonpharmacological treatments (exercise, getting out more, diet, relaxation practices, and learning
about the problem) would be more effective than pharmacological treatments (vitamins and
anti-depressants). According to Jorm, the most commonly reported non-pharmacological
response was “getting out more” and was mentioned by about 82% of respondents, while only
29% of respondents listed pharmacological treatments, such as anti-depressants, as potentially
helpful. Another survey compared responses of patients and general practitioners, finding that
while general practitioners gave similar responses for psychological causes and non-medical
treatment, general practitioners usually attached more importance to somatic symptoms,
medical causes, and medical treatment (“You’re Depressed…” 123).
Over-prescription
Many medical professionals agree that antidepressants may be over-prescribed. According to
Menand, depression may be over-diagnosed because of the lack of agreement on what
depression actually is. The Diagnostic Statistical Manual just lists symptoms of depression, such
as two weeks of a depressed mood, insomnia, and lack of interest in pleasure, allowing
psychiatrists to diagnose people who are feeling temporarily sad (“Major Depressive Episode”).
Menand argues that these symptoms are very broad and may lead doctors to a false diagnosis.
To explain the vast number of antidepressant prescription holders, Monson and Schoenstadt
acknowledge the fact that antidepressants can be used for purposes other than depression
including anxiety disorders, OCD, PTSD, and panic disorder. Currie also acknowledges the
multiple uses of antidepressants, but argues that drug companies themselves create new
disorders which need antidepressant prescriptions, such as social anxiety disorder, in order to
facilitate company growth (13). Currie also suggests that a lack of government regulation may
indirectly lead to over-prescription of antidepressants (16).
Advertising
Pharmaceutical companies spend millions of dollars advertising their products each year. In
some cases, Currie claims a more intensive advertising program can lead up to an increase in
sales upwards of four times the amount spent on the advertisement itself (15). According to
Menand, "There is suspicion that the pharmaceutical industry is cooking the studies that prove
that antidepressant drugs are safe and effective, and that the industry's direct-to-consumer
advertising is encouraging people to demand pills to cure conditions that are not diseases (like
shyness) or to get through ordinary life problems (like being laid off)”. While Currie may not
argue that the pharmaceutical industry is “cooking studies”, she does contribute the increasing
number of antidepressant sales to pharmaceutical companies’ advertising depression as a
chemical imbalance (9). In terms of target consumers, both Currie and Emmons give evidence
that the advertising of depression specifically targets women (8; Weinstein). According to
Weinstein, Emmons further argues that drug companies make up new symptoms of depression,
like “tearfulness” which have distinctly feminine connotations and characteristics.
While some experts, such as Emmons, accuse pharmaceutical companies of having
selfish, profit driven motives, pharmaceutical companies argue that they take a more
humanitarian approach. Most, if not all of the leading pharmaceutical companies such as
GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer specifically make some sort of reference to wanting to improve the
quality of human life by applying science to improve global help. However, it is worthwhile to
point out that GlaxoSmithKline does include a few pages on its website under its mission
statement which state the companies top three goals were to “grow a diversified global
business, deliver more products of value, and to simplify the operating procedure.”
Conclusion
Future research of depression will emphasize the effects of marketing strategies on public
opinions regarding depression. Current and continuing research will also attempt to discover
what the actual cause of depression is, and what treatments are most effective to combat it.
Until then, pharmacological treatments may remain highly controversial and negative public
stigma towards depressed individuals may persist.
Works Cited
Angermeyer, Matthias C. and Herbert Matschinger. “Public attitudes toward people with
depression: have there been any changes over the last decade?” Journal of Affective Disorders
83 (2004): 177-182. Web. 18 Oct. 2010.
Crisp, Arthur H., Michael G. Gelder, Susannah Rix, Howard I. Meltzer, and Olwen J. Rowlands.
“Stigmatisation of people with mental illness.” The British Journal of Psychiatry 177 (2000): 4-7.
Web. 18 Oct. 2010.
Currie, Janet. “The Marketization of Depression: Prescribing Antidepressants to Women.”
Women and Health Protection” May 2005: 1-27 Web. 04 Nov. 2010.
GlaxoSmithKline. GlaxoSmithKline. Web. 03 Nov. 2010.
Gordon, Olivia. “Generation depression: British women are more unhappy than ever.”
Telegraph.co.uk n.p. n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2010.
Hansson, Maja, Jayanti Chotai, Owe Bodlund. “Patients’ beliefs about the cause of their
depression.” Journal of Affective Disorders 124 (2010): 54-59 Web. 19 Oct. 2010.
Jorm, Anthony F., Alisa E. Korten, Patricia A. Jocomb, Helen Christensen, Bryan Rogers, and
Penelope Pollitt. “’Mental health literacy’: a survey of the public’s ability to recognize mental
disorders and their beliefs about the effectiveness of treatment.” Medical Journal of Australia
166 (1997): 182-186. Web. 19 Oct. 2010.
Link, Bruce G., Jo C. Phelan, Michaeline Bresnahan, Ann Stueve, and Bernice A. Pescosolido.
“Public Conceptions of Mental Illness: Labels, Causes, Dangerousness, and Social Distance.”
American Journal of Public Health 89.9 (1999): 1328-1333. Web. 19 Oct. 2010.
“Major Depressive Episode.” Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. 4th ed. 1994. Web. 19 Oct.
2010.
Martin, Jack K., Bernice A. Pescosolido, and Steven A. Tuch. “Of Fear and Loathing: The Role of
‘Disturbing behavior,’ Labels, and Casual Attributions in Shaping Public Attitudes Toward People
with Mental Illness.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 41.2 (2000): 208-223 Web. 19 Oct.
2010.
Menand, Louis. “Head Case.” New Yorker 01 Mar. 2010. Electronic.
Monson, Kristi and Arthur Schoenstadt. “Antidepressant Uses.” Emedtv.com. n.p. n.d. Web. 24
Oct. 2010.
Peluso, Erica de Toledo Piza and Sergio Luis Blay. “Public stigma in relation to individuals with
depression.” Journal of Affective Disorders 115 (2009): 201-206. Web. 18 Oct. 2010.
Pfizer. Pfizer. Web. 03 Nov. 2010.
Wahl, Otto F. “Mental Health Consumers’ Experience of Stigma.” Schizophrenia Bulletin 25.3
(1999): 467-478. Web. 19 Oct. 2010.
Wang, JianLi and Daniel Lai. “The relationship between mental health literacy, personal
contacts, and personal stigma against depression.” Journal of Affective Disorders 110 (2008):
191-196. Web. 19 Oct. 2010.
Weinstein, Tamara T. Rev. of Black Dogs and Blue Words: Depression and Gender in the Age of
Self-Care by Kimberly Emmons. Feminist Review 12 July 2010: Web. 03 Nov. 2010.
“’You’re depressed’; ‘No I’m not’: GP’s and patients’ different models of depression.” British
Journal of General Practice Feb. 1999 123-124. Web. 19 Oct. 2010.