Literature Review on Attitudes to Mental Health

Literature Review on Attitudes to Mental Health Researching the literature on attitudes to mental health revealed interesting themes. Many papers focused on the historical views towards mental health or explained how stigma arises and affects those suffering from mental illness. Differences in attitudes towards those suffering from mental health issues were the focus among many more of these papers; including age, country, and religious differences. Finally, research has been carried out to assess the efforts of interventions that could be or have been made to reduce the stigma mental illness sufferers receive. Historically, attitudes to mental illness were overwhelmingly poor. It was believed that mental illness was caused by evil spirits or an imbalance of humours in the body; these views lead to highly stigmatic beliefs, (Hinshaw Stier, 2008). The process of stigmatic belief development involves identifying an individual with a mental disorder through cues, applying stereotypes based on those cues, and then acting in a prejudiced way, (Bulanda, Bruhn, Byro-Johnson, Zentmyer, 2014). (Fein Spencer, 1997) offer an explanation as to why this development occurs. From a social psychological standpoint, outgroup discrimination arises when an individual of one group (ingroup) distinguishes a member of another group (outgroup) as different from themselves. Thus a sufferer of mental illness may be viewed as ‘different’ and so belonging to an ‘outgroup’, encouraging prejudice. Additionally, discrimination towards an outgroup member has the potential for self-esteem enha ncement of the observer, as they discern the stigmatised outgroup member (i.e. an individual with a mental health issue) as relatively lower in social status than themselves. (Hinshaw Stier, 2008) also propose the evolutionary perspective, as it is suggested that isolating sufferers of a mental illness may give a survival advantage, as those with mental disorders may pose a threat to others. In an effort to combat stigma, it had been proposed that the public should be educated on mental health matters. (Weiner, Perry, Magnusson, 1988) explain ‘Attribution theory’, whereby when negative behaviours are attributed to an individual, blame and stigma follow, but when these behaviours are attributed to a non-controllable force (such as a medical condition) it results in less blame and more acceptance and empathy. However, this theory may be criticised for lack of application. Viewing issues this way doesn’t stop racism, as skin colour is a non-controllable factor yet still is criticised; it doesn’t reduce fear people may have surrounding mental disorders; it does not rule out incorrect accusations of causation such as demon possession or weak personality (uncontrollable factors); and it doesn’t stop people viewing those with mental disorders as inferior. (Brockington, Hall, Levings, Murphy, 1993) highlight how viewing a mental illness as a à ¢â‚¬Ëœbrain disorder’ indirectly fosters a â€Å"Benevolence Stigma†, in which individuals believe those with mental illnesses may never recover and will lead unproductive lives as a result, or views them patronisingly as innocent children that must be constantly looked after by a parental figure. This distinguishes those with mental illness as different, or ‘less human’ often provoking harsher prejudicial behaviour though reducing blame, (Mehta Farina, 1997), and can exacerbate fear, (Read Law, 1999). Even those associated with an individual with a mental disorder such as friends and family can experience rejection or distancing by a ‘Courtesy Stigma’, as well as mental health professionals due to their connection to â€Å"weak† or â€Å"blameworthy† patients, leading to a lack of funding and thus a lower wage, (Goffman, 2009). The media depict mental illnesses negatively approximately 77% of the time over emphasising and over representing a minority of mental illness cases, promoting harmful stereotypes such as dangerousness and violence. It could be due to this over representation of rare cases of mental disorders that people generally delay professional help as they do not recognise that they may have a mental illness; they may normalise it by attribution to everyday stresses and believe they should deal with it on their own, as modern society has a higher tolerance of stress, (Jorm, 2012). This could explain the underutilisation of mental health services. Alternatively, stigma could be the reason for this lack of use, as the quantity of prescriptions for antidepressant medication have risen since the 1980’s, (Mackenzie, Erickson, Deane, Wright, 2014) despite attitudes towards help-seeking have become increasingly negative. Self-enrolment in psychotherapy for depression has decreased by 28% in th e last 20 years, potentially because most adults do not believe it is an effective treatment, (Jorm Wright, 2007; Mackenzie et al., 2014). Due to public education enforcing that mental illness is biological, the desire for medicinal treatments has increased. It could be argued that because dependence on drugs is viewed negatively it contributes to the sigma surrounding mental health, as 1 in 4 Americans believe psychiatric mediations are harmful, (Jorm Wright, 2007; Mackenzie et al., 2014). Stigma harshly affects those suffering from mental illness, causing lowered self–esteem and reduced chances for social interaction, due to isolation, distancing and exclusion, (Bulanda et al., 2014). Sufferers of mental health issues may also experience fewer job opportunities, (Hansson, Jormfeldt, Svedberg, Svensson, 2013), as evidenced by low levels of employment among those with mental illness; decreased life opportunities; loss of independence; and insurance disparities among those with mental illness and those with physical illness, leaving many unable to afford treatment, (Hinshaw Stier, 2008). It has been noted that reduction in self-worth among those experiencing stigma is not inevitable, as many racial minorities continue to have positive self-esteems despite the racism they face, but it should be remembered that the symptoms of many mental health issues such as depression or eating disorders include pessimism, despair and low self-worth, resulting in the internalis ation of the prejudicial messages they receive. Furthermore, mental illness sufferers may worry about monitoring their symptoms so as not to reveal they have a mental disorder due to the pressure in society to conform, causing more distress, (Hinshaw Stier, 2008). Cultural background has an effect on attitudes to mental health issues. Research in Japan revealed that mental illness is viewed as a weakness rather than a sickness, particularly for the mental disorder social phobia, while depression and schizophrenia were viewed as dangerous disorders (Ando, Yamaguchi, Aoki, Thornicroft, 2013; Yoshioka, Reavley, MacKinnon, Jorm, 2014). This data was compared against Australian attitudes, and while these opinions were present, were less prevalent. This could be because Australians are more exposed to mental illness as there is a high institutionalisation rate in Japan for those with mental disorders, reducing the chance for social interaction, (Ando et al., 2013), or rather that Japanese respondents were less likely to answer in a socially desirable way, (Yoshioka et al., 2014). In low income countries such as Senegal, the health system is more directed towards communicable diseases and so mental health is a low priority, (Monteiro, Ndiaye, Blana s, Ba, 2014). Due to this, most Senegalese health care providers have no training on mental health issues, resulting in stigmatic beliefs among these health workers, such as describing those suffering from mental illness as â€Å"crazy†, or as having been influenced by sorcery, (Monteiro et al., 2014). Research carried out by (Coppens et al., 2013) in Europe, discovered schizophrenia to be the most negatively viewed mental disorder. Hungarian respondents were least willing to seek help for mental health issues and were least favourable towards depression, with 60% claiming you could â€Å"snap out of it†, and 76% viewing it as a weakness, as German respondents reported they would avoid people with depression so they do not become depressed themselves, and would not vote for a politican who suffers from depression. In contrast, Irish respondents were the most favourable towards depression and 19% viewed mental health services and professional help as valuable, as the P ortuguese were the most willing to seek help. All four countries reported that if they had a mental disorder they would keep it a secret, and reported the perceived stigma of others as higher than their own personal stigma, with Germany reporting the highest perceived stigma. (Crisp, Gelder, Rix, Meltzer, Rowlands, 2000)’s research in Great Britain showed prevalent negative opinions also, including an over generalisation of stereotypes, such as thinking those with depression are ‘dangerous’; potentially indicative of lack of knowledge of the disorder, and trivialising conditions such as eating disorders which were viewed as â€Å"self-inflicted† and could be quickly recovered from. Age also plays a role in the changes of attitudes towards mental illness. Discrimination is highest among the youth which can be a barrier to seeking treatment because of embarrassment, despite the high prevalence of mental disorders in adolescents due to the onset of these illnesses during puberty, (Yoshioka et al., 2014). Stigmatic beliefs have been shown to decrease with age, including views of mental illnesses being weaknesses not sicknesses, however in Japan stigma increases with age, (Ando et al., 2013; Jorm Wright, 2008; Tanaka, Inadomi, Kikuchi, Ohta, 2004). Older men are among those at the highest risk of not getting treatment as they are most negative towards help seeking, (Coppens et al., 2013). Religion also can dramatically change attitudes to mental health issues. Many health care professionals undervalue the importance of religion, although people are more likely to seek help for mental distress from their religious leaders than any health care professional, (Bergin, 1983; Chalfant et al., 1990). However, when professionals do see significance in religion, it is viewed negatively. This could be due to the knowledge of negative encounters experienced by those who sought aid from religious leaders. (Stanford, 2007) studied American Christians and discovered that 30% of adults seeking help from their church for mental health issues experienced negative relations, as often the clergy viewed mental illness as the work of demons, sin or lack of faith, and would exclude members with mental disorders from the church. Women in particular are more likely to have their mental disorders dismissed and told not to take prescription medication (Mansfield, Mitchell, King, 2002; Stanfor d, 2007). (Cinnirella Loewenthal, 1999) carried out research among other religions in Britain, including Pakistani Muslim, Indian Hindu, Orthodox Jew and Afro Caribbean Christian. All respondents from these religious groups testified to a fear of being misunderstood by outgroup health professionals or potential racism. Among all religious groups, depression is seen as impossible in the truly religious individual, and a devout person should not consult professionals without prior confirmation from their religious leaders as it may lead to immoral practices. However, it should be noted that stigmatic beliefs though prevalent among the extrinsically motivated religious individuals, are not found among the intrinsically motivated, (Allport Ross, 1967). Multiple studies have demonstrated efforts to reduce stigma. (Ando et al., 2013) highlights how contact with those who suffer from mental disorders can reduce stigma, however only in adults, as when adolescents meet an individual with mental illness who presents typical behaviour it can reinforce negative stereotypes. The World Psychiatric Association ran a global program for the last 10 years with over 200 interventions in 20 countries to battle the stigma surrounding schizophrenia, (Sartorius Schulze, 2005; Stuart, 2008), however only 19 intervention results have been published. In order for an effective change in attitudes to mental health, a real commitment must be made to follow through with results in the long term. A single mental illness was chosen to combat stigma in order to have a clear focus, however all sufferers of all mental disorders live with negative attitudes and thus it should be a goal to reduce stigma for all mental health issues. (Jorm Wright, 2008)’s campaign to raise awareness in Australian youths and their parents proved to be effective in reducing the belief that a person with mental illness is weak not sick. They advise that in order to influence a change in attitudes of young people, parents should be a potential target to educate. A social media intervention in Canada 2012 carried out by (Livingston, Cianfrone, Korf-Uzan, Coniglio, 2014) proved to be effective in raising awareness of mental health issues, but it did not improve attitudes, and appeared to have no lasting effect. These researchers highlighted that of 22 interventions they researched, the longest follow up period was 9 months, and so they sought to ensure a long term effect of reduction in stigma by repeating this study with a follow up period of 1 year. Stigma did reduce, as exposure and awareness increased. An extensive review of all the research on intervention is needed in order to assess which are successful mechanisms of change and can affect long term attitudes, (Heijnders Van Der Meij, 2006). As previously mentioned, biological facts alone can encourage stigma, and so (Morrison, 1980) encourages the psychosocial explanation which focuses on environmental stresses and trauma, which can make mental illness more relatable as everyone can understand these life events, (Read Law, 1999). Thus a multidimensional approach appears to be most effective. In conclusion, attitudes to mental health persist to be negative across many cultures, religions and age brackets. Focusing on specific countries, cultural backgrounds, or religions, and tailoring interventions could prove to be useful in reducing stigmatic beliefs. Furthermore, it is clear more support is needed for those with mental health issues, and so future research could focus on the effectiveness of fundraising activities to support mental health research and mental health workers, as well as the willingness for those suffering from mental illness to receive support and help in light of the stigma they encounter. It would be interesting to discover if a reduction in stigma would encourage those facing mental health issues to seek help when they otherwise would not.

A Battle to Your Death Essay

Advertisements for medications have been filling the pages of magazines ever since the first pharmaceutical companies have been synthesizing drugs. Since the late 1800’s, consumers have been exposed to medication advertised the same way that a company might push a new detergent to buyers. Heated debates have exploded in regards to drug advertisements, coming to head in recent years with attempts by government officials to limit the amount of ads that sell medication (â€Å"National Conference†). While one may look back on drug advertisements from fifty years ago and laugh because they seem elementary, they influenced members of society and they continue to do so to this day. Despite the obvious positive affects of pharmaceutical drugs, the constant bombardment of drug advertising has a negative affect on consumers at large. All through history, there have been people destined to heal. A cornerstone of medicine, from the earliest shaman to the now graduating medical school class, has been the drugs used to treat illness. See more: The stages of consumer buying decision process essay The advent of modern medicine, beginning in 1938, has seen a major expansion of prescription drugs (Tomes 627). Because medication has become such a large part in most people’s lives, pharmaceutical businesses have evolved. Not only do medication companies care about profits, but also they are also concerned with the safety and effectiveness of their drugs. These companies need a way to get these compounds out of the public, and they accomplish this in a way not possible for other businesses. Big Pharma – the term used to refer to major drug companies – uses two different types of advertising to reach the public (Sidiqi). What people see on the TV, the commercials for things such as Restless Leg Syndrome or Bipolar Disorder, is termed direct-to-consumer advertising, or simply DTCA. This is a common tactic for all businesses, including big pharma. However, unlike other products, medications are restricted in that they need to be prescribed by a physician. Everyone is able to go to the store to buy the new detergent on television, but not everyone can get the medication advertised on the television. Drug companies have a unique way of dealing with this problem – in addition to advertising to consumers, doctors are also targeted. Physicians are approached in hospitals much like one is approached by a car salesman – high-pressure tactics, quick talking and glossing over negative facts while playing up the positive. Detail men – representatives of each individual pharmaceutical organization (Silverman)– have several ways in order to â€Å"sell† their drug to a physician. Free lunches, vacations and various office supplies inscribed with the drug company’s logos are used as gimmicks in an effort to make doctors â€Å"side† with a pharmaceutical company – therefore making the physician prescribe their medication over another. With the advent of direct-to-consumer advertisement, people are constantly bombarded with messages and warning concerning their health. Seeing an ad for a new medication makes one contemplate their own health: â€Å"Am I eating well? † or â€Å"Should I quit smoking? †Ã‚   Although all forms of drug advertisements may have deleterious effects, DTCA may, with a small part of the population, serve to make people more aware of their health. With the arrival of websites such as WebMD, patients may also use the Internet in order to discover information significant to wellness. Although most want pharmaceutical companies to run philanthropically, they are subject to the same follies of any other industry. Money runs countries and economies, and in order to stay afloat, the pharmaceutical industry must focus their attention to profits. While big pharma gets a return of 14% profit (compared to 5% for the majority of Fortune 500 companies), those extra profits are used for research into new medication, in essence, going right back to the consumer (Tomes 630). Scientists and researchers cost a lot – therefore, drug companies must financially support research into new lines of medication. Most people work and live in such a way to attain better living conditions. The drive to increase wealth improves the medical community. Just like every market, drug companies try to make better products in order to out sell their competition – the idea being the best product â€Å"wins† in the market. If one medication is proven to be better than another, then the â€Å"losing† drug company will pour money into research to generate more sales. While new medications are being produced because of a laissez-fair market, many want government to step in. One of the biggest issues in this election year is socialized health care. More people than ever are focusing on the health of the impoverished. On more and more medication commercials, one sees or hears things such as â€Å"Having trouble paying for your medications? Astra-Zeneca can help. †Ã‚   Government officials, doctors and drug companies are beginning to cater to, and help save the lives of, the poor. Imagine for a moment, this scenario: A construction worker hurts herself outside the job. She does not quality for workman’s compensation because the accident did not occur on the clock, but she is in so much pain she cannot go back to work. Sitting in the free clinic (she cannot afford anything better – her construction firm does not offer affordable health insurance), a doctor sees her into the room. The doctors leaves the room, after assuring her that her injury is not serious, with an armful of medication – anti-inflammatories, pain killers and muscle relaxers to help. Pharmaceutical companies hand out free medications to physicians in order to help sell their product (Goodman, 232). What’s the difference between Tide, a company that makes laundry detergent, and Lilly, a company that makes prescription medication? One will get your clothes clean – the other will save your life. Drug companies demand that they be treated just as any other industry in regards to advertising to the public (â€Å"National Conference†). Big Pharma markets to both doctors and patients, trying to influence both to choose their medication over another. Both forms of advertising – pushing drugs on doctors and DTCA – are detrimental to public health and safety. Detail men are everywhere in the health care field. Walk into a hospital, a free clinic or a private doctors office, one thing remains the same – the tissue boxes, the pens and the clipboards. All these simple office supplies are â€Å"donated† from a drug company, bearing their insignia. While one may think it is only the new doctors, the ones that are not well versed in medicine quite yet, are the only ones that will actually be swayed by detail men, study after study proves this false. All physicians, old and new, are susceptible to this phenomenon (Goodman, 236). The implications for this can be disastrous. A close look at Vioxx details what happens when doctors listen to drug companies and not science. The more money spent on a medication, the more likely the medication will be prescribed (Goodman 237). Such is the case with Vioxx and Celebrex, a new class of anti-inflammatory drug called COX-2. Both of these drugs have lead to many deaths, massive recalls and suits from patients. Why would such a dangerous medication prescribed to patients? Shouldn’t the doctors know better? In 1999, the year that both drugs were released, a total of $4. 4 billion dollars was spent on advertising these drugs to both doctors and consumers. This advertising, â€Å"lead to overuse of these new and expensive drugs† (Schneider 140). Doctors and patients both accepted these new COX-2 medications, and there was no foresight into the dangers of this medication. Advertising, coupled with apathetic doctors, lead to hundreds of deaths. DTCA has its pitfalls as well. The use of advertisements on the Internet, television and the radio has drastically changed the doctor-patient relationship (Weber 172). No longer do people go to the doctor for advice. Rather, after looking on WebMD and deciding they have X disease, and seeing on television a drug to treat said disease, the patient storms into the doctors office, demanding a medication for a self-diagnosed disease (Weber 172). A layman cannot doctor himself and expect a healthy, good result. It leads only to misdiagnosis, unneeded medication and perhaps death. Stated earlier, drug companies have a fourteen percent profit margin, in contrast to Fortune 500 firms that make an average five percent profit. That means that drug companies make nine percent more in profits than some of the biggest companies in the world. Even one percent equals billions of dollars that pads the wallets of big pharma. Drugs are like candy in this country – â€Å"Americans apparently consume more prescription drugs than their counterparts in other developed nations, roughly twice as many per person as Europeans† (Tomes 630). As well as consuming more prescription drugs that any other developed country by two fold, Americans are the last to support poor nations with drugs to treat â€Å"AIDS, malaria, and other deadly diseases† (Tomes 632). That extra nine percent – billions and billions of dollars in extraneous profit – could be used to further the health of, not only this country, but also the entire world. The construction worker mentioned earlier benefited from free drugs. She could not afford them, but thanks to the population’s altruistic friends at big pharma, she received them free. Proponents would like people to believe this fallacy in order to keep their most successful way to advertise drugs – through doctors – alive. All social groups, not only the uninsured or poor, receive free medication. Experts have proven over and over that free medications does not help the poor as much as big pharma would like the public to believe (â€Å"Drug Samples,† â€Å"Free Drug Samples†). Pharmaceutical companies care only about patients when they are ill. This means big pharma wants more sick people, because sick people equal profit. Medicine corporations, besides not helping the poor, target against them. Because they cannot pay for medication, â€Å"the patterns [the researchers] found indicate that pharmaceutical firms may be directing their samples to physicians and clinics least likely to care for the uninsured† (â€Å"Drug Samples†). The purpose of those free hand outs is simple. No company will ever distribute free product, especially when that product needs to come in installments to be effective. If a doctor has a few days worth of medication, he is more likely to prescribe that medication to the patient out of convenience for both. For example, assume that someone comes into a doctor’s office with a cold, demanding relief. Whether or not the cold can be remedied by any medication (most colds are viral, and cannot be cured by antibiotics), the doctor, instead of educating the annoying, pushy patient, gives the him a box of medication in order to at least mentally sedate them. Free drugs are ways for pharmaceutical companies to get their medications prescribed. If a doctor has a box of a few pills to give to a patient in the office, he will prescribe the same medication (Wolfe 1). If the medication is once-a-day for X amount of days, and the doctors picks the medication of which he has a sample, that equals quite a big profit for the company. The so-called philanthropic free medication is just another marketing ploy for increased profits. While modern medicine depends on the positive effects of pharmaceutical medication, the non-corporal influences of prescription drugs has a largely harmful effect on society as a whole. Advertising life or death can never have a positive outcome. Drug companies manipulate the public in their advertising to doctors and patients. Next time you are at the doctor’s office, just think – has the treatment you are receiving been scripted by a man in a suit, offering your doctor a free lunch in exchanged for your health? Works Cited â€Å"Drug Samples Seen as Unlikely to Reach Poor or Uninsured. †Ã‚   Medpage Today. 4 January 2008. 2 November 2008. . â€Å"Free Drug Samples May Put Children at Risk. †Ã‚   Medpage Today. 6 October 2008. 2 November 2008. . Goodman, Bob. â€Å"Do Drug Company Promotions Influence Physician Behavior? †Ã‚   West J Med 174. 4(2001): 232-233. National Conference of State Legislatures; the Forum for America’s Ideas. â€Å"Marketing and Direct-to-Consumer Advertising. †Ã‚   2008. 22 Sept. 2008   . Tomes, Nancy. â€Å"The Great American Medicine Show Revisted. †Ã‚   Bull. Hist. Med. 79 (2005): 627 – 663. Sidiqi, Sarah. â€Å"Letters to the Editor; Pharmaceutical Influence? †Ã‚   The Nurse Practitioner 28. 5 (2003). Silverman, Milton, Philip R. Lee, and Mia Lydecker. â€Å"How the Drug Companies Kill One Million People a Year. † July-Aug. 1982. University of California. 4 Nov. 2008 . Weber, Lenoard J. Profits Before People? Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2006. Wolfe, Sidnye. â€Å"Drug Advertisements That Go Straight to the Hippocampus. †Ã‚   Lancet 384. 9028 (1996): 632.

Questionnaire for Branded Clothing

Questionnaire for Clothes consumption NAME: CONTACT NO. OCCUPATION: e-mail: PLACE: DATE: Questions: 1) Approximately, how many times do you buy your clothes? a) Once a week b) Once every 2 weeks c) Once a month d) At the beginning of season e) During the sales period f) During the Christmas Festivities g) As the need arises h) Occasionally i) Rarely 2) From where do you usually buy clothes? a) Factory Outlets ) Retail Shops (unbranded) c) Brand’s Showrooms d) Malls e) Online Shopping 3) With whom do you usually buy your clothes? a) Friends b) Mother c) Father d) Brother/Sister e) Grandparents f) Alone 4) When buying clothes, you: a) Go directly in a particular shop. b) Go round in various shops. 5) Please indicate how much importance do you give to each of the following factors before you buy your clothes. Â   |Almost Always |Sometimes |Rarely |Never | | Fabric |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | | Design |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | | Colour |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | | Brand |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | | Comfort |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | | Fashion |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | | Price |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | 6) How would you rate the following statements? Â   |Strongly Agree |Agree |Disagree |Strongly | | | | | |Disagree | |I wear only well known brands |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |I buy clothes depending on their colours |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |I buy styles that suit me rather than what is fashionable |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |I only buy the style that my riends wear |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |I only buy the latest fashion as long as they suit me |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |I create my own fashion rather than follow it |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |I tend to stick to classic styles that won't date |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |I wear only clothes that are widely available |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |I hate going round for clothes and I let others buy my clothes |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |I search for sales an d low prices |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |Â   | | | | | 7) How important would you rate the following factors in influencing the choice of clothes purchased? Â   |Almost Always |Sometimes |Rarely |Never | |Fashion Magazines |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |Beauty Magazines |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |Television |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |Radio |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |Newspapers |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |Billboards |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |Cinema |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |Promotional Leaflets |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |Internet |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | 8) Do you think that wearing branded clothes would reflect: Â   |Strongly Agree |Agree |Disagree |Strongly Disagree | |Confidence |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |Superior Image |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |Exclusivity |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] | |Snob Appeal |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |[pic] |

Inseparable German Verb Prefixes