Lifestyle causal beliefs are associated with higher personal and perceived stigma regarding depressive disorders: results from a representative population survey

BACKGROUND

Depression is a prevalent and severe disorder associated with considerable stigma. This stigma contributes to the suffering and impedes help seeking behaviour of those affected. Stigma can be influenced by causal beliefs about depression and personal contact with people suffering from depression. The aim of this study was to investigate (1) the associations between beliefs about the aetiology of depression and personal / perceived stigma, as well as (2) a possible moderating effect of personal contact with people with depression on these associations.

METHODS

Stigma, causal beliefs, and contact with depression were assessed in a representative online survey among German adults (N = 5,000). Multiple regression analyses were performed with contact levels (unaffected vs. personally affected (diagnosed) vs. personally affected (undiagnosed) vs. affected by relatives with depression vs. persons who treat depression) and causal beliefs (biogenetic vs. psychosocial vs. lifestyle) as predictor variables for personal and perceived stigma as dependent variables.

RESULTS

Higher personal stigma was associated with lifestyle causal beliefs (p < .001, f² = 0.07), lower personal stigma with biogenetic (p = .006, f² = 0.01) and psychosocial (p < .001, f² = 0.02) causal beliefs. A positive interaction between psychosocial beliefs and the contact group "relatives" (p = .039) further suggests that this contact group does not benefit so strongly from psychosocial causal beliefs regarding personal stigma. Higher perceived stigma was associated with psychosocial (p < .001, f² = 0.01) and lifestyle (p < .011, f² = 0.01) causal beliefs. Regarding contact levels, the "unaffected" had significantly higher personal stigma scores than each of the other contact groups (p < .001). The contact group "affected (diagnosed)" had significantly higher perceived stigma scores than "unaffected".

CONCLUSIONS

The available data show that anti-stigma campaigns should clearly communicate, that depression is not caused by an unfavorable lifestyle. In general, psychosocial or biological explanatory models should be explained. Especially for the target group "relatives of depressive patients", who can be an important support for patients, education about biogenetic explanatory models should be provided. However, it is important to note that causal beliefs are only one of many factors that impact on stigma.

Limited impacts of biogenetic messaging on neural correlates of cognitive control and beliefs about depression

During the past 60 years, perceptions about the origins of mental illness have shifted toward a biomedical model, depicting depression as a biological disorder caused by genetic abnormalities and/or chemical imbalances. Despite benevolent intentions to reduce stigma, biogenetic messages promote prognostic pessimism, reduce feelings of agency, and alter treatment preferences, motivations, and expectations. However, no research has examined how these messages influence neural markers of ruminative activity or decision-making, a gap this study sought to fill. In this pre-registered, clinical trial (NCT03998748), 49 participants with current or past depressive experiences completed a sham saliva test and were randomly assigned to receive feedback that they either have (gene-present; n = 24) or do not have (gene-absent; n = 25) a genetic predisposition to depression. Before and after receiving the feedback, resting-state activity and neural correlates of cognitive control (error-related negativity [ERN] and error positivity [Pe]) were measured using high-density electroencephalogram (EEG). Participants also completed self-report measures of beliefs about the malleability and prognosis of depression and treatment motivation. Contrary to hypotheses, biogenetic feedback did not alter perceptions or beliefs about depression, nor did it alter EEG markers of self-directed rumination nor neurophysiological correlates of cognitive control. Explanations of these null findings are discussed in the context of prior studies.

Does selectively endorsing different approaches to treating mental illness affect lay beliefs about the cause and course of mental illness?

The current paper reports three experimental studies that investigate how selectively emphasising different treatment approaches (biological, psychological or social) for mental health difficulties affects lay beliefs about those illnesses. Online experimental vignettes exposed participants to different treatment narratives for a clinical case of Major Depressive Disorder (Study 1; n=164), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (Study 2; n=173) and Schizophrenia (Study 3, n=170). Measures of causal attributions and illness perceptions assessed effects on beliefs about the causes and course of the illness. Emphasising psychological treatment of Major Depressive Disorder promoted more causal attributions to personal weakness, while endorsing biological treatment weakened confidence in individual control over the course of the illness. For Generalized Anxiety Disorder, stressing social treatment encouraged more causal attributions to personal weakness and lifestyle factors. Causal attributions for Schizophrenia did not shift according to treatment modality, but highlighting biological treatment made the symptoms appear more treatable, while emphasising psychological treatment made the illness seem more personally controllable. As lay understandings of the causes and course of mental illness have implications for help-seeking, treatment engagement and stigma, effects on illness beliefs may be an important consideration when endorsing a particular treatment approach in public discourse or clinical communication.

Using Network Theory for Psychoeducation in Eating Disorders

Background

Negative illness representations such as self-blame impede treatment-seeking behavior and therapy motivation in individuals with eating disorders (EDs). However, only one study so far has investigated how different explanatory models influence these beliefs in EDs. We aimed to expand these findings by introducing an explanatory model based on network theory (NT).

Methods

We presented three explanatory models to a diverse web-recruited sample (n = 290, 141 females, 149 males) with clinically elevated ED symptomatology. Participants either watched a video with a biological-genetic (BG), cognitive-behavioral (CB) or an NT explanatory model and were asked about illness representations before and after watching the video.

Results

The BG group showed significantly greater reductions in self-blame but a significant decrease in personal control and less optimistic expectation regarding timeline compared to the CB and NT groups. There were no group differences regarding the perception of the clinician, comprehensibility of the explanatory model and credibility of a CBT intervention.

Conclusions

Given the increasing popularity of biological-genetic explanatory models of EDs, it is important to note the disadvantages we found to be associated with these models. Our findings indicate that explanatory models emphasizing cognitive-behavioral (CB) principles and/or network theoretical (NT) underpinnings of EDs may serve to promote optimism and greater perceptions of personal agency in affected populations.

This trial's registration number is 316.

The effect of causal attributions for depression on help-seeking and treatment preferences

BACKGROUND

Depression is a leading cause of ill-health and disability globally and encouraging help-seeking and treatment engagement is a key priority of health authorities worldwide. Causal attributions for mental illness have numerous attitudinal and behavioural consequences; however, limited research has explored their implications for attitudes to treatment. This study experimentally investigates the impact of causal attributions for depression on attitudes to specific help-seeking and treatment options.

METHODS

In an online study, 196 participants read a vignette that emphasised either biological, social or biopsychosocial causes of a character's depression. Participants rated several help-seeking and treatment options on how helpful or harmful they would be for the individual described in the vignette and for themselves personally.

RESULTS

The causal attribution manipulation significantly affected treatment attitudes. Relative to social attributions, emphasising biological causes of depression significantly decreased the perceived helpfulness of lifestyle-based treatments, but did not affect attitudes to psychotherapeutic or medical treatment options. Participants rated most help-seeking and treatment options as less helpful for themselves compared to the vignette character. Participants with personal experience of depression had lower confidence in informal sources of help-seeking and greater confidence in medical treatment.

LIMITATIONS

Limitations include reliance on self-report measures and low reliability of certain sub-scales.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest emphasising the biological underpinnings of depression could deter people from engaging with lifestyle-based treatment options. Promoting biopsychosocial theories of depression could increase awareness about the multifactorial causes of depression without negatively impacting the perceived efficacy of any help-seeking or intervention options.

Impact of causal explanations for social anxiety disorder on stigma and treatment perceptions

Background and aims: There is evidence to suggest that biogenetic explanations for symptoms of mental disorders have become increasingly popular. Research suggests that such explanations provokes mixed blessings: biological explanations may reduce blame but also encourage prognostic pessimism and promote perceptions of pharmacological treatment over psychotherapy. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of different causal explanations on social anxiety disorder.Method: About 205 adults completed an experiment where they read a vignette describing an individual with social anxiety disorder and were randomly assigned to a symptom explanation that was: (1) biological, (2) biopsychosocial, (3) psychosocial, or (4) no explanation.Results: The psychosocial condition yielded the highest perceived credibility and lowest attributions of blame. The biological condition promoted positive expectations for medication effectiveness compared to other conditions. Conditions did not differ on prognostic expectations.Conclusions: Calls attention to the risk of generalizing from previous research to mental disorders as a whole.

Biomedical Explanations of Psychopathology and Their Implications for Attitudes and Beliefs About Mental Disorders

Mental disorders are increasingly conceptualized as biomedical diseases, explained as manifestations of genetic and neurobiological abnormalities. Here, we discuss changes in the dominant explanatory accounts of psychopathology that have occurred over time and the driving forces behind these shifts, lay out some real-world evidence for the increasing ascendancy of biomedical explanations, and provide an overview of the types of attitudes and beliefs that may be affected by them. We examine theoretical and conceptual models that are relevant to understanding how biomedical conceptualizations might affect attitudes and beliefs about mental disorders, and we review some empirical evidence that bears on this question. Finally, we examine possible strategies for combatting potential negative effects of biomedical explanations and discuss important conclusions and directions for future research.

Self-Stigma and Etiological Attributions About Symptoms Among Individuals Diagnosed With an Anxiety Disorder: Relations With Symptom Severity and Symptom Improvement Following CBT

Nearly one-third of individuals in the U.S. will be diagnosed with an anxiety disorder during their lifetime. Receiving that label can evoke self-stigma, with self-stigma relating to greater symptom severity and negatively impacting treatment outcomes. A lesser-studied variable related to self-stigma is etiological attributions about symptoms, including biological and psychological attributions. The current study examined interrelations among self-stigma, etiological attributions, and symptom severity among 213 individuals diagnosed with an anxiety disorder who completed a cognitive-behavioral treatment (CBT) program. How self-stigma and etiological attributions related to symptom improvement following the program was examined in a subset of participants. Etiological attributions and self-stigma shared positive associations with symptom severity. Regression analyses indicated that, when controlling for overlap among self-stigma and etiological attributions, psychological attributions emerged as particularly relevant for understanding symptom severity. Changes in self-stigma and attributions were positively associated with changes in symptom severity following the CBT program. Study implications are discussed.

Do biogenetic causal beliefs reduce mental illness stigma in people with mental illness and in mental health professionals? A systematic review

Viewing mental illness as an 'illness like any other' and promoting biogenetic causes have been explored as a stigma-reduction strategy. The relationship between causal beliefs and mental illness stigma has been researched extensively in the general public, but has gained less attention in more clinically-relevant populations (i.e. people with mental illness and mental health professionals). A systematic review examining whether endorsing biogenetic causes decreases mental illness stigma in people with mental illness and mental health professionals was undertaken using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Multiple databases were searched, and studies that explored the relationship between biogenetic causal beliefs and mental illness stigma in people with mental illness or mental health professionals were considered. Studies were included if they focussed on depression, schizophrenia, or mental illness in general, were in English, and had adult participants. The search identified 11 journal articles reporting on 15 studies, which were included in this review. Of these, only two provided evidence that endorsing biogenetic causes was associated with less mental illness stigma in people with mental illness or mental health professionals. The majority of studies in the present review (n = 10) found that biogenetic causal beliefs were associated with increased stigma or negative attitudes towards mental illness. The present review highlights the lack of research exploring the impacts of endorsing biogenetic causes in people with mental illness and mental health professionals. Clinical implications associated with these results are discussed, and suggestions are made for further research that examines the relationship between causal beliefs and treatment variables.