The Role of Attributions in Mental Health Stigma

Abstract

The stigma surrounding mental health is a big problem in society today and serves to limit those struggling with mental illness in terms of jobs, housing, and relationships. One possible source of this stigma are the attributions individuals have regarding those with mental illnesses – in other words, people's reasoning about why individuals have mental illnesses. This study will empirically investigate how these attributions serve to either dimmish or exacerbate stigma. I will specifically investigate attributions regarding nature versus nurture (biology vs. experiences) to see which attribution, if either, serves to increase or lower stigma surrounding different mental illnesses. First, I review the literature surrounding mental health stigma and what is currently known about the role that nature and nurture attributions play. Then the empirical section of this study will begin, where 82 participants will take part in a survey designed to assess the different facets of stigmatization I plan on investigating. I hypothesize that increased endorsement of biological explanations will predict reduced stigma, in line with most research on this topic. More importantly, the present study will also examine how experiential attributions (i.e., those citing trauma, experiences, or "nurture") for mental illness impact stigma – a question which little research has explored. I hypothesize that experiential explanations will also reduce stigma by reducing perceptions of controllability or blameworthiness, though I predict this will be weaker than the effect of biological explanations. Finally, I also hypothesize that certain illnesses will be more stigmatized than others, so the effects of different explanations might differ across different illnesses.