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

Abstract

BackgroundDepression 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. MethodsIn 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. ResultsThe 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. LimitationsLimitations include reliance on self-report measures and low reliability of certain sub-scales. ConclusionsThese 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.