Motivational orientations and psychiatric stigma: Social motives influence how causal explanations relate to stigmatizing attitudes

Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 111–116

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Motivational orientations and psychiatric stigma: Social motives influence how causal explanations relate to stigmatizing attitudes Erlend P. Kvaale ⁎, Nick Haslam Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 19 November 2014 Received in revised form 21 July 2015 Accepted 26 September 2015 Available online 22 October 2015 Keywords: Right Wing Authoritarianism Social Dominance Orientation Biogenetic explanations Stigma Mental illness

a b s t r a c t It has been hoped that disseminating biological and genetic (biogenetic) explanations for mental disorders would reduce the tendency to stigmatize affected people. However, biogenetic explanations convey both stigmatizing and destigmatizing meanings (reducing blame but inducing perceived dangerousness and pessimism). This ambiguity may allow motivational factors to influence how individuals make sense of biogenetic explanations. In this research, we aimed: (1) to shed light on the motives that underpin stigmatizing attitudes, and (2) to investigate if these motives also predict how people interpret biogenetic explanations. In Study 1 (N = 177), we found that motivations to compete for group dominance (Social Dominance Orientation; SDO) and to maintain security and social cohesion (Right Wing Authoritarianism; RWA) were associated with stigmatizing attitudes toward individuals suffering from depression and schizophrenia. Further, biogenetic explanations had different implications for stigma as a function of RWA, predicting high stigma in high-RWA people and low stigma in low-RWA people. In Study 2 (N = 93), we found that the motives indexed by SDO and RWA predicted how people responded to a biogenetic explanation of schizophrenia, tending to reinforce stigmatizing attitudes. We discuss the implications of these findings for efforts to reduce stigma. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction People with mental disorders are subject to an intense stigma founded on negative stereotypes and myths. This pattern of rejecting and hostile attitudes and discriminatory behavior can have profoundly damaging effects on people who receive psychiatric diagnoses (e.g., Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Hinshaw, 2007). It has been hoped that educating the public about the biological and genetic (biogenetic) causes of mental disorders would reduce stigma (e.g., Corrigan et al., 2000). A large body of research has documented that biogenetic explanations have complex implications for people's attitudes: Individuals who hold or learn about biogenetic explanations for mental disorders are less likely to blame sufferers for their conditions, but also more likely to perceive them as dangerous and incurable (Kvaale, Gottdiener, & Haslam, 2013; Kvaale, Haslam, & Gottdiener, 2013). Because biogenetic explanations convey both stigmatizing and destigmatizing meanings, different individuals may interpret these explanations in markedly different ways. Individuals who are motivated to stigmatize people with mental disorders may interpret biogenetic explanations for these conditions in ways that support their prejudice. The purpose of the present research is to investigate whether the same motives that underpin stigmatizing attitudes also influence people to ⁎ Corresponding author at: Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, Redmond Barry Building, University of Melbourne, 3010 Victoria, Australia. E-mail address: [email protected] (E.P. Kvaale).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.044 0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

interpret biogenetic explanations in ways that reinforce their negative views. If this is the case, it would highlight an important barrier to reducing stigma through dissemination of biogenetic explanations. To achieve our aims, we first need to shed light on the motivations that predict stigma, before we establish that these motivations also predict people's interpretations of biogenetic explanations. In our research, we consider four facets of stigma: the tendency to blame people with mental disorders for their difficulties, the beliefs that people with mental disorders are dangerous and that they have a poor prognosis, and social rejection of people with mental disorders. In order to allow comparison to previous research we focus on two commonly studied disorders in this area: depression and schizophrenia.

1.1. Which motives predict stigmatizing attitudes toward people with schizophrenia and depression? The dual-process model of prejudice proneness (Duckitt & Sibley, 2010) outlines two distinct motivational bases for prejudice: competition for superior social status and protection of collective security and cohesion. These two motives are expressed in the ideologies termed Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), respectively. The dual process model of prejudice proneness seems well suited to explain stigmatizing attitudes toward mental disorders because the social motives it describes are closely related to two central themes in the literature on psychiatric stigma: that people

112

E.P. Kvaale, N. Haslam / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 111–116

with mental disorders are considered to be of low social status and perceived as potentially dangerous. According to the dual-process model, individuals who view the social world as a competitive jungle (high SDO; Perry, Sibley, & Duckitt, 2013) tend to be prejudiced against low-status groups because they are motivated to compete for superiority (Duckitt & Sibley, 2010). People with symptoms of mental disorders are often considered at the bottom of the social hierarchy, being less socially acceptable than people with common stress (Phelan & Basow, 2007), normal troubles (Martin, Pescosolido, & Tuch, 2000), or physical ailments (Phelan, 2005). We therefore expect that SDO would be associated with stigmatization of people with depression and schizophrenia. Indeed, SDO is related to low social acceptance of people with depression, alcohol dependence, and common stress (Phelan & Basow, 2007) and predicts negative attitudes and behavioral intentions toward people with mental disorders (Bizer, Hart, & Jekogian, 2012). However, no study has comprehensively tested whether SDO predicts all key facets of stigmatizing attitudes toward people with depression and schizophrenia. According to the dual process model, individuals who view the social world as dangerous (high RWA; Perry et al., 2013) are particularly prejudiced against threatening and socially deviant outgroups because they are motivated to protect collective security and cohesion (Duckitt & Sibley, 2010). Stigmatization of people with mental disorders is often founded on stereotypes about their potential for dangerous and unpredictable behavior (Angermeyer, Holzinger, Carta, & Schomerus, 2011; Jorm, Reavley, & Ross, 2012), so RWA should be associated with stigmatizing attitudes toward people with depression and schizophrenia, a prediction that has yet to be tested.

key facets of stigmatizing attitudes toward individuals with these disorders (blame, perceived dangerousness, and [low] social acceptance). In Study 1, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis 1: RWA and SDO independently predict all three facets of stigma. Support for Hypothesis 1 would provide evidence that the motives indexed by RWA and SDO underlie individual differences in stigmatizing attitudes. In Study 1, we further hypothesize that: Hypothesis 2: RWA and SDO moderate the relationships between biogenetic causal beliefs and these three stigma components such that the association between biogenetic beliefs and stigma is strongest (i.e., most positive) among individuals with high RWA or SDO. Support for Hypothesis 2 would provide evidence for the proposition that the motives indexed by RWA and SDO influence people to interpret biogenetic explanations in ways that reinforce their negative views. Study 2 investigates this proposition in a more direct manner by testing if RWA and SDO predict how individuals' attitudes toward people with schizophrenia respond to a biogenetic explanation of this condition. In Study 2, we hypothesize that Hypothesis 3: RWA and SDO predict a change toward more stigmatizing attitudes as a result of learning about the biogenetic causes of schizophrenia.

1.2. Do these motives also predict interpretation of biogenetic explanations for schizophrenia and depression?

2.1.1. Participants Undergraduate psychology students (N = 177) with a mean age of 19.6 (range 17–47) participated in this study (76.8% were female). Eighty-three reported Asian cultural background; 71 reported Caucasian cultural background; the remaining reported other cultural backgrounds (N = 9), dual cultural identity (N = 12), or failed to indicate cultural background (N = 2).

In addition to engendering stigmatizing attitudes, the motives indexed by SDO and RWA may influence how people interpret factual information about mental disorders. This is important because anti-stigma interventions often attempt to reduce stigma through the provision of educational information (Corrigan, Morris, Michaels, Rafacz, & Rüsch, 2012), including biogenetic explanations of mental disorders. Biogenetic explanations appear to convey both stigmatizing and de-stigmatizing meanings (e.g., Easter, 2012; Haslam, 2011). Because of this ambiguity, people who receive a biogenetic explanation for a mental disorder may have considerable interpretive freedom, allowing motivational factors to operate on the inferences drawn about affected people. For example, high-RWA individuals, who view the world as dangerous and are motivated to maintain security and cohesion, may interpret biogenetic explanations of depression and schizophrenia as evidence that their symptoms are perilously out of the sufferer's control, thus amplifying their negative attitudes. High-SDO individuals, who view the world as a competitive jungle, are motivated to dominate and oppose policies that benefit those lower in the social hierarchy (Mallett, Huntsinger, & Swim, 2011; Wakslak, Jost, Tyler, & Chen, 2007). Such individuals might be particularly unreceptive to messages that present biogenetic causes of schizophrenia and depression as reasons for greater social acceptance. Instead, they might see those explanations as justifying their view that people with these disorders are defective and unworthy. 1.3. Overview of studies This paper presents two studies that aim to shed light on the motives underpinning stigmatizing attitudes toward people with schizophrenia and depression, and to investigate if these motives also influence people to interpret biogenetic explanations for these disorders in ways that support their negative views of sufferers. Study 1 investigates associations between individual differences in RWA, SDO, endorsement of biogenetic explanations for depression and schizophrenia, and three of the

2. Study 1 Study 1 examined associations among measures of the two motivational orientations, biogenetic causal beliefs, and major components of stigma in a student sample, aiming to test Hypotheses 1 and 2. 2.1. Method

2.1.2. Procedure Participants were randomly assigned to one of two versions of a questionnaire, which they completed alone or in groups of up to ten. Upon giving informed consent and completing demographic details and RWA and SDO measures, they were asked to read a vignette describing a person with schizophrenia (questionnaire version 1), or a person with depression (questionnaire version 2). The vignettes were adapted from previous research (Phelan, 2005) and contained symptoms and diagnostic labels for the relevant disorder. After reading the vignette, participants indicated to what extent they thought the problems of the person in the vignette were caused by biological and genetic factors. Finally, they were asked about their attitudes toward the person in the vignette (social acceptance; perceived dangerousness; blame). Participants then read the other vignette, and completed the same measures of biogenetic causal beliefs and attitudes. 2.1.3. Measures 2.1.3.1. RWA. Participants completed the RWA scale (Altemeyer, 1996), rating their agreement with 30 items (15 reversed scored) on a scale from − 4 (very strongly disagree) to + 4 (very strongly agree). The items were subsequently recoded by adding 5 to each score. The scale demonstrated excellent reliability in this sample (Cronbach's α = .93). 2.1.3.2. SDO. Participants completed the SDO scale (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), rating their agreement with 16 items (8 reversed scored) on a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). This scale also had excellent reliability (Cronbach's α = .88).

E.P. Kvaale, N. Haslam / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 111–116

2.1.3.3. Biogenetic causal beliefs. Endorsement of biogenetic explanations for depression and schizophrenia was assessed with a new scale with nine items (see Appendix A). Based on a conceptual distinction between different biogenetic explanations reported in a meta-analytic review of the research area (Kvaale, Gottdiener and Haslam, 2013; Kvaale, Haslam and Gottdiener, 2013), three items were designed to measure endorsement of genetic explanations, three items were designed to measure endorsement of neurochemical explanations, and three items were designed to measure belief in general biogenetic causation. The participants rated their agreement with the items on a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). The scale was reliable in ratings of schizophrenia (Cronbach's α = .84) and depression (Cronbach's α = .86). 2.1.3.4. Social acceptance. Social acceptance of the person in the vignettes (i.e., low stigma) was assessed with a scale adopted from Jorm and Griffiths (2008). The scale measured willingness to: move next door to the person in the vignette; spend an evening socializing with the person; make friends with the person; work closely on a job with the person; have the person marry into the family. Agreement with the items was rated on a scale from 1 (not at all willing) to 4 (very willing). The scale was found to have very good reliability for schizophrenia (Cronbach's α = .88) and depression (Cronbach's α = .89). 2.1.3.5. Perceived dangerousness. A tendency to regard the person in the vignette as dangerous was assessed with a new scale containing the following four items: ‘[the person in the vignette] is dangerous’; ‘[the person in the vignette] is unpredictable’; ‘[the person in the vignette] lacks self-control’; and ‘[the person in the vignette] is violent’. The participants rated their agreement with the items on a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). The scale was reliable for ratings of schizophrenia and depression (both Cronbach's α = .80). 2.1.3.6. Blame. A tendency to blame the person in the vignette was assessed with a new scale containing the following four items: ‘[the person in the vignette] is to blame for his problems’; ‘[the person in the vignette] is responsible for his problems’; ‘[the person in the vignette]'s problems are a sign of personal weakness’; and ‘[the person in the vignette] could snap out of his problems if he wanted to’. The participants rated their agreement with the items on a scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). The scale was reliable for both schizophrenia (Cronbach's α = .83) and depression (Cronbach's α = .84). 2.1.4. Data analytic strategy To test Hypotheses 1 and 2 we conducted a series of six hierarchical regression analyses. To test whether RWA and SDO had independent relationships to stigma (Hypothesis 1) we first regressed each stigma component (social acceptance, perceived dangerousness, and blame) on RWA and SDO (both centered) for schizophrenia (Table 1: Step 1) and depression (Table 2: Step 1). In the second steps of these analyses

113

we added biogenetic causal beliefs (centered) to the regression models (see Tables 1 and 2; Step 2). In the third and final steps we added the products of biogenetic causal beliefs (centered) and RWA (centered) and SDO (centered) to the regression models (see Tables 1 and 2; Step 3); introduction of these interaction terms into the regression models allowed us to test whether RWA and SDO moderated the relationships between biogenetic causal beliefs and stigma (Hypothesis 2). If there were significant interaction terms, we used the Johnson–Neyman subcommand embedded in the MODPROBE macro for SPSS (Hayes & Matthes, 2009) to investigate if biogenetic causal beliefs had stronger relationships to stigma at higher levels of SDO and RWA, as stated under Hypothesis 2. The Johnson–Neyman subcommand in MODPROBE calculates unstandardized coefficients for the regression of one variable on another at various levels of a moderating variable and implements the Johnson–Neyman method to identify at which levels of the moderating variable these coefficients are significant. 2.2. Results Consistent with Hypothesis 1, RWA and SDO were independently associated with higher levels of each facet of stigmatizing attitudes toward persons with depression and schizophrenia (see Tables 1 and 2; Step 1). Contrary to what we expected under Hypothesis 2, SDO did not moderate the effect of holding biogenetic explanations on any of the stigma components for schizophrenia or depression. However, lending partial support to Hypothesis 2, RWA moderated the relationship between biogenetic causal beliefs and social acceptance for both schizophrenia and depression (see Tables 1 and 2; Step 3). Using the Johnson–Neyman subcommand embedded in the MODPROBE macro for SPSS (Hayes & Matthes, 2009), we calculated unstandardized betacoefficients for the regression of social acceptance on biogenetic causal beliefs at various levels of RWA and identified at which levels of RWA these coefficients were significant (displayed in Figs. 1 and 2). RWA and biogenetic causal beliefs were both centered, and the analyses controlled for SDO. For both schizophrenia and depression, biogenetic causal beliefs were associated with greater social acceptance (i.e., lesser stigma) among participants with low RWA, but with lesser social acceptance among high-RWA participants. 2.3. Discussion Study 1 obtained strong support for Hypothesis 1, that RWA and SDO predicted all facets of stigmatizing attitudes toward individuals with schizophrenia and depression. It found mixed support for Hypothesis 2, that RWA and SDO moderate the relationship between biogenetic explanations and stigma. SDO moderated none of the relationships, and RWA moderated only for the social acceptance component of stigma, although this effect was consistent across both disorders. These findings suggest that individual differences in motivation to maintain collective security/cohesion, indexed by RWA, influence how biogenetic

Table 1 Multiple regression analyses Study 1 (schizophrenia). Social acceptance

RWA SDO Biogenetic causal beliefs Biogenetic causal beliefs ∗ RWA Biogenetic causal beliefs ∗ SDO Adjusted R2

Perceived dangerousness

Blame

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

−.304⁎⁎ −.293⁎⁎

−.300⁎⁎ −.294⁎⁎ .024

−.301⁎⁎ −.304⁎⁎ .029 −.173⁎

.272⁎⁎ .292⁎⁎

.290⁎⁎ .285⁎⁎ .115‡

.429⁎⁎ .231⁎⁎

.407⁎⁎ .240⁎⁎ −.135⁎

.211⁎⁎

.220‡

.280⁎⁎ .303⁎⁎ .020 .041 −.127 .217

.307⁎⁎

.320⁎

.415⁎⁎ .222⁎⁎ −.057 −.088 .114 .321

.238⁎⁎

.234

.036 .253⁎

2

The table displays standardized regression coefficients. All predictor variables have been centered. The changes in R have been tested for significance and are, unless otherwise indicated in this table, not significant. ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎ p b .05. ‡ p b .10.

114

E.P. Kvaale, N. Haslam / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 111–116

Table 2 Multiple regression analyses Study 1 (depression). Social acceptance

RWA SDO Biogenetic causal beliefs Biogenetic causal beliefs ∗ RWA Biogenetic causal beliefs ∗ SDO Adjusted R2

Perceived dangerousness

Blame

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

−.320⁎⁎ −.280⁎⁎

−.314⁎⁎ −.277⁎⁎ .024

−.329⁎⁎ −.288⁎⁎ .056 −.166⁎ .045 .256‡

.404⁎⁎ .184⁎

.391⁎⁎ .176⁎ −.055

.429⁎⁎ .299⁎⁎

.373⁎⁎ .269⁎⁎ −.231⁎⁎

.246⁎⁎

.244

.386⁎⁎ .181⁎ −.086 −.010 −.041 .235

.365⁎⁎

.410⁎⁎

.380⁎⁎ .266⁎⁎ −.208⁎ .033 .030 .405

.242⁎⁎

.238

The table displays standardized regression coefficients. All predictor variables have been centered. The changes in R2 have been tested for significance and are, unless otherwise indicated in this table, not significant. ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎ p b .05. ‡ p b .10.

explanations are interpreted. Individuals with a strong motivation appear to interpret biogenetic explanations as further reasons to socially reject people with mental disorders, over and above their general tendency to be less socially accepting of them. Individuals with a relatively weak motivation, in contrast, appear to take biogenetic explanations as grounds for accepting such people. In short, biogenetic explanations have opposing implications for stigma among people with differing motivational orientations, perhaps reflecting a difference in how they interpreted these explanations.

methodology from Boysen and Vogel (2008), who demonstrated that pre-existing attitudes to mental disorders influenced the effect of educational information about these disorders on stigma. Study 2 examined one of the same disorders as Study 1 (schizophrenia) and both of the motivational orientations (SDO and RWA), but it added one additional facet of stigma, prognostic pessimism, which has been examined in much recent research on the effects of biogenetic explanations on stigma (Kvaale, Gottdiener and Haslam, 2013; Kvaale, Haslam and Gottdiener, 2013).

3. Study 2 3.1. Method Study 1 found partial support for the proposition that the motivational orientations indexed by RWA and SDO influence people to interpret biogenetic explanations of mental disorders in ways that support their stigmatizing attitudes toward sufferers. However, Study 1 only examined this proposition indirectly by identifying moderation effects in correlational data (Hypothesis 2) rather than by investigating directly if motivational orientations predict how people respond to a biogenetic explanation that is provided to them. Study 2 addressed this limitation and was designed to test Hypothesis 3, that RWA and SDO predict a change toward more stigmatizing attitudes as a result of learning about the biogenetic causes of a mental disorder. Study 2 adapted its

Fig. 1. RWA moderates the relationship between endorsing biogenetic explanations for schizophrenia and social acceptance of a person with schizophrenia. The y-axis displays unstandardized regression coefficients from regression of social acceptance on biogenetic causal beliefs, at low to high levels of RWA (x axis). The dotted lines represent 95% confidence intervals.

3.1.1. Participants Ninety-three undergraduate psychology students were recruited to this study (mean age 20.86; age range 17–40; 80.6% female). Thirtynine reported Asian cultural background, 38 reported Caucasian cultural background, and 16 reported other or dual cultural backgrounds.

Fig. 2. RWA moderates the relationship between endorsing biogenetic explanations for depression and social acceptance of a person with depression. The y-axis displays unstandardized regression coefficients from regression of social acceptance on biogenetic causal beliefs, at low to high levels of RWA (x axis). The dotted lines represent 95% confidence intervals.

E.P. Kvaale, N. Haslam / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 111–116

3.1.2. Procedure Data collection was conducted in groups with one to ten participants. Upon giving informed consent and completing demographic details and RWA and SDO measures, the participants read a short vignette about a person with schizophrenia (identical to the vignette used in Study 1). They then read a paragraph summarizing evidence for the biogenetic causes of schizophrenia, based on a textbook in psychopathology (Barlow & Durand, 2005). Following a manipulation check the participants completed a measure of their changes in biogenetic causal beliefs and attitudes in response to the paragraph. 3.1.3. Measures

115

Table 3 Descriptive Statistics Study 2. Mean RWA SDO Change in biogenetic causal belief Change in blame Change in pessimism Change in perceived dangerousness Change in social acceptance

Standard Possible t deviation range

df

p

3.601 1.19 2.593 .85 4.599 3.22

1–9 1–7 −8–8

13.621 90 .001a

−3.165 3.57 −2.484 3.37 .088 2.73

−8–8 −8–8 −8–8

−8.459 90 .001a −7.021 90 .001a .307 90 .759a

1.418 2.85

−8–8

4.738 90 .001a

a

3.1.3.1. RWA and SDO. As in Study 1, we employed the 30-item RWA scale (Altemeyer, 1996) and the 16-item SDO scale (Pratto et al., 1994). The scales had very good to excellent reliability: Cronbach's α for RWA = .92 and Cronbach's α for SDO = .86. 3.1.3.2. Manipulation check. Three items assessed whether the participants had carefully read the biogenetic explanation for schizophrenia: ‘What is the risk for developing schizophrenia for a person whose monozygotic twin has already developed schizophrenia?’; ‘What is the neurotransmitter called that may cause schizophrenia if it is not functioning properly?’; and ‘Which parts of the brain are often damaged in people with schizophrenia?’ The three items were scored 1 (for a correct response) or 0 (for an incorrect response). 3.1.3.3. Changes in biogenetic causal beliefs. Participants rated the change in their belief in biogenetic causation of schizophrenia using two items scored on a scale from −8 (I believe this much less strongly) to +8 (I believe this much more strongly). The two items were ‘Schizophrenia is caused by biological and genetic factors’ and ‘Schizophrenia is an illness of the brain’. These items were highly correlated (r = .80, p b .001) and were averaged as an index of change in biogenetic causal beliefs. 3.1.3.4. Changes in attitudes. The participants also rated their changes in attitudes on ten items, again using a rating scale from −8 (I believe this much less strongly) to + 8 (I believe this much more strongly). The items assessed change in perceived blame (‘People with schizophrenia are to blame for their problems’; ‘People with schizophrenia are responsible for their problems’), prognostic pessimism (‘People with schizophrenia cannot take positive steps themselves to recover’; ‘People with schizophrenia cannot expect to achieve their hopes and dreams’), dangerousness (‘People with schizophrenia are unpredictable’, ‘People with schizophrenia are dangerous’), and social acceptance (‘It is OK to move next door to a person with schizophrenia’; ‘It is OK to make close friends with a person with schizophrenia’; ‘It is OK to work closely on a job with someone with schizophrenia’; ‘It is OK to have a person with schizophrenia marry into the family’). Average scores on each of the four item sets were computed based on strong intercorrelations (rs = .43 to .75, p b .001; Cronbach's α = .86 for the change in social acceptance scale). 3.1.4. Data analytic strategy Two participants answered one or more of the three manipulation check items incorrectly and were excluded from further analyses. Descriptive statistics for all variables are displayed in Table 3. A series of two-tailed one-sample t-tests were conducted to examine whether the subjective change in biogenetic causal beliefs and stigmatizing attitudes differed significantly from the scale midpoints (0), which reflected no change. To test Hypothesis 3, that RWA and SDO predict a change toward more stigmatizing attitudes after receiving a biogenetic explanation of schizophrenia, four multiple regression analyses were conducted, regressing changes in each of the four stigma components

Two-tailed, one-sample t-tests to examine whether the subjective change in beliefs/ attitudes is significantly different from the scale midpoint (0), which reflected no change.

(blame, pessimism, perceived dangerousness, and [low] social acceptance) on RWA and SDO.

3.2. Results Participants reported that they endorsed biogenetic explanations for schizophrenia to a greater extent after completing this study. On average, they also reported a substantial reduction in blame and prognostic pessimism, a slight increase in social acceptance, and no change in perceiving people with schizophrenia as dangerous (see Table 3). Lending partial support to Hypothesis 3, RWA and SDO predicted a complex pattern of changes in stigmatizing attitudes toward people with schizophrenia (see Table 4). In response to the biogenetic explanation, individuals scoring higher on RWA changed their attitudes in ways that were more stigmatizing in one respect (more perceived dangerousness) and less stigmatizing in other respects (less blame and prognostic pessimism), with no difference from low-RWA people in change in social acceptance. Individuals scoring higher on SDO changed their attitudes in a more stigmatizing direction than their low-SDO peers in relation to greater blame. There was also a marginally significant trend for high-SDO people to change their attitudes in a more stigmatizing direction than lowSDO people with respect to lesser social acceptance, with no difference for change in prognostic pessimism and perceived dangerousness.

3.3. Discussion Study 2 was designed to test Hypothesis 3, that RWA and SDO predict changes in attitudes toward people with schizophrenia after learning about the biogenetic causes of this condition. As in Study 1, we found partial support for the proposition that the motives indexed by RWA and SDO influence how people interpret biogenetic explanations: RWA and SDO both predicted responses to biogenetic explanations, and in three of the five significant or marginally significant effects these motivational orientations were associated with more stigmatizing responses. These findings are broadly consistent with the view that people who are motivated to stigmatize interpret biogenetic explanations in ways that support their existing biases.

Table 4 Standardized regression coefficients from multiple regression analyses, Study 2.

RWA SDO Adjusted R2 ⁎⁎ p b .01. ⁎ p b .05. ‡ p b .10.

Change blame

Change pessimism

Change perceived dangerousness

Change social acceptance

−.230⁎ .296⁎ .064⁎

−.345⁎⁎ .114 .079⁎

.269⁎ −.053 .042‡

−.024 −.221‡ .032‡

116

E.P. Kvaale, N. Haslam / Personality and Individual Differences 89 (2016) 111–116

Whereas in Study 1, the motivation to compete for group dominance (SDO) did not moderate the association between biogenetic explanation and stigma, in Study 2 it predicted a more stigmatizing pattern of attitude change. High-SDO participants responded to the biogenetic explanation with a greater tendency to blame and socially reject people with schizophrenia than low-SDO participants. One interpretation of these findings is that individuals high in SDO are less likely than others to see biogenetic explanations as extenuating people with mental disorders. To them, such people remain losers in the competition for social rank and undeserving of sympathy or acceptance on that basis. In Study 1, individuals high in RWA who also held biogenetic explanations were particularly socially rejecting of people with depression and schizophrenia. Study 2 also supported a role for RWA in influencing responses to biogenetic explanations, but in relation to different stigma components. High-RWA individuals did not show a more socially rejecting pattern of attitude change than low-RWA individuals, but instead displayed a more negative pattern of change in relation to perceived dangerousness. Overall participants did not change their perception of dangerousness following the biogenetic explanation, but high-RWA individuals came to see people with schizophrenia as more dangerous. On the other hand, they showed a greater reduction in pessimism and blame than their low-RWA peers. One interpretation of these findings is that people motivated to maintain security and social cohesion are preoccupied by issues of control. They believe that a biogenetic cause implies that schizophrenia is uncontrollable, which implies that people with the condition are apt to behave in an uncontrolled and dangerous manner, that they are less to blame for their problems, and that the condition is fluctuating and changeable. Further research is needed to assess this possibility. Overall, Study 2 suggested that prejudice-related motivational orientations have more extensive and complex influences on how individuals interpret biogenetic explanations than the findings in Study 1 revealed. The different patterns of findings in Studies 1 and 2 underscore that the process through which individuals interpret biogenetic explanations for mental disorders is a complex one, and that the dynamics of people's responses to explanations that are provided to them (Hypothesis 3, Study 2) may differ from the implications they draw from explanations they already hold (Hypothesis 2, Study 1). 4. Conclusion Our findings suggest that motivations to maintain collective security and cohesion and to compete for group dominance underlie individual differences in stigmatizing attitudes. Both RWA and SDO are powerfully and independently associated with three key facets of stigma. In addition, these motivational orientations predict responses to biogenetic explanations, such as those presented in anti-stigma campaigns, in complex ways that tend to reinforce stigma. We conclude that these motivational orientations are important to take into consideration when deliberating how to reduce stigma and increase acceptance of people struggling with mental disorders. In particular, disseminating biogenetic explanations for mental disorders may be effective in reducing stigma among individuals who are motivated to be accepting of affected people, while having less of an effect – or possibly increasing stigma – among individuals motivated to fearfully or competitively shun them. Appendix A. Biogenetic causal beliefs scale A.1. Items in the biogenetic causal beliefs scale (1) [The person]'s problems are caused by his genetic makeup. (2) [The persons]'s problems are inherited. (3) Defective genes caused [the person]'s problems. (4) [The person]'s problems are due to abnormalities in his brain. (5) [The person]'s problems are caused by neurotransmitter imbalance in his brain. (6) [The person] has a brain

disease. (7) [The person]'s problems are caused by biological factors. (8) [The person]'s problems are caused by a medical disease. (9) [The person]'s problems are caused by physiological factors, just like cancer or diabetes is. References Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Angermeyer, M. C., Holzinger, A., Carta, M. G., & Schomerus, G. (2011). Biogenetic explanations and public acceptance of mental illness: Systematic review of population studies. British Journal of Psychiatry, 199, 367–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp. 110.085563. Barlow, D. H., & Durand, V. M. (2005). Abnormal psychology: An integrative approach (4th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Press. Bizer, G. Y., Hart, J., & Jekogian, A. M. (2012). Belief in a just world and social dominance orientation: Evidence for a mediational pathway predicting negative attitudes and discrimination against individuals with mental illness. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 428–432. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.002. Boysen, G. A., & Vogel, D. L. (2008). Education and mental health stigma: The effects of attribution, biased assimilation, and attitude polarization. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 27, 447–470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2008.27.5.447. Corrigan, P. W., & Penn, D. L. (1999). Lessons from social psychology on discrediting psychiatric stigma. American Psychologist, 54, 765–776. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.54.9.765. Corrigan, P. W., Morris, S. B., Michaels, P. J., Rafacz, J. D., & Rüsch, N. (2012). Challenging the public stigma of mental illness: A meta-analysis of outcome studies. Psychiatric Services, 63, 963–973. http://dx.doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.005292011. Corrigan, P. W., River, L. P., Lundin, R. K., Uphoff Wasowski, K., Campion, J., Mathisen, J., et al. (2000). Stigmatizing attributions about mental illness. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 91–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520–6629(200001)28 (1b91::AID-JCOP9N3.0.CO;2-M). Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861–1893. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-6494.2010.00672.x. Easter, M. M. (2012). “Not all my fault”: Genetics, stigma, and personal responsibility for women with eating disorders. Social Science & Medicine, 75, 1408–1416. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.05.042. Haslam, N. (2011). Genetic essentialism, neuroessentialism, and stigma: Commentary on Dar-Nimrod & Heine. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 819–824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0022386. Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2009). Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 924–936. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.3.924. Hinshaw, S. P. (2007). The mark of shame: Stigma of mental illness and an agenda for change. New York: Oxford University Press. Jorm, A. F., & Griffiths, K. M. (2008). The public's stigmatizing attitudes towards people with mental disorders: How important are biomedical conceptualizations? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 118, 315–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447. 2008.01251.x. Jorm, A. F., Reavley, N. J., & Ross, A. M. (2012). Belief in the dangerousness of people with mental disorders: A review. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 46, 1029–1045. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0004867412442406. Kvaale, E., Gottdiener, W., & Haslam, N. (2013a). Biogenetic explanations and stigma: A meta-analytic review of associations among laypeople. Social Science & Medicine, 96, 95–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.07.017. Kvaale, E. P., Haslam, N., & Gottdiener, W. H. (2013b). The ‘side effects’ of medicalization: A meta-analytic review of how biogenetic explanations affect stigma. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 782–794. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.06.002. Mallett, R. K., Huntsinger, J. R., & Swim, J. K. (2011). The role of system-justification motivation, group status and system threat in directing support for hate-crimes legislation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 384–390. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.jesp.2010.10.014. Martin, J. K., Pescosolido, B. A., & Tuch, S. A. (2000). Of fear and loathing: The role of “disturbing behavior”, labels, and causal attributions in shaping public attitudes toward people with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 208–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2676306. Perry, R., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013). Dangerous and competitive worldviews: A meta-analysis of their associations with Social Dominance Orientation and RightWing Authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 116–127. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.08.009. Phelan, J. C. (2005). Geneticization of deviant behavior and consequences for stigma: The case of mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46, 307–322. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/002214650504600401. Phelan, J. E., & Basow, S. A. (2007). College students' attitudes toward mental illness: An examination of the stigma process. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2877–2902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00286.x. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741. Wakslak, C., Jost, J. T., Tyler, T. R., & Chen, E. (2007). Moral outrage mediates the dampening effect of system-justification on support for redistributive social policies. Psychological Science, 18, 267–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007. 01887.x.