Suchergebnisse

Background: Addictions are highly stigmatized and increasingly construed as biomedical diseases caused by genes, partly to reduce stigma by deflecting blame. However, genetic explanations may have negative effects, which have been understudied in the context of addiction. How the effects of genetic explanations might differ for substance addictions versus behavioral addictions is also unknown. Aims: This study examined the impact of genetic explanations for addiction on measures of treatment expectancies, blame, and perceived agency and self-control, as well as whether these varied depending on whether the addiction was to a substance or a behavior. Methods: Participants read about a person ('Charlie') with either alcohol use disorder or gambling disorder, receiving either a genetic or nongenetic explanation of Charlie's problem. They rated how much they blamed Charlie for his disorder, his likelihood of benefitting from medication or psychotherapy, and how much agency and self-control they ascribed to him. Results: Compared to the nongenetic explanation, the genetic explanation reduced blame and increased confidence in the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy. However, it also decreased the expected effectiveness of psychotherapy and reduced ascriptions of agency and self-control. Conclusion: Genetic explanations for addiction appear to be a 'double-edged sword', with beneficial effects that come at a cost.

Background and aims: Biological conceptualizations of psychopathology are ascendant, including among mental-health clinicians. However, it is unknown how this might affect people's perceptions of clinicians, which in turn could have considerable public-health implications. The present studies sought to address this issue. Methods: In the present research, participants imagined that they or their loved ones were suffering from a mental disorder and then rated their perceptions of one clinician espousing the view that 'mental disorders are brain diseases' and another describing them as 'disorders of thoughts and emotions'. Results: Biologically oriented clinicians were perceived as more competent and effective only when the disorder in question was judged to be biologically caused. Otherwise, there was no significant difference in perceived competence, and biologically oriented clinicians were rated less effective. Regardless, all participants perceived the biologically oriented clinician as significantly less warm on average than the psychosocially oriented clinician. Conclusion: These findings may have important clinical implications for the crucial therapeutic alliance between therapists and patients.