Home
Resource
Causal beliefs about depression as predictors of essentialist thinking and in network models
PDF
PDF format is widely accepted and good for printing.
Plug-in required
PDF-1(1.41 MB)
Citation & Export
View Usage Statistics
Staff View

Citation & Export
Hide

Simple citation

Mann, Sarah Louise. Causal beliefs about depression as predictors of essentialist thinking and in network models. Retrieved from https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/T3M61PGP

Export

Click here for information about Citation Management Tools at Rutgers.

Statistics
Hide

Description

TitleCausal beliefs about depression as predictors of essentialist thinking and in network models
NameMann, Sarah Louise (author); Contrada, Richard J (chair); Leventhal, Howard (internal member); Gara, Michael (internal member); Clemow, Lynn (outside member); Rutgers University; School of Graduate Studies
Date Created2018
Other Date2018-01 (degree)
SubjectPsychology, Depression, Mental
Extent1 online resource (x, 151 p. : ill.)
DescriptionThis project includes two studies of causal beliefs about depression conducted in a U.S. adult sample (N = 319) via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform. Study 1 tested hypotheses based on essentialist theory, guided by the theoretical framework of Leventhal’s Commonsense Model (CSM) of illness cognition. Essentialist theory suggests that in the general population, biological causal beliefs about mental illnesses, including depression, frequently are associated with negative prognostic beliefs and stigmatizing attitudes. Consistent with this, findings indicated that biological causal beliefs were associated with viewing depression as more consequential and longer-lasting; contrary to hypotheses, biological attributions also predicted viewing depression as more treatable. Also counter to predictions, biological causal beliefs were inversely related to depression stigma; these relationships were partially mediated by beliefs about consequences and duration. Relationships between biological causal beliefs and stigma also were moderated by familiarity with depression, such that weaker biological attributions predicted higher levels of stigma specifically among participants who reported a history of depression. Study 2 used network analysis to model perceived interrelationships among putative causes of depression. Network models of causal beliefs were generated for the full sample and for subgroups reporting high versus low confidence in their understanding of depression (illness coherence). These models varied considerably in complexity and illuminated within-sample differences in construals of stress versus depression, beliefs about mutually maintaining factors (bidirectional relationships), and the role of biological causes in the context of other factors. Together, these studies suggest refinements to essentialist theory, avenues for future research into relationships between mental illness beliefs and stigma, and guidance for psychoeducation in depression treatment and public health messaging.
NotePh.D.
NoteIncludes bibliographical references
Noteby Sarah Louise Mann
Genretheses, ETD doctoral
Persistent URLhttps://doi.org/doi:10.7282/T3M61PGP
Languageeng
CollectionSchool of Graduate Studies Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Organization NameRutgers, The State University of New Jersey
RightsThe author owns the copyright to this work.
Version 8.5.5
Rutgers University Libraries - Copyright ©2024