Previous research has indicated that the way in which a message is framed affects the amount of persuasion it elicits. Various processes have been suggested to account for the differential persuasiveness of negatively (or loss-) framed messages versus positively (or gain-) framed messages. The authors hypothesized that differential processing of negatively and positively framed messages is a factor that contributes to the differential persuasiveness that has been observed. Experiment 1 demonstrated that message frames are consequential in determining the extent to which a message is scrutinized. Experiment 2 provided evidence for a mechanism by which this occurs. Specifically, by manipulating the expected framing and the actual framing of messages, the authors found that either negatively or positively framed messages could lead to more extensive processing, depending on which was less expected.

The studies presented in this paper examined empathy, especially perspective taking, as a potential inhibitor of interpersonal aggression. The theoretical rationale for these investigations derived from Zillmann's [(1988): Aggressive Behavior 14: 51–64] cognitive excitation model. Study 1 revealed that dispositional empathy correlates negatively with self‐reported aggression and with conflict responses that reflect little concern for the needs of the other party. Empathy also was positively related to constructive responses to interpersonal conflict (i. e., those that do involve concern for the needs of the other party). In Study 2, perspective taking was manipulated with instructions to subjects prior to participation in a reaction‐time task designed to measure aggression. When threat was relatively low, subjects who were instructed to take the perspective of the target responded less aggressively than did those who had been instructed to focus on the task. Study 3 examined the effect of dispositional perspective taking on verbal aggression. Threat was manipulated in terms of the combination of provocation and gender of the interactants. As predicted, perspective taking related to aggression inhibition under conditions of moderate threat–for males under low provocation and females under high provocation. These effects were predicted and explained in the context of the cognitive‐excitation model. © 1994 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

No abstract

Purpose There is evidence that internalized stigma significantly impacts the lives of people with severe mental illness. Nevertheless, there is little data on the prevalence of clinically significant internalized stigma. This study investigated the current prevalence and demographic correlates of significantly elevated levels of internalized stigma in two samples of people with severe mental illness living in the community. Method A total of 144 people (79.9% males, 20.1% females) participated, completing a demographic form and the Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness scale. Results Overall, 36% of the sample had elevated internalized stigma scores using a cutoff criterion. Participants in the middle of the age distribution had the highest scores, and there was a site difference. No other demographic variables studied were related to overall internalized stigma. Conclusions We conclude that internalized stigma affects a relatively high percentage of people with severe mental illness.

Elevated internalized stigma is common and is linked to subjective and objective outcomes for severe mental illness. The authors developed a manualized group-based intervention (Narrative Enhancement/Cognitive Therapy; NECT) to address internalized stigma in severe mental illness. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of NECT. 144 individuals were screened at two sites to evaluate if they met criteria for “elevated” internalized stigma; 39 and were eligible were randomized to NECT or to treatment as usual (TAU) and were assessed at baseline, post-treatment, and 3-month follow-up. Fifteen of the 21 individuals assigned to NECT were classified as “exposed” to treatment. Intent-to-treat analyses found no significant difference between the NECT and TAU groups. A comparison of exposed vs. unexposed participants noted trends for exposed participants to have improved more in two aspects of self-stigma as well as insight. We conclude that NECT is feasible and tolerable, but findings did not support the hypothesis that NECT was more effective than TAU, although small sample size and significant dropout may have restricted the ability to detect an effect.