Can we fight stigma with science? The effect of aetiological framing on attitudes towards anorexia nervosa and the impact on volitional stigma

Abstract

The present study experimentally investigated the way in which exposure to various aetiological explanations of anorexia nervosa (AN) differentially affected stigmatisation and behavioural intention outcomes. University students (N = 161) were randomly assigned to read one of four aetiological vignettes presenting the causes of AN as biological/genetic, socio-cultural, environmental, or multifactorial. Results indicate that those who received a socio-cultural explanation made stronger socio-cultural causal attributions, fewer biological/genetic causal attributions, and were significantly less willing to sign a health insurance petition for AN. Unexpectedly, the multifactorial group considered individuals with AN as more responsible and blameworthy for their condition. Overall, findings were comparative with previous research and partially support the propositions of attribution theory. Results also suggest that by conceptualising the aetiology of AN as biological or genetic, or at least increasing one's knowledge of these contributing factors, it may be possible to decrease the level of blame-based stigma associated with AN.

Educating Medical Students About Anorexia Nervosa: A Potential Method for Reducing the Volitional Stigma Associated With the Disorder

“…An average score for each subscale was created for analysis. Previous research (e.g., Bannatyne & Abel, 2014) has reported good internal consistencies ranging from .82 (sociocultural) to .84 (biogenetic). Reliability analyses for the current study revealed similar internal consistencies (.86 and .83, respectively).…”

“…Participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (does not contribute at all) to 7 (main contributing factor) the extent to which nine different factors contribute to the development of AN. In line with previous research (e.g., Bannatyne & Abel, 2014), the Causal Attributions Scale (Crisafulli et al, 2008) was separated into two subscales for analysis: biogenetic attributions and sociocultural attributions. An average score for each subscale was created for analysis.…”

“…Preliminary research suggests this strategy may indeed be beneficial, with various etiological framing models examined (e.g., biogenetic, Downloaded by [Northeastern University] at 15:04 02 February 2015 sociocultural, environmental, and multifactorial explanations) in female nursing students (Crisafulli et al, 2008), psychology students (Crisafulli et al, 2010), and a general undergraduate sample (Bannatyne & Abel, 2014). Consistent with attribution theory, the studies revealed participants who received a biologically-framed etiological explanation tended to view individuals suffering from AN as less responsible for their condition, exhibited lower levels of blame and vanity related stigma, and greater intention to engage in helping behavior, compared to those who received a sociocultural explanation.…”

“…Consistent with attribution theory, the studies revealed participants who received a biologically-framed etiological explanation tended to view individuals suffering from AN as less responsible for their condition, exhibited lower levels of blame and vanity related stigma, and greater intention to engage in helping behavior, compared to those who received a sociocultural explanation. However, concerns regarding the impact of traditional multifactorial explanations of AN were raised as the multifactorial group in both Bannatyne and Abel (2014) and Crisafulli, Thompson-Brenner, Franko, Eddy, & Herzog. (2010) produced increased perceptions of illness responsibility.…”

“…(2010) produced increased perceptions of illness responsibility. Bannatyne and Abel (2014) suggested attitude accessibility (Roskos-Ewoldsen, Bichsel, & Hoffman, 2002), whereby individuals attend to the most salient information (sociocultural factors in the case of AN) and ignore competing evidence (e.g., biogenetic information), might be a possible explanation for the finding.…”