Receptivity and planned change: Community attitudes and deinstitutionalization.

Abstract

An expectancy-value model was used to measure and explain receptivity attitudes (i.e., change climate) toward the implementation of deinstitutionalization programs. Questionnaires measuring values, expectancies, and behavioral intentions were mailed to community leaders and to members of community groups believed to be important in setting opinions and making decisions. Responses from 599 persons revealed that (a) the size of a proposed group home affected neither attitudes nor intentions of support, (b) group homes for mental health clients were viewed with less favorable attitudes and intentions than those for the retarded or the elderly, (c) members of various community groups held significantly different attitudes and intentions toward the programs, and (d) attitudes and intentions toward deinstitutionalization were more favorable than toward institutionalization. The application of this approach for assessing the implementation climate for planned change was discussed.

The influence of framing on clinicians’ judgments of the biological basis of behaviors.

“…Indeed, clinicians’ empathy towards hypothetical patients was reduced given biological explanations than psychosocial explanations for their symptoms (Lebowitz & Ahn, 2014). In some cases, clinicians even exhibit discriminatory behavior toward people with mental health problems, showing reluctance to support a mental health project in their own neighborhood (Wilmouth, Silver, & Severy, 1987) or to work alongside people with a severe mental disorder (Lawrie et al, 1998). Given the current findings, a possible measure that can be taken to counteract any such stigma is to highlight the psychological bases of mental disorders.…”

Neighbor Perceptions of Psychiatric Supportive Housing: The Role of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behaviors

“…Few persons and structures have been as widely discriminated against as individuals with mental illness and psychiatric housing (Dear, 1992). Studies that ask respondents to rank various human service facilities have shown that mental health housing is usually the least (Wilmoth, Silver, & Severy, 1987) or among the least (Borinstein, 1992;Smith & Hanham, 1981;Solomon & Davis, 1984;Takahashi & Dear, 1997) desirable of all facilities, services, and populations. A nationwide telephone survey in the United States found that far fewer respondents were likely to welcome any type of mental health facility or housing than would welcome group homes for the elderly or developmentally delayed, homeless shelters, alcohol rehabilitation centers, or drug treatment centers, among others (Borinstein, 1992).…”

“…The present study aims to understand attitudes and experiences of individuals living near extant housing sites (i.e., postdevelopment reactions). Unfortunately, much of what is known about community attitudes towards psychiatric housing comes from studies that use hypothetical questions or vignettes (Aubry et al, 1995;Borinstein, 1992;Currie et al, 1989;Gaebel, Baumann, Witte, & Zaeske, 2002;Smith & Hanham, 1981;Solomon & Davis, 1984;Takahashi & Dear, 1997;Smith & Hanham, 1981;Wilmoth, Silver, & Severy, 1987). Respondents are asked how they think they would feel or act in various scenarios involving living near individuals with mental illness.…”

Fear or Moral Indignation? Predicting Attitudes Toward Parolees1

“…For example, safer-sex practices among gay men (Cochran, Mays, Ciarletta, Caruso, & Mallon 1992), condom use among adults and adolescents (Chan & Fishbein, 1993;Krahe & Reiss, 1995;Morrison, Rogers-Gillmore, & Baker, 1995), how attitudes may mediate demographic variables in food-choice behavior (Conner, 1993;Towler & Shepard, 1992), attitudes toward the use of gene technology in food production (Sparks, Shepherd, & Frewer, 1995), social-drinking intentions (Trafimow, 1996), intentions of older women to make medical and family visits (Albarracin, Fishbein, & Goldestein de Muchinik, 1997), and efforts to stop smoking (Sutton, Marsh, & Matheson, 1990) have all used TRA for assessment. TRA has also been applied to attitudes and behaviors that have broader social impact, such as morally appropriate behavior in sports (Vallerand, Deshaies, Cuerrier, Pelletier, & Mongeau, 1992), attitudes toward a nuclear power plant (Hughey, Sundstrom, & Lounsbury, 1983, the prediction of presidential voting behavior (Ahlering, 1987), activist women's intentions to engage in collective action (Kelly & Breinlinger, 1995), and attitudes toward the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill and the elderly (Wilmoth, Silver, & Severy, 1987).…”