Haslam & Kvaale argue that explaining the biogenetic factors of mental health actually increases the overall stigma associated with it. Through the increase in the attribution of uncontrollability, biogenetic causes often reduce some stigma associated with blame. However, this reduction in the blame component of stigma is outweighed by the tendency of biogenetic explanations to trigger psychological essentialism. This can lead to to a higher likelihood to subscribe to stereotypes such as that of people with mental illness being dangerous and unpredictable. This in turn can increase fear, misunderstanding, and prognostic pessimism and decrease empathy. These findings are relatively consistent across the general public, the patients themselves, and the clinicians who serve them.
The causes one attributes to mental …show more content…
One key aspect of mental health is how complicated its causes tend to be. Yet, much of the study described these causes as being either sociocultural or biogenetic when in fact the true cause lies within the complicated interaction of both factors. The authors only briefly touched on this, pointing to a study of subjects who were told that their depression was biogenetic who later showed a reduction in prognostic pessimism and passivity after they watched a video that described the “malleability of genetic and biochemical effects” (Haslam & Kvaale, 2015, p.402). However, simply understanding this in theory is not sufficient. Clinicians who have studied mental health processes from various angles were still susceptible to altering their level of stigmatization, ability to empathize with a patient, and approach to treatment, based on whether the patient’s case was presented using sociocultural or biogenetic factors (Lebowitz & Ahn 2014, Ahn,
The causes one attributes to mental …show more content…
One key aspect of mental health is how complicated its causes tend to be. Yet, much of the study described these causes as being either sociocultural or biogenetic when in fact the true cause lies within the complicated interaction of both factors. The authors only briefly touched on this, pointing to a study of subjects who were told that their depression was biogenetic who later showed a reduction in prognostic pessimism and passivity after they watched a video that described the “malleability of genetic and biochemical effects” (Haslam & Kvaale, 2015, p.402). However, simply understanding this in theory is not sufficient. Clinicians who have studied mental health processes from various angles were still susceptible to altering their level of stigmatization, ability to empathize with a patient, and approach to treatment, based on whether the patient’s case was presented using sociocultural or biogenetic factors (Lebowitz & Ahn 2014, Ahn,