Search

Background: This experimental study in a population-based sample aimed to compare attitudes towards obesity following three different causal explanations for obesity (individual behavior, environmental factors, genetic factors).Methods: The data were derived from an online representative sample. A random subsample of n = 407 participants was included. Two independent variables were investigated: cause of obesity as described in the vignette and cause of obesity as perceived by the participant regardless of vignette. Quality features of the vignettes (accuracy and bias of the vignette) were introduced as moderators to regression models. Three stigma-related outcomes (negative attitudes, blame and social distance) served as dependent variables.Results: Inaccuracy and bias was ascribed to the social environmental and genetic vignettes more often than to the individual cause vignette. Overall, participants preferred individual causes (72.6%). While personal beliefs did not differ between the genetic and environmental cause conditions (Chi2 = 4.36, p = 0.113), both were different from the distribution seen in the individual cause vignette. Negative attitudes as well as blame were associated with the belief that individuals are responsible for obesity (b = 0.374, p = 0.003; 0.597, p < 0.001), but were not associated with vignette-manipulated causal explanation. The vignette presenting individual responsibility was associated with lower levels of social distance (b = -0.183, p = 0.043). After including perceived inaccuracy and bias as moderators, the individual responsibility vignette was associated with higher levels of blame (emphasis: b = 0.980, p = 0.010; bias: b = 0.778, p = 0.001) and the effect on social distance vanished.Conclusions: This study shows that media and public health campaigns may solidify beliefs that obesity is due to individual causes and consequently increase stigma when presenting individual behavior as a cause of obesity. Public health messages that emphasize the role of social environmental or genetic causes may be ineffective because of entrenched beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In response to a controversy concerning whether the stigma of mental illness has declined significantly in the United States in the past several decades, we assessed changes in public perceptions that mentally ill people are violent. Specifically, we compared answers to an open-ended question regarding respondents' understanding of the term "mental illness" from two nationally representative surveys, one conducted in 1950 and one in 1996. In an earlier paper, we reported the finding that perceptions of violence not only failed to decrease but actually increased significantly between 1950 and 1996. In this paper, we explore the possibility that the dangerousness criterion for involuntary commitment, widely adopted in the United States beginning in the 1960s, has contributed to the unexpected increase in perceptions that mentally ill people are dangerous. We find that, among respondents who mention violence in their description of a mentally ill person, the percentage who use "dangerous to self or others" phrasing to indicate this belief increased substantially, from 4.2% in 1950 to 44.0% in 1996. Moreover, eliminating these respondents from consideration, there was a slight decrease in perceptions of violence between 1950 and 1996. We discuss the possibility that the adoption of the dangerousness criterion, which was intended to protect the civil liberties of mentally ill persons, may also have had the unintended consequence of increasing the stigma of mental illness in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]