Examining the Double-Edged Sword Effects of Lay Theories of Mental Health on Perceptions and Treatment of Others with Mental Health Problems

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We examined the implications of viewing mental health problems as changeable through personal effort (incremental lay theory), fixed due to genetics (entity lay theory), or manageable through perseverance on perceptions of others with mental health problems. METHOD: In two preregistered studies, samples of online American participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions: manageable, incremental (changeable), entity (fixed), or control, and completed self-report measures of onset responsibility, offset efficacy, blame, stigma, willingness to help, and perceived likelihood of success of interventions aimed at helping those with mental health problems. RESULTS: In both studies, the manipulation had a significant effect on each outcome except willingness to help. Compared to the entity (fixed) condition, individuals in the incremental (changeable) condition reported significantly higher offset efficacy and perceived likelihood of success, but also higher onset responsibility and blame. Results for the manageable condition were similar to the incremental (changeable) condition but individuals in the manageable condition also reported lower responsibility (Study 1) as well as lower blame and stigma (Study 2). DISCUSSION: This work informs the ‘double-edged sword’ effects of holding incremental (changeable) or entity (fixed) lay theories concerning mental health problems. Findings also provide evidence that viewing mental health problems as manageable may reduce some of the negative and boost the positive implications associated with incremental (changeable) and entity (fixed) lay theories.