The effect of causal attributions for depression on help-seeking and treatment preferences

Background: Depression is a leading cause of ill-health and disability globally and encouraging help-seeking and treatment engagement is a key priority of health authorities worldwide. Causal attributions for mental illness have numerous attitudinal and behavioural consequences; however, limited research has explored their implications for attitudes to treatment. This study experimentally investigates the impact of causal attributions for depression on attitudes to specific help-seeking and treatment options. Methods: In an online study, 196 participants read a vignette that emphasised either biological, social or biopsychosocial causes of a character's depression. Participants rated several help-seeking and treatment options on how helpful or harmful they would be for the individual described in the vignette and for themselves personally. Results: The causal attribution manipulation significantly affected treatment attitudes. Relative to social attributions, emphasising biological causes of depression significantly decreased the perceived helpfulness of life-style-based treatments, but did not affect attitudes to psychotherapeutic or medical treatment options. Participants rated most help-seeking and treatment options as less helpful for themselves compared to the vignette character. Participants with personal experience of depression had lower confidence in informal sources of help-seeking and greater confidence in medical treatment. Limitations:Limitations include reliance on self-report measures and low reliability of certain sub-scales. Conclusions: These findings suggest emphasising the biological underpinnings of depression could deter people from engaging with lifestyle-based treatment options. Promoting biopsychosocial theories of depression could increase awareness about the multifactorial causes of depression without negatively impacting the perceived efficacy of any help-seeking or intervention options.