Morally excused but socially excluded: Denying agency through the defense of mental impairment.

Defendants can deny they have agency, and thus responsibility, for a crime by using a defense of mental impairment. We argue that although this strategy may help defendants evade blame, it may carry longer-term social costs, as lay people's perceptions of a person's agency might determine some of the moral rights they grant them. Three randomized between-group experiments (N = 1601) used online vignettes to examine lay perceptions of a hypothetical defendant using a defense of mental impairment (versus a guilty plea). We find that using a defense of mental impairment significantly reduces responsibility, blame, and punitiveness relative to a guilty plea, and these judgments are mediated by perceptions of reduced moral agency. However, after serving their respective sentences, those using the defense are sometimes conferred fewer rights, as reduced agency corresponds to an increase in perceived dangerousness. Our findings were found to be robust across different types of mental impairment, offences/sentences, and using both manipulated and measured agency. The findings have implications for defendants claiming reduced agency through legal defenses, as well as for the broader study of moral rights and mind perception.

Morally excused but socially excluded: Denying agency through the defense of mental impairment.

Defendants can deny they have agency, and thus responsibility, for a crime by using a defense of mental impairment. We argue that although this strategy may help defendants evade blame, it may carry longer-term social costs, as lay people's perceptions of a person's agency might determine some of the moral rights they grant them. In this registered report protocol, we seek to expand upon preliminary findings from two pilot studies to examine how and why those using the defense of mental impairment are seen as less deserving of certain rights. The proposed study uses a hypothetical vignette design, varying the type of mental impairment, type of crime, and type of sentence. Our design for the registered study improves on various aspects of our pilot studies and aims to rigorously test the reliability and credibility of our model. The findings have implications for defendants claiming reduced agency through legal defenses, as well as for the broader study of moral rights and mind perception.

Cultural Differences in Reactions to Suicidal Ideation: A Mixed Methods Comparison of Korea and Australia.

There is evidence for cultural differences in mental health symptoms and help-seeking, but no past research has explored cultural differences in how people react to suicidal ideation communicated by others. Layperson reactions are critical, because the majority of people who experience suicidal ideation disclose to friends or family. Participants were 506 people aged 17-65 recruited from Australia and Korea who completed an experiment in which they responded to a friend who was experiencing either subclinical distress or suicidal ideation. Korean participants did not differentiate between the subclinical and suicidal targets, whereas Australian participants showed more concern for the suicidal target. For both targets, Korean participants were more likely to recommend passive coping strategies ("Time will solve everything" or "Cheer up"), while Australian participants were more likely to recommend active coping strategies ("Let's talk" or "See a doctor"). This study provides the first evidence of cultural differences in the way people typically respond to disclosures of suicidal ideation, and suggests that unhelpful and inappropriate recommendations are commonplace.

Suicide literacy predicts the provision of more appropriate support to people experiencing psychological distress.

Mental health literacy has been hailed as a public health priority to reduce stigma and increase help seeking. We examined the effect of suicide literacy on the type of help provided to those experiencing suicidal ideation. A community sample of 363 Australians were randomly assigned to read one of three messages from a member of their social network (the target). The target reported symptoms consistent with either (1) subclinical distress, (2) clinical depression, or (3) suicidal ideation. Participants were most likely to recommend social support and least likely to recommend professional help. Suicide literacy interacted with the target's presentation, such that participants with higher suicide literacy who considered a suicidal target were less likely to recommend self-help or no action, and more likely to recommend professional help. Suicide literacy was also associated with lower suicide stigma, and unexpectedly, this indirectly predicted more reluctance to recommend professional help. Overall, results indicated that the relationship between mental health literacy, stigma, and provision of help is not straightforward. While suicide literacy was associated with greater sensitivity to a person's risk of suicide, it also predicted fewer recommendations for professional help overall, partly due to the stigma associated with seeking professional help.

Groups 4 Health: Evidence that a social-identity intervention that builds and strengthens social group membership improves mental health.

BACKGROUND: Social isolation and disconnection have profound negative effects on mental health, but there are few, if any, theoretically-derived interventions that directly target this problem. We evaluate a new intervention, Groups 4 Health (G4H), a manualized 5-module psychological intervention that targets the development and maintenance of social group relationships to treat psychological distress arising from social isolation. METHODS: G4H was tested using a non-randomized control design. The program was delivered to young adults presenting with social isolation and affective disturbance. Primary outcome measures assessed mental health (depression, general anxiety, social anxiety, and stress), well-being (life satisfaction, self-esteem) and social connectedness (loneliness, social functioning). Our secondary goal was to assess whether mechanisms of social identification were responsible for changes in outcomes. RESULTS: G4H was found to significantly improve mental health, well-being, and social connectedness on all measures, both on program completion and 6-month follow-up. In line with social identity theorizing, analysis also showed that improvements in depression, anxiety, stress, loneliness, and life satisfaction were underpinned by participants' increased identification both with their G4H group and with multiple groups. LIMITATIONS: This study provides preliminary evidence of the potential value of G4H and its underlying mechanisms, but further examination is required in other populations to address issues of generalizability, and in randomized controlled trials to address its wider efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this pilot study confirm that G4H has the potential to reduce the negative health-related consequences of social disconnection. Future research will determine its utility in wider community contexts.