Effects of Positive versus Negative Framing on Stigma toward Individuals Recovering from Methamphetamine Use Disorder during Randomized Brief Video Exposure.

Eighty-two Australians (mean age = 30.07; 61% female) were blindly randomized to view either a video edited to depict a positive or negative presentation of individuals in recovery from methamphetamine use disorder. Participants completed the Social Distance Scale for Substance Users, Dangerousness Scale for Substance Users and Affect Scale for Substance Users before and after video exposure. Following video exposure, those exposed to the positive video portrayal reported lower desire for social distance (p < .001), lower perceptions of dangerousness (p = .011), and more favorable affective reactions (p < .001). Participants' previous level of contact with the target group did not predict baseline stigma or moderate the experimental effect. Participants' qualitative responses to the experiment were assessed via content analysis and indicated mainly positive or ambivalent attitudes, unchanged by the video; however, 18% of those receiving the positive video reported attitudes becoming more sympathetic/favorable. Findings suggest that media depictions which include people with methamphetamine use disorder displaying friendliness and recovery narratives may improve community perceptions of people recovering from methamphetamine use disorder, and conversely, unsmiling portrayals focusing on harm done to others increases desire for social distance and perceived dangerousness.

Does Behavioural Activation Lack Credibility Among Those Who Need It Most? A Comparison of Responses to Rationales for Behavioural Activation and Schema Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Behavioural activation (BA) is an effective front-line treatment for depression but some consumers find it unattractive or aversive, and its rationale unconvincing. AIMS: To investigate whether individual differences in symptoms of depression, borderline personality pathology or adverse childhood events would: (1) influence ratings of BA treatment credibility; (2) predict credibility rating differences in comparison to schema therapy (ST) exemplifying a contrasting theoretical rationale with a significant developmental history focus; (3) a third aim was to test whether BA credibility was increased by providing research evidence of its efficacy. METHOD: In an online within-subjects experiment, 219 Australian community adults completed the Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire following written descriptions of BA and ST (presentation order randomized across participants), and again for BA after receiving information about research supporting BA's efficacy. RESULTS: Higher childhood adversity (but not severity of depression or borderline personality disorder symptoms) predicted lower BA credibility. Overall, ST was rated more credible than BA, but presenting BA evidence increased BA credibility ratings to match ST. This response was moderated by individual differences: participants with higher childhood adversity or previous therapy experience found ST more credible than BA even after receiving BA evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals are not equally receptive to BA. Presenting research evidence is an effective strategy for increasing credibility, but additional intervention or tailoring the rationale is recommended for clients with significant childhood adversity.