Dissociable impacts of biological and functional framings of depression: an experimental approach

Compared to psychosocial explanations of depression, biogenetic explanations such as the chemical imbalance message have both benefits (e.g. less perceived blame) and costs (e.g. less hope for recovery). In three pre-registered vignette experiments, we examined a second dimension of these explanations: whether the depression's cause is framed as <i>functional</i> or <i>dysfunctional.</i> In Study 1 and Study 2, adults were randomized to read a hypothetical clinical case in which either the biology causing depression was reflective of inner dysfunction or was serving a function. Despite both explanations invoking biological causes, the manipulations had dissociable impacts on stigmatizing beliefs, hope for recovery, and treatment attitudes. In a within-subjects design, Study 3 found dissociable effects on these same outcomes whether depression was framed as having a biological vs. environmental cause and was a sign of function or dysfunction. In all three studies, medication was rated as more likely to be helpful if the depression was framed as dysfunctional. Results suggest that the functional versus dysfunctional dimension of these framings warrants further attention and have implications for how we think and talk about what causes depression.