Biological Explanations and Stigmatizing Attitudes: Using Essentialism and Perceived Dangerousness to Predict Antistigma Intervention Effectiveness

ABSTRACT

The theory of essentialism suggests that biological explanations of stigmatized behavior may not be effective at decreasing stigmatizing attitudes. The effects of biological explanations on stigmatizing attitudes were the topic of two experiments. In the first experiment, participants (N = 243) perceived a biological explanation as a less effective in relation to dangerousness and social distancing attitudes about mental illness than about homosexuality. The second experiment (N = 113) compared the effect of biological and free choice explanations on stigmatizing attitudes about abnormal sexual and eating behaviors. The results indicated that a biological explanation increased belief in essentialism and was most effective for attitudes related to anger and blame. These results suggest that the effectiveness of biological explanations as an antistigma tool varies according to the attitude and stigmatized group.

Keywords:

• education
• essentialism
• homosexuality
• mental disorders
• stigma

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Guy A. Boysen

Guy A. Boysen is an Assistant Professor of psychology at the State University of New York, Fredonia, who received his PhD from Iowa State University in Ames, IA and his BA from St. John's University, in Collegeville, MN.