Professional Perspectives on Mental Distress: Exploring Attributional Differences and Their Association With...

Mental health professionals often differ in their explanatory models of mental distress, which may influence their attitudes toward individuals experiencing such conditions. Stigmatizing attitudes among providers can adversely affect therapeutic relationships, service quality, and recovery outcomes.

This study investigates the attributional frameworks-biological, cognitive-behavioral, psychodynamic, and social-realist-endorsed by psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers in Swedish adult psychiatry. It further examines how these explanatory preferences are associated with stigmatizing attitudes toward individuals with mental distress.

A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 715 licensed psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers. Attributional orientations were measured using a revised version of the Maudsley Attitude Questionnaire (MAQ-R), and stigma was assessed with the revised Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC-R). Group differences were analyzed using General Linear Models, and associations between attributional frameworks and stigma were explored through linear regression. Given the cross-sectional design, causal inferences cannot be drawn from the observed associations.

Psychiatrists reported significantly stronger endorsement of biological attributions compared to psychologists and social workers, while psychologists favored cognitive-behavioral and psychodynamic explanations. Social workers exhibited the strongest preference for social-realist attributions. Endorsement of biological and cognitive-behavioral models was positively associated with higher stigma scores, although these associations may reflect broader occupational or systemic influences. In contrast, social-realist attributions were associated with lower stigma. Psychodynamic attributions showed no significant association.

Differences in attributional frameworks among mental health professionals are associated with variation in reported stigmatizing attitudes. These findings underscore the importance of addressing explanatory diversity in interdisciplinary training and suggest that nuanced understandings of etiology may inform stigma-reduction efforts. Future research should explore the role of contextual and institutional factors, as well as potential confounders, in shaping these relationships.