Department of Psychology, University of Regina, Regina, SK S4S 0A2, Canada.
Department of Psychology, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY 11549, USA.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Jul 9;20(14):6330. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20146330.
While CBT is an effective treatment for depression, uptake can be low. This is largely due to attitudinal barriers. Accordingly, the goals of the current investigation were to (a) tailor and develop persuasive psychoeducational materials to match dominant cultural beliefs about the causes of depression and (b) examine the effectiveness of tailored CBT descriptions in improving CBT perceptions. We examined the believability of CBT mechanisms by invoking commonly endorsed etiological models of depression and investigated whether tailoring CBT descriptions to match etiological beliefs about depression influences perceptions of CBT. Participants were recruited using TurkPrime. In Study 1, participants ( = 425) read a CBT description that was generic or framed to match an etiological model of depression (biological, stress/environmental, or relationship/interpersonal). The participants indicated believability of each model as adopted by CBT. In study 2, the participants ( = 449) selected what they believed was the most important cause of depression. Subsequently, the participants were randomised to receive either a CBT description tailored to their endorsed model or a generic CBT description, and they provided ratings for CBT's acceptability, credibility, and expectancy. In Study 1, the believability of biological CBT mechanisms was low across conditions, but participants reported greater believability when receiving a biological description than when receiving other mechanistic descriptions. Participants who received the stress- and relationship-focused descriptions did not rate the respective models as more believable than those who received a generic description. In study 2, there were no differences in the perceptions of acceptability, credibility and expectancy between participants who received a tailored description and those who received a generic description. Our findings suggest that CBT is believed to be a psychologically appropriate treatment; however, the believability of biological mechanisms is improved by presenting a biology-focused description.
虽然认知行为疗法（CBT）是治疗抑郁症的有效方法，但接受度可能较低。这主要是由于态度障碍。因此，目前研究的目的是：(a) 调整和开发有说服力的心理教育材料，以匹配关于抑郁症原因的主流文化观念；(b) 研究针对抑郁症病因的 CBT 描述是否能改善 CBT 的认知。我们通过援引普遍认可的抑郁病因模型来检验 CBT 机制的可信度，并探讨了将 CBT 描述调整为与抑郁症病因信念相匹配是否会影响对 CBT 的认知。我们使用 TurkPrime 招募参与者。在研究 1 中，参与者（n=425）阅读了 CBT 描述，这些描述是通用的或与抑郁症的病因模型（生物学、压力/环境或人际关系/人际）相匹配。参与者表示对 CBT 采用的每种模型的可信度。在研究 2 中，参与者（n=449）选择他们认为是导致抑郁症的最重要原因。随后，参与者被随机分配接受针对他们所认可的模型的 CBT 描述或通用 CBT 描述，并对 CBT 的可接受性、可信度和期望进行评分。在研究 1 中，生物学 CBT 机制的可信度在所有条件下都较低，但与接受其他机制描述相比，参与者在接受生物学描述时报告的可信度更高。接受压力和关系为重点的描述的参与者并不认为各自的模型比接受通用描述的参与者更可信。在研究 2 中，接受定制描述和接受通用描述的参与者在可接受性、可信度和期望方面没有差异。我们的研究结果表明，CBT 被认为是一种心理上合适的治疗方法；然而，通过呈现专注于生物学的描述，可以提高对生物学机制的可信度。
