PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

144

Title *

To help or hinder: Do the labels and models used to describe problematic substance use influence public stigma?use asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Charlotte R. Pennington, Rebecca L. Monk, Derek Heim, Abi K. Rose, Thomas Gough, Ross Clarke, Graeme Knibb, and Andrew Jones.Please use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2022

Picture

Abstract *

<p>Objectives: Problematic substance use is one of the most stigmatised health conditions, leading research to examine how the labels and models used to describe it influence public stigma. Two recent studies examine whether beliefs in a disease model of addiction influence public stigma but result in equivocal findings – in line with the mixed-blessings model, Kelly et al. (2021) found that whilst the label ‘chronically relapsing brain disease’ reduced blame attribution, it decreased prognostic optimism and increased perceived danger and need for continued care, however, Rundle et al. (2021) conclude absence of evidence. The current study therefore aims to isolate the different manipulations and measures used in these two studies to assess whether health condition (drug use vs. health concern), aetiological label (brain disease vs. problem), and attributional judgement (low vs. high treatment stability) influence public stigma towards problematic substance use. Methods: A sample of XXX participants were randomly allocated to one of eight vignette conditions that manipulated the aforementioned factors. They then completed self-report measures of discrete and general public stigma and an indirect measure of discrimination. Results: [HERE WE WILL DESCRIBE THE RESULTS]. Conclusions: This study advances knowledge regarding the labels and models that lessen or exacerbate the public stigma associated with substance use, with a view to informing public health strategies and stigma-reduction interventions.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

problematic substance use; addiction; stigma; discrimination; vignettes; models of addiction; brain disease.

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2021-10-28 13:26:28

Recommender

Zoltan Dienes

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY