Framing Effects of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Depression on Perceptions of Believability, Acceptability, and Credibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 (n = 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 (n = 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".