Date of Award

May 2026

Document Type

Thesis

Degree Name

Master of Science (MS)

Department

Psychology

First Advisor

Cassandra Flick

Abstract

Civil commitment in the United States is a legal process through which individuals experiencing severe mental illness may be involuntarily admitted for psychological treatment. Despite its far-reaching consequences, public knowledge and perceptions of civil commitment remain largely underexamined. These gaps may contribute to increased stigma toward individuals with severe mental illness or those who engage in substance use. This study used a vignette-based experimental design manipulating a hypothetical individual’s race and presence or absence of past substance use. The hypothetical individual was portraying symptoms related to schizophrenia, subsequently leading to being civilly committed. Participants (N = 208) evaluated perceived dangerousness of the individual, justification of commitment (support for and recommended length of stay), and causal attributions. Trait-level beliefs, including mental illness stigma, substance use stigma, racial attitudes, and support of legal legitimacy were also assed. Results indicated race did not predict any dependent measure, and substance use did not influence dangerousness or justification outcomes. Substance use predicted causal attributions, such that participants endorsed higher levels of internal causal attribution when the individual in the vignette did not have a substance use history. This effect was qualified by a significant interaction between trait-level substance use stigma and the substance use manipulation. Stigma predicted internal attributions in both conditions, with stronger effects evident when substance use was absent. These findings highlight the role that individual differences play in shaping judgments related to civil commitment, even when race and substance use manipulations do not influence objective decisions.

Download

Share

COinS