Cognitive theory and the generality of pessimism among depressed persons.

Abstract

38 depressed (as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory) and 52 nondepressed college students were given a series of anagrams to solve. A 1-chance subgroup was informed that they would win a free movie ticket if they were successful in the task. A 2nd-chance subgroup received the same instructions as the 1-chance subgroup but were also informed that if they failed, they would have another opportunity in a different, undefined task. Ss were subdivided into success and failure subgroups that either succeeded at or failed the anagram task. Immediately afterwards, Ss reported their emotional state on the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List. Depressed Ss reported greater depression, anxiety, and hostility than nondepressed Ss in the 1-chance condition but not in the 2nd-chance condition; this interaction occurred independent of Ss' success or failure in the task. Results are viewed as indicating that current cognitive theories about the generality of pessimism in depression are incomplete. An explanation of the results in terms of the saliency of future reward opportunity is suggested as a basis for further study. (10 ref)

The causality of causal attributions in depression: A cross-lagged panel correlational analysis.

“…It should be noted that the present research did not study nonnormal, nondepressed subjects; hence the finding that some attributions may be causes of depressive symptoms does not preclude the possibility that such attributions may also mediate symptoms of other disorders. Further, as has often been noted about studies of depression in college student populations (e.g., Golin, Jarrett, Stewart, & Drayton, 1980), although they are of interest in their own right, it does not necessarily follow that the present findings are generalizable to clinically depressed groups (see Golin & Hartz, 1979); the extent to which the present results are applicable to a clinical group can only be determined by further study.…”

“…Beck, 1976). Golin, Jarrett, Stewart, and Drayton (1980), however, found that informing depression-prone persons of a possible second chance to attain a goal serves to reduce stress experienced during their first attempt at goal attainment. These findings suggest an apparent paradox; depression-prone persons appear to be pessimistic about their prospects for future success and yet are ostensibly less stressed when they have more than one opportunity to attain a goal.…”

“…These findings suggest an apparent paradox; depression-prone persons appear to be pessimistic about their prospects for future success and yet are ostensibly less stressed when they have more than one opportunity to attain a goal. This apparent inconsistency suggests that though depression-prone persons are apt to be pes-simistic about the outcome of a problem with which they are immediately faced, the stress engendered by such pessimism may be mitigated when the possibility of future reward is made salient (Golin et al, 1980). Though the attributional reformulation of the learned helplessness model of depression (Abramson et al, 1978) did not specify any hypotheses about the causal role of attributions for good outcomes, Seligman et al, (1979) did suggest that a predisposition to make unstable, specific, and external attributions for good outcomes might be a mediator of depressive symptoms.…”

Effects of task outcome and subjective standard on state depression for cognitive and social tasks

“…Furthermore, these effects persisted 24 h after completion of the tasks. Finally, Golin, Jarrett, Stewart, and Drayton (1980) used an anagram task and demonstrated a main effect of a success-failure manipulation on depression scores on the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List.…”

Measuring the effects of demand characteristics on the Beck Depression Inventory responses of college students

“…Because of its ease of administration and principal focus on subjective feelings, it has also been used to assess the presence and intensity of depressive features in nonclinical populations sampled for various purposes (Barker & Jessup, 1980;Bosse, Croghan, Greenstein, Katz, Oliver, Poweli, & Smith, 1975;Bumberry, Oliver, & McClure, 1978;Golin & Hartz, 1979;Golin, Jarrett, Stewart, & Drayton, 1980;Hammen, 1980;Hammen & Padesky, 1977;LaPointe & Crandell, 1980;Miller & Seligman, 1975;Oliver & Burkham, 1979;Olive r & McGee, 1982;Propst, 1980). As a result, more is known about the psychometric properties of the BDI when used with college students.…”