The change and maintenance effectiveness of persistence training regarding the treatment of laboratory-induced and naturally occurring depression

Abstract

A study was conducted to evaluate the therapeutic effectiveness of persistence training as a model for treating depression. Subjects were female college students who were exposed to experimental manipulations to induce learned helplessness or who reached multiple-depression criteria on the MMPI and Beck Depression Inventory. Helpless and depressed subjects were treated with either response-contingent continuous reinforcement or partial reinforcement (persistence training) on a human shuttle apparatus. Following therapy, all subjects encountered recurring failure during an extinction phase. The findings showed that continuous and partial reinforcement schedules were equally effective in therapy, resulting in improved performances for both helpless and depressed subjects. There was evidence, however, that the treatment gains were less for depressed subjects than for helpless subjects, regardless of the type of therapy schedule used . With respect to maintenance of change, it was found that both helpless and depressed subjects persisted longer in the face of successive nonreinforcements (extinction) following partial reinforcement therapy as opposed to continuous reinforcement therapy. Further. there was evidence that depressed subjects persisted less in extinction than did helpless subjects, but only when therapy had occurred under conditions of continuous reinforcement .

Improving Persistence Through Observational Learning and Attribution Retraining

“…It may be that particularly bright children are as vulnerable to helplessness as retardates since tlieir performance histories would involve little contact with failure, and therefore few opportunities to develop strategies to cope with failure. Experimentally, the 'success only' reinforcement schedule has been ineffective or less effective than partial reinforcement in enhancing persistence (Nation et al, 1979).…”

“…The model obtained success on these items at a rate of 33 per cent; the successes were arranged in a partial reinforcement schedule, with consecutive failures prior to success. There is evidence that this type of schedule is most effective in overcoming helplessness (Chapin and Dyck, 1976;Nation et al, 1979;Nation and Cooney, 1980;Stein, 1980). The mechanism underlying the procedure's effectiveness is unknown, though possibly interlacing failure experiences with success enhances self-efficacy expectations.…”