Cognitive Therapy and Research

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 92–98

Cognitive Vulnerability to Depressive Symptoms in College Students: A Comparison of Traditional, Weakest-Link, and Flexibility Operationalizations

Brief Report

Abstract

Cognitive vulnerability is a key construct in the hopelessness theory’s etiological chain (Abramson, Metalsky, and Alloy, 1989 Psychological Review,96, 358–372). Researchers have proposed three operationalizations of this cognitive vulnerability construct: traditional, weakest-link, and flexibility. A five-week longitudinal study was conducted to test whether the weakest-link and flexibility approaches exhibit incremental validity over the empirically supported traditional approach. Results showed that the weakest-link approach has extensive overlap with the traditional operationalization (correlation was .93), and does not exhibit incremental validity in a college sample. In contrast, the flexibility approach appears to represent a unique vulnerability construct. However, the flexibility construct did not account for unique variance in the prediction of depressive symptoms beyond that explained by the traditional operationalization. The implications of the results for conceptualizing and operationalizing cognitive vulnerability are discussed.

Keywords

Cognitive vulnerability Depression Hopelessness theory 

References

  1. Abela, J. R. Z., & Sarin, S. (2002). Cognitive vulnerability to hopelessness depression: A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 811–829. doi:10.1023/A:1021245618183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abela, J. R. Z., Aydin, C., & Auerbach, R. P. (2006). Operationalizing the “vulnerability” and “stress” components of the hopelessness theory of depression: A mulit-wave longitudinal study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1565–1583. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.11.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Abramson, L. Y., Metalsky, G. I., & Alloy, L. B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: A theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review, 96, 358–372. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.2.358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Abramson, L. Y., Alloy, L. B., Hogan, M. E., Whitehouse, W. G., Donovan, P., Rose, D., et al. (1999). Cognitive vulnerability to depression: Theory and evidence. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 13, 5–20.Google Scholar
  5. Alloy, L. B., Abramson, L. Y., Walshaw, P. D., & Neeren, A. M. (2006). Cognitive vulnerability to unipolar and bipolar mood disorders. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 726–754. doi:10.1521/jscp.2006.25.7.726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson, C. A., Lindsay, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (1999). Research in the psychological laboratory: Truth or triviality? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3–9. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Garbin, M. G. (1988). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 77–100. doi:10.1016/0272-7358(88)90050-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309–319. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for Behavioral Sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Fresco, D. M., Rytwinski, N. K., & Craighead, L. W. (2007). Explanatory flexibility and negative life events interact to predict depression symptoms. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 595–698. doi:10.1521/jscp.2007.26.5.595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gibb, B. E., Beevers, C. G., Andover, M. S., & Holleran, K. (2006). The hopelessness theory of depression: A prospective multi-wave test of the vulnerability-stress hypothesis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 30, 763–772. doi:10.1007/s10608-006-9082-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haeffel, G. J., Abramson, L. Y., Voelz, Z. R., Metalsky, G. I., Halberstadt, L., Dykman, B. M., et al. (2003). Cognitive vulnerability to depression and lifetime history of Axis I psychopathology: A comparison of negative cognitive styles (CSQ) and dysfunctional attitudes (DAS). Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 17, 3–22. doi:10.1891/jcop.17.1.3.58269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haeffel, G. J., Abramson, L. Y., Brazy, P., Shah, J., Teachman, B., & Nosek, B. (2007). Explicit and implicit cognition: A preliminary test of a dual-process theory of cognitive vulnerability. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 1155–1167. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2006.09.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Haeffel, G. J., Gibb, B. E., Abramson, L. Y., Alloy, L. B., Metalsky, G. I., Joiner, T., et al. (2008). Measuring cognitive vulnerability to depression: Development and validation of the cognitive style questionnaire. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 824–836. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2007.12.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hankin, B. L. (2005). Childhood maltreatment and psychopathology: Prospective tests of attachment, cognitive vulnerability, and stress as mediating processes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 29, 645–671. doi:10.1007/s10608-005-9631-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hankin, B. L., Abramson, L. Y., Miller, N., & Haeffel, G. J. (2004). Cognitive vulnerability-stress theories of depression: Examining affective specificity in the prediction of depression versus anxiety in three prospective studies. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 28, 309–345. doi:10.1023/B:COTR.0000031805.60529.0d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hunsley, J., & Meyer, G. J. (2003). The incremental validity of psychological testing and assessment: Conceptual, methodological, and statistical issues. Psychological Assessment, 15, 446–455. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.15.4.446.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lakatos, L. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programs. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Lykken, D. T. (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 151–159. doi:10.1037/h0026141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Metalsky, G. I., & Joiner, T. E. (1992). Vulnerability to depressive symptomatology: A prospective test of the diathesis-stress and causal mediation components of the hopelessness theory of depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 667–675. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.667.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Needles, D. J., & Abramson, L. Y. (1990). Positive life events, attributional style, and hopelessness: Testing a model of recovery from depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 156–165. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.99.2.156.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Peterson, T. J., Feldman, G., Harley, R., Fresco, D. M., Graves, L., Holmes, A., et al. (2008). Extreme response style in recurrent and chronically depressed patients: Change with antidepressant administration and stability during continuation treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 145–153. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.75.1.145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations