Self‐criticism and major depression: An evolutionary perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to incorporate the personality style of self-criticism within an evolutionary framework to help explain its relationship to major depression. It was expected that self-critics would engage in poor social comparisons and have greater feelings of internal entrapment, which are both processes related to depression by evolutionary thinkers. DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was employed such that participants were first interviewed and then completed several questionnaires. METHODS: The sample consisted of 146 graduate students who had experienced at least one prior episode of major depression, which was confirmed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID). Participants were subsequently administered the Center for epidemiological studies depression scale (CESD), Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ), Social comparison rating scale (SCRS), and Entrapment scale (ES). RESULTS: Regression analyses revealed that self-criticism significantly predicted internal entrapment and social comparison when controlling for mood and for levels of dependency. Subsequent Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) revealed that a factor of self-reported entrapment and social comparison mediated the effect of self-criticism on the number of previous episodes of depression. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that part of the reason self-critics are vulnerable to clinical episodes of depression lies in their subjective experience of entrapment and in their negative social comparisons.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".