MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065588188 · doi:10.1348/014466504323088006

A test of integration of the activation hypothesis and the diathesis‐stress component of the hopelessness theory of depression

2004· article· en· W2065588188 on OpenAlexaff
John R. Z. Abela, Karen Brozina, Martin E. P. Seligman

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionDiathesisClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPriming (agriculture)Diathesis–stress modelDepression (economics)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This prospective study tested the integration of the diathesis-stress component of the hopelessness theory of depression (Abramson, Metalsky, & Alloy, 1989) and Persons and Miranda's (1992) activation hypothesis (i.e. depressogenic inferential styles are typically latent cognitive processes that must be primed in order to be accurately assessed). DESIGN: In order to test the diathesis-stress component of the hopelessness theory, we used a short-term longitudinal design. In order to test the activation hypothesis, inferential styles were assessed both before and after a negative cognitive priming questionnaire. METHODS: A group of 165 university students completed measures of inferential styles about the self, consequences, and causes before and after completing a negative cognitive priming questionnaire (Time 1). Participants also completed measures of depressive symptoms prior to completing the cognitive priming questionnaire and 5 weeks later (Time 2). Finally, negative events occurring between Time 1 and Time 2 were assessed. RESULTS: Contrary to the diathesis-stress component of the hopelessness theory, none of the unprimed inferential styles interacted with negative events to predict increases in depressive symptoms. In line with the integration of the hopelessness theory and the activation hypothesis, however, each of the primed inferential styles interacted with negative events to predict increases in depressive symptoms even after controlling for the proportion of variance in depressive symptoms accounted for by the unprimed inferential style stress interactions. CONCLUSION: Individuals with depressogenic inferential styles are likely to show increases in depressive symptoms following the occurrence of negative events. At the same time, these depressogenic inferential styles are typically latent cognitive processes that must be primed in order to be accurately assessed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PsychologySame topicAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesFrench-language works237,207