Cognitive Representations in a Self-regulation Model of Depression: Effects of Self–Other Distinctions, Symptom Severity and Personal Experiences with Depression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using Leventhal's self-regulation model, this research investigated cognitive representations of depression in the context of previous work on mental health literacy. Undergraduates rated vignettes that systematically varied the target person (self or other) and depressive symptom severity (mild or moderate). Moderate symptoms, as expected, were viewed as more serious and debilitating than mild symptoms. Also as predicted, a self-positivity bias was evident, with cognitive representations for depression being less extreme for the self, when compared to another. Participants ascribed a shorter timeline, more situational than dispositional causes, less helpfulness for professional assistance, less severe consequences, and lower severity labels for the depressive symptoms that were self-referenced. Many of these self-positivity effects also remained evident in a further vignette that portrayed a month-long escalation of self-referent symptoms from mild to moderate. Greater personal experience with depression also had some limited impact on cognitive representations for the self-referent condition. Overall, these findings provide strong support for several facets of a self-regulation model of depression. They thus indicate a need for depression literacy research to more fully consider the influences of target person and symptom severity on cognitive representations of depression. Practical applications of the results to preventative efforts are also discussed.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it