Autonomous Motivation Moderates the Relation of Self-Criticism to Depressive Symptoms Over One Year: A Longitudinal Study of Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Patients in a Naturalistic Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study examined whether motivation moderated the relation between self-criticism and depression over one year in a sample of adults receiving cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT). Methods: Participants (N = 38) completed measures of pre-treatment self-criticism (Time 1), autonomous/controlled motivation for engaging in CBT at the beginning of treatment (Time 2), and interviewer-rated depression at Time 1, and one year after baseline (Time 3). Results: Multiple regression analyses of moderator effects showed that patients higher in self-criticism with lower autonomous motivation for CBT had higher levels of depressive symptoms one year later. The effect of controlled motivation was nonsignificant. Discussion: Our findings support the buffering hypothesis that engaging in CBT because it is personally meaningful may protect patients high in self-criticism from experiencing the poorer treatment outcomes associated with their specific vulnerability. However, given the small sample size, the results will need to be replicated within larger samples to ensure generalizability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".