The hopelessness theory of depression: A quarter‐century in review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the formulation of the hopelessness theory of depression (Psychological Review, 96, 1989, 358) a quarter-century ago, it has garnered considerable interest. The current article presents a systematic review of this theory, including its subsequent elaborations (Rose and Abramson's [Rochester Symposium of Developmental Psychopathology, 1992, University of Rochester Press, Rochester, NY] developmental elaboration; Abela and Sarin's [Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 2002, 811] weakest link approach; Panzarella, Alloy and Whitehouse's [Cognitive Therapy and Research, 30, 2006, 307] expansion of the hopelessness theory; and the hopelessness theory of suicide (Suicide Science: Expanding Boundaries, 2000, Kluwer Academic, Boston]), followed by recommendations for future study. Although empirical support was consistently found for several major components of the hopelessness theory, further work is required assessing this theory in relation to clinically significant phenomena. Among the most significant hindrances to advancement in this area is the frequent conceptual confusion between the hopelessness theory and the reformulated learned helplessness theory.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".