Behavior modification techniques for treating depression.

Seitz, Frank C.

doi:10.1037/h0086650

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to the present results, therefore, feelings of helplessness among mildly depressed persons may arise from repeated experience with self-imposed perception of one's performance as tantamount to failure, This latter interpretation is consistent with the view that a low rate of positive reinforcement is an antecedent of depression (Lewinsohn & Libet, 1972;Lewinsohn, Shaffer, & Libet, 1969;Seitz, 1971). According to the present results, a low rate of positive reinforcement may be self-imposed (cf.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Motivational and associative aspects of mild depression in skill and chance tasks.

Golin¹,

Terrell²

1977

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment 1, the levels of aspiration and expectancies for success of mildly depressed and nondepressed college students on a skill and chance task were studied. The two groups did not differ in expectations for success, but the depressed students displayed elevated levels of aspiration, particularly for the skill task. Experiment 2 tested the prediction, based on an attainment discrepancy model, that increases in expectancy for success would be a function of the interaction of performance level and the skill-chance nature of a task for • mildly depressed students but not for nondepressed students. Comparisons of increases in expectancy for success following average and superior performance supported this prediction. The prediction that locus of control and depression would not be significantly correlated was also confirmed. The results were interpreted as indicating that the level of aspiration of mildly depressed persons may be particularly elevated in skill tasks, resulting in the perception of average performance in such tasks as unsuccessful.Recently, there has been an interest in the relation between psychopathology and approaches to skill and chance tasks (Golin, 1974;Miller & Seligman, 1973). In a skill task, a subject believes he has control over reinforcers; whereas in a chance task, he believes reinforcers are a consequence of factors outside his control. Golin (1974) found that normal subjects performed a stressful task better under skill than under chance conditions; high-anxious subjects, however, did not improve their performance under skill conditions. Miller and Seligman (1973) reported that nondepressed subjects showed greater expectancy changes following reinforcement in a skill task than depressed subjects; the two groups did not differ in this regard in a chance task.How are different reactions to skill and chance tasks to be interpreted? Typically, they have been viewed within the framework of social-learning theory (

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%