Causal explanations as a risk factor for depression: Theory and evidence.

Abstract

The attributional reformulation of the learned helplessness model claims that an explanatory style in which bad events are explained by internal, stable, and global causes is associated with depressive symptoms. Furthermore, this style is claimed to be a risk factor for subsequent depression when bad events are encountered. We describe a variety of new investigations of the helplessness reformulation that employ five research strategies: (a) cross-sectional correlational studies, (b) longitudinal studies, (c) experiments of nature, (d) laboratory experiments, and (e) case studies. Taken together, these studies converge in their support for the learned helplessness reformulation.

The centrality of event scale: A measure of integrating a trauma into one's identity and its relation to post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms

“…This in turn may pave the road for what Abramson and Seligman (1978) called internal, stable and global attributions: The trauma is seen as causally related to stable characteristics of the self that pertain across situations. This attributional style is positively related to depression (Peterson & Seligman, 1984) and to PTSD symptoms (Greening, Stoppelbein, & Docter, 2002). Brewin (2003) also discusses several ways in which a trauma may affect identity.…”

“…For example, future research should examine possible relations between the CES and other measures of maladaptive cognitive processing styles in response to stressful life events, such as the attributional style questionnaire (ASQ) (Peterson et al, 1982). As pointed out by Peterson and Seligman (1984) the notion of attribution is a hypothetical construct that is not exhaustively defined or explained by a single underlying operation. We believe some of the operations that we have described as part of our theoretical rationale for the CES may be related to the maladaptive attributions measured by the ASQ.…”

The causes of low back pain: a network analysis

“…Roesch and Weiner (2001) stated that attributions were constructs worthy of consideration because they allowed an understanding of the world as it had occurred in the past (both recent and distant) but they also served to guide future behaviour. One caveat to this approach is offered by Peterson and Seligman (1984) and Forsterling (1986) whom have highlighted the role that personal biases may play in the (mis)interpretation of events. Russell (1998) however, has argued that the most fair and ethical approach to a consideration of health outcome is to use the perceptions of the service users as it places delivered care in the context of people's expectations.…”

The motivating function of thinking about the future: Expectations versus fantasies.

“…Generalized expectations are also indirectly measured through a person's habitual use of causal attributions for past events (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). When attributions to positive events are more stable and global than attributions to negative events, expectations are said to be optimistic: Positive events can be expected to last longer and generalize more across situations than negative events (C. Peterson & Seligman, 1984).…”